SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Apollo Docking”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1991

Apollo 12: Pinpoint for Science

This video, using historical film footage, photography, and computer animation, describes the launch, flight, lunar landing and exploration, and return flight of Apollo 12, one of the manned lunar missions. The astronauts were Charles Conrad, Richard Gordon, and Allen Bean. Thirty-six seconds into the November 14, 1969 launch, the spacecraft was hit by lightning from the thunderstorm surrounding the launch site. In spite of this mishap, the vehicle and astronauts were not harmed and continued with their mission. The Yankee Clipper (command module) docked with the Intrepid (lunar module) and upon reaching the Moon, the Intrepid disconnected during lunar orbit and descended to the Moon's surface to a landing area previously marked by the Surveyor satellite. After lunar surface exploration, soil sample collection, satellite maintenance, and setting up various lunar surface monitoring equipment (a seismometer and two atmospheric monitors), the Intrepid launched back into lunar orbit, docked with the Yankee Clipper, and returned to Earth. There are both B/W and color photography and film footage, which includes the Earth launch, lunar orbit, descent and ascent of Intrepid on the Moon, return flight, atmospheric reentry, and recovery on the Earth, and ground to air and space communication is shown.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1975

ASTP Visual Observation Debriefing

This document is the transcription of the post-flight experiments debriefing conducted by the ASTP (Apollo Soyuz Test Project) crew at the Lunar Science Institute on August 12, 1975. The companion document to this transcription is the Experiments Debriefing. Where possible, questioners have been identified by their last names. However, the attendees and questioners are too numerous to identify or list here. The astronaut participants are as follows: Thomas P. Stafford, Commander; Vance D. Brand, Command Module Pilot; Donald K. Slayton, Docking Module Pilot.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1991

Apollo 14 Mission to Fra Mauro

The 1971 Apollo 14 Mission to Fra Mauro, a lunar highland area, is highlighted in this video. The mission's primary goal was the collection of lunar rocks and soil samples and lunar exploration. The soil and rock sampling was for the geochronological determination of the Moon's evolution and its comparison with that of Earth. A remote data collection station was assembled on the Moon and left for continuous data collection and surface monitoring experiments. The Apollo 14 astronauts were Alan B. Shepard, Edgar D. Mitchell, and Stuart A. Rossa. Astronauts Shepard and Mitchell landed on the Moon (February 5, 1971) and performed the sampling, the EVA, and deployment of the lunar experiments. There is film-footage of the lunar surface, of the command module's approach to both the Moon and the Earth, Moon and Earth spacecraft launching and landing, in-orbit command- and lunar-module docking, and of Mission Control.

Beasley, Brian D.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Assured crew return vehicle post landing configuration design and test

The 1991-1992 senior Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Design class continued work on the post landing configurations for the Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) and the Emergency Egress Couch (EEC). The ACRV will be permanently docked to Space Station Freedom fulfilling NASA's commitment of Assured Crew Return Capability in the event of an accident or illness aboard Space Station Freedom. The EEC provides medical support and a transportation surface for an incapacitated crew member. The objective of the projects was to give the ACRV Project Office data to feed into their feasibility studies. Four design teams were given the task of developing models with dynamically and geometrically scaled characteristics. Groups one and two combined efforts to design a one-fifth scale model for the Apollo Command Module derivative, an on-board flotation system, and a lift attachment point system. This model was designed to test the feasibility of a rigid flotation and stabilization system and to determine the dynamics associated with lifting the vehicle during retrieval. However, due to priorities, it was not built. Group three designed a one-fifth scale model of the Johnson Space Center (JSC) benchmark configuration, the Station Crew Return Alternative Module (SCRAM) with a lift attachment point system. This model helped to determine the flotation and lifting characteristics of the SCRAM configuration. Group four designed a full scale EEC with changeable geometric and geometric and dynamic characteristics. This model provided data on the geometric characteristics of the EEC and on the placement of the CG and moment of inertia. It also gave the helicopter rescue personnel direct input to the feasibility study. Section 1 describes in detail the design of a one-fifth scale model of the Apollo Command Module Derivative (ACMD) ACRV. The objective of the ACMD Configuration Model Team was to use geometric and dynamic constraints to design a one-fifth scale working model of the Apollo Command Module Derivative (ACMD) configuration with a Lift Attachment Point (LAP) System. This model was required to incorporate a rigidly mounted flotation system and the egress system designed the previous academic year. The LAP system was to be used to determine the dynamic effects of locating the lifting points at different locations on the vehicle. The team was then to build and test the model; however, due to priorities, this did not occur. To better simulate the ACMD after a water landing, the nose cone section was removed and the deck area exposed. The areas researched during the design process were construction, center of gravity and moment of inertia, and lift attachment points.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1992

Assured crew return vehicle post landing configuration design and test

Anderson, Loren A.↗

NASA NTRS2007

A New Heavy-Lift Capability for Space Exploration: NASA's Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing new launch systems and preparing to retire the Space Shuttle by 2010, as directed in the United States (U.S.) Vision for Space Exploration. The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and the Ares V heavy-lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) systems will build upon proven, reliable hardware derived from the Apollo-Saturn and Space Shuttle programs to deliver safe, reliable, affordable space transportation solutions. This approach leverages existing aerospace talent and a unique infrastructure, as well as legacy knowledge gained from nearly 50 years' experience developing space hardware. Early next decade, the Ares I will launch the new Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to the International Space Station (ISS) or to low-Earth orbit for trips to the Moon and, ultimately, Mars. Late next decade, the Ares V's Earth Departure Stage will carry larger payloads such as the lunar lander into orbit, and the Crew Exploration Vehicle will dock with it for missions to the Moon, where astronauts will explore new territories and conduct science and technology experiments. Both Ares I and Ares V are being designed to support longer future trips to Mars. The Exploration Launch Projects Office is designing, developing, testing, and evaluating both launch vehicle systems in partnership with other NASA Centers, Government agencies, and industry contractors. This paper provides top-level information regarding the genesis and evolution of the baseline configuration for the Ares V heavy-lift system. It also discusses riskbased, management strategies, such as building on powerful hardware and promoting common features between the Ares I and Ares V systems to reduce technical, schedule, and cost risks, as well as development and operations costs. Finally, it summarizes several notable accomplishments since October 2005, when the Exploration Launch Projects effort officially kicked off, and looks ahead at work planned for 2007 and beyond.

Sumrall, John P.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Rocket + Science = Dialogue

It's a cliche that rocket engineers and space scientists don t see eye-to-eye. That goes double for rocket engineers working on human spaceflight and scientists working on space telescopes and planetary probes. They work fundamentally different problems but often feel that they are competing for the same pot of money. Put the two groups together for a weekend, and the results could be unscientific or perhaps combustible. Fortunately, that wasn't the case when NASA put heavy lift launch vehicle designers together with astronomers and planetary scientists for two weekend workshops in 2008. The goal was to bring the top people from both groups together to see how the mass and volume capabilities of NASA's Ares V heavy lift launch vehicle could benefit the science community. Ares V is part of NASA's Constellation Program for resuming human exploration beyond low Earth orbit, starting with missions to the Moon. In the current mission scenario, Ares V launches a lunar lander into Earth orbit. A smaller Ares I rocket launches the Orion crew vehicle with up to four astronauts. Orion docks with the lander, attached to the Ares V Earth departure stage. The stage fires its engine to send the mated spacecraft to the Moon. Standing 360 feet high and weighing 7.4 million pounds, NASA's new heavy lifter will be bigger than the 1960s-era Saturn V. It can launch almost 60 percent more payload to translunar insertion together with the Ares I and 35 percent more mass to low Earth orbit than the Saturn V. This super-sized capability is, in short, designed to send more people to more places to do more things than the six Apollo missions.

Morris,Bruce↗

NASA NTRS2010

Contingency Operations of Americas Next Moon Rocket, Ares V

America has begun the development of a new space vehicle system which will enable humans to return to the moon and reach even farther destinations. The system is called Constellation: it has 2 earth-launch vehicles, Ares I and Ares V; a crew module, Orion; and a lander, Altair with descent and ascent stages. Ares V will launch an Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and Altair into low earth orbit. Ares I will launch the Orion crew module into low earth orbit where it will rendezvous and dock with the Altair and EDS "stack". After rendezvous, the stack will contain four complete rocket systems, each capable of independent operations. Of course this multiplicity of vehicles provides a multiplicity of opportunities for off-nominal behavior and multiple mitigation options for each. Contingency operations are complicated by the issues of crew safety and the possibility of debris from the very large components impacting the ground. This paper examines contingency operations of the EDS in low earth orbit, during the boost to translunar orbit, and after the translunar boost. Contingency operations under these conditions have not been a consideration since the Apollo era and analysis of the possible contingencies and mitigations will take some time to evolve. Since the vehicle has not been designed, much less built, it is not possible to evaluate contingencies from a root-cause basis or from a probability basis; rather they are discussed at an effects level (such as the reaction control system is consuming propellant at a high rate). Mitigations for the contingencies are based on the severity of the off-nominal condition, the time of occurrence, recovery options, options for alternate missions, crew safety, evaluation of the condition (forensics) and future prevention. Some proposed mitigations reflect innovation in thinking and make use of the multiplicity of on-orbit resources including the crew; example: Orion could do a "fly around" to allow the crew to determine the condition and cause of a partially separated payload shroud. Other mitigations are really alternate missions; example, an engine out on during ascent resulted in insufficient propellant for the lunar mission, but the on-orbit vehicle stack is otherwise perfect and can pursue an alternate mission, such as a high ballistic trajectory to test the high-speed atmospheric reentry of Orion. Evaluation and presentation of contingency operations at this early stage of the development of the Ares V rocket will improve the design of the vehicle and lay the groundwork for the exhaustive contingency planning which must be done after the vehicle is built as preparations for operations.

Jaap, John↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Commercial Crew Program and Medical Operational Challenges

This abstract is submitted as part of the USSPACECOM Command Surgeon’s panel demonstrating the medical capabilities and challenges involved in human space flight support operations. BACKGROUND: NASA embarked on the Commercial Crew Program to launch astronauts into low-earth orbit from US soil and dock with the International Space Station (ISS). The eventual industry providers selected were SpaceX (SpX) and Boeing. These commercial transportation systems are vital to ensure crew availability on ISS for research and discovery. OVERVIEW: NASA/SpaceX Demo-2 (DM2) mission launched from the Kennedy Space Center in 2020 as the historic first crewed test-flight of the Crew Dragon spacecraft with two NASA Astronauts onboard. DM2 represented the first flight in 9-years from US soil since STS-135 in 2011. The 63-day mission ended with splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, the first US water recovery in 45-years since Apollo-Soyuz. Validation of system hardware and operations allowed four-person crews to launch on subsequently missions (Crew-1, Crew-2, Crew-3, Crew-4, Crew-5 to date), which included International Partner crewmembers. DISCUSSION: A multitude of operational, training, medical, and technical issues needed to be addressed between NASA Medical Operations, the commercial provider SpaceX, and the Department of Defense. These included Flight rule development, occupant protection, pressurized suit testing, communication plans during mission phases, and emergency simulations for supporting Flight Surgeons and Biomedical Engineers. In providing crew experience with expected launch and entry G-force profile, Centrifuge training was established. Preventive health measures via the Health Stabilization Program were especially vital during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Unique aspects arise for SpX Dragon parachute splashdown and shipboard recovery operations in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The new Commercial Crew Program is indeed a wonderfully challenging and exciting era for human spaceflight.

Joseph Dervay↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Commercial Crew Program and Medical Operational Challenges

BACKGROUND: NASA embarked on the Commercial Crew Program to launch astronauts into low-earth orbit from US soil and dock with the International Space Station (ISS). The eventual industry providers selected were SpaceX (SpX) and Boeing. These commercial transportation systems are vital to ensure crew availability on ISS for research and discovery. OVERVIEW: NASA/SpaceX Demo-2 (DM2) mission launched from the Kennedy Space Center in 2020 as the historic first crewed test-flight of the Crew Dragon spacecraft with two NASA Astronauts onboard. DM2 represented the first flight in 9-years from US soil since STS-135 in 2011. The 63-day mission ended with splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, the first US water recovery in 45-years since Apollo-Soyuz. Validation of system hardware and operations allowed four-person crews to launch on subsequently missions (Crew-1, Crew-2, Crew-3, Crew-4, Crew-5 to date), which included International Partner crewmembers. DISCUSSION: A multitude of operational, training, medical, and technical issues needed to be addressed between NASA Medical Operations, the commercial provider SpaceX, and the Department of Defense. These included Flight rule development, occupant protection, pressurized suit testing, communication plans during mission phases, and emergency simulations for supporting Flight Surgeons and Biomedical Engineers. In providing crew experience with expected launch and entry G-force profile, Centrifuge training was established. Preventive health measures via the Health Stabilization Program were especially vital during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Unique aspects arise for SpX Dragon parachute splashdown and shipboard recovery operations in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The new Commercial Crew Program is indeed a wonderfully challenging and exciting era for human spaceflight.

Joseph P Dervay↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancing Dust Tolerant Mechanisms for a Sustained Exploration of the Moon

Introduction: “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the Moon. I think we can overcome other physio-logical or physical or mechanical problems except dust.”– Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 Technical Debrief The Apollo missions revealed the impact of lu-nar dust on mechanisms. Lunar dust particles are jagged and electrostatically charged, giving them the ability to bind or damage mechanisms and alter thermal properties. Reports documented clogged equipment and jammed mechanisms in every mission, regardless of surface duration, as well as clogged mechanisms in the Extravehicular Mobility Suit (EMS), including zippers, wrist and hose locks, faceplates, and sunshades [1-2]. Several astronauts remarked they could not have sustained surface activity much longer because clogged joints would have frozen up completely [2]. Effective dust mitigation strategies are need-ed to support longer duration stays on the lunar surface [3-4]. State of the Art: Technology for mechanisms able to operate in dusty enviroments is advancing rapidly due to the needs of both Mars rovers and the Artemis program. Vacuum-tight connectors are essential for spacesuits and habitats, and their performance can be dependent on cleaning technologies, which have proven difficult on the lunar surface. Several TRL 3-5 technologies are undergoing tests with the expectation to reach TRL 6 within 1-2 years. Some mechanisms will be infused and tested on the VIPER (Volatiles Inves-tigating Polar Exploration Rover) mission planned for mid-2020s. NASA Funded Efforts: NASA has recognized the need for dust tolerant mechanisms, and has partnered with industry to advance the state-of-the-art. At NASA GRC, KSC, and JSC, the Dust Tolerant Mechanisms Project is working to devel-op advanced actuator seals for rotary joints and rotary bearing technologies for long-term sus-tained operation in lunar dust environments. An-other NASA project at NASA GRC, partnered with GSFC, JPL, and KSC is Motors for Dusty & Ex-treme Cold Environments (MDECE). MDECE is developing an unheated magnetically-geared mo-tor that can operate continuously for a long dura-tion at an ambient temperature of -243 ºC (33 K). NASA GRC has the capability to characterize the effects of dust on seals, mechanisms, and other mating surfaces and components under lunar conditions [5]. Through the SBIR/STTR program, NASA has funded several companies to advance dust toler-ant mechanisms via the Dust Tolerant Mecha-nisms sub-topic with applications in surface mobil-ity, spacesuits, connectors, joints, and more. LSIC and Community Efforts: The Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC) Dust Miti-gation focus group has fostered collaborations across NASA, industry, and academia to develop solutions that minimizes the impact of lunar dust on robotic and human systems. Community ef-forts have included topical meetings on dust tol-erant mechanisms, featured technology presenta-tions, and feedback to NASA on potential gaps and needs. Testing: In 2021, NASA released NASA-STD-1008 [6]. This NASA Technical Standard estab-lishes minimum requirements and provides guid-ance for testing systems and hardware to be ex-posed to dust in planetary environments. The standard has specific sections dedicated to Mechanisms Testing (e.g. bearings, gears) as well as Seals and Mating Surfaces Testing (e.g. hatches, docking systems). Gaps and Needs: NASA is tracking dust tol-erant mechanisms as a gap in a cross-directorate analysis of capability areas needed to enable fu-ture human space-flight architectures. Two high-priority gap areas include additional facilities for testing mechanisms in lunar-surface conditions, and a better understanding of vulnerabilities to the smallest, nanometer-scale dust particles. Conclusion: Understanding and mitigating lu-nar dust is critical to successful, sustained opera-tions on the lunar surface – whether autonomous or otherwise. This presentation will discuss both the state-of-the-art and open needs in lunar dust tolerant mechanisms, technology impacts, mitiga-tion approaches, testing, LSIC community efforts, and more. References: [1] Gaier, J. R. (2020). The Im-pact of Dust on Lunar Surface Equipment During Apollo. Lunar Dust 2020. [2] GRC, & Gaier, J. R. (2005). The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Sys-tems During the Apollo Missions. [3] Johansen, M. R. (2020). An Update on NASA’s Lunar Dust Mitigation Strategy. Lunar Dust 2020. [4] ASI, CSA, ESA, JAXA, & NASA. (2016). Dust Mitiga-tion Gap Assessment Report. [5] Jimenez, N. et al (2022), LPSC Abstract 2572. [6] NASA-STD-1008, 2021.

J I Nunez↗

NASA NTRS2007

Conceptual Inquiry of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station GNC Flight Controllers

The concept of Mission Control was envisioned by Christopher Columbus Kraft in the 1960's. Instructed to figure out how to operate human space flight safely, Kraft envisioned a room of sub-system experts troubleshooting problems and supporting nominal flight activities under the guidance of one Flight Director who is responsible for the success of the mission. To facilitate clear communication, MCC communicates with the crew through a Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) who is an astronaut themselves. Gemini 4 was the first mission to be supported by such a MCC and successfully completed the first American EVA. The MCC seen on television is called the Flight Control Room (FCR, pronounced ficker) or otherwise known as the front room. While this room is the most visible aspect, it is a very small component of the entire control center. The Shuttle FCR is known as the White FCR (WFCR) and Station's as FCR-1. (FCR-1 was actually the first FCR built at JSC which was used through the Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle programs until the WFCR was completed in 1992. Afterwards FCR-1 was refurbished first for the Life Sciences Center and then for the ISS in 2006.) Along with supporting the Flight Director, each FCR operator is also the supervisor for usually two or three support personnel in a back room called the Multi-Purpose Support Room (MPSR, pronounced mipser). MPSR operators are more deeply focused on their specific subsystems and have the responsible to analyze patterns, and diagnose and assess consequences of faults. The White MPSR (WMPSR) operators are always present for Shuttle operations; however, ISS FCR controllers only have support from their Blue MPSR (BMPSR) while the Shuttle is docked and during critical operations. Since ISS operates 24-7, the FCR team reduces to a much smaller Gemini team of 4-5 operators for night and weekend shifts when the crew is off-duty. The FCR is also supported by the Mission Evaluation Room (MER) which is a collection of contractor engineers who provide analysis and long-term troubleshooting support. Each MER operator is an expert in a very small portion of a sub-system and each FCR console usually interfaces with several MER positions.

Kranzusch, Kara↗

NASA NTRS2006

A New Heavy-Lift Capability for Space Exploration: NASA's Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing new launch systems in preparation for the retirement of the Space Shuttle by 2010, as directed in the United States (U.S.) Vision for Space Exploration. The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and the Ares V heavy-lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) systems will build upon proven, reliable hardware derived from the Apollo Saturn (1961 to 1975) and Space Shuttle (1972 to 2010) programs to deliver safe, reliable, affordable space transportation solutions. This approach leverages existing aerospace talent and a unique infrastructure, as well as the vast amount of legacy knowledge gained from almost a half-century of hard-won experience in the space enterprise. Beginning early next decade, the Ares I will launch the new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to the International Space Station (ISS) or to low-Earth orbit for trips to the Moon and, ultimately, Mars. Late next decade, the Ares V's Earth Departure Stage will carry larger payloads such as the lunar lander into orbit, and the Crew Exploration Vehicle will dock with it for missions to the Moon, where astronauts will explore new territories and conduct science and technology experiments. Both the Ares I and Ares V systems are being designed to support longer future trips to Mars. The Exploration Launch Projects Office, located at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, is designing, developing, testing, and evaluating both launch vehicle systems in partnership with other NASA Centers, Government agencies, and industry contractors. This paper provides top-level information regarding the genesis and evolution of the baseline configuration for the Ares V heavy-lift system. It also touches on risk-based management strategies, such as building on powerful hardware and promoting common features between the Ares I and Ares V systems to reduce technical, schedule, and cost risks, as well as development and operations costs. Finally, it gives a summary of several notable accomplishments over the past year, since the Exploration Launch Projects effort officially kicked off in October 2005, and looks ahead at work planned for 2007 and beyond.

Sumrall, John P.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Apollo Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Hardware Overview

This viewgraph presentation reviews basic guidance, navigation and control (GNC) concepts, examines the Command and Service Module (CSM) and Lunar Module (LM) GNC organization and discusses the primary GNC and the CSM Stabilization and Control System (SCS), as well as other CSM-specific hardware. The LM Abort Guidance System (AGS), Control Electronics System (CES) and other LM-specific hardware are also addressed. Three subsystems exist on each vehicle: the computer subsystem (CSS), the inertial subsystem (ISS) and the optical subsystem (OSS). The CSS and ISS are almost identical between CSM and LM and each is designed to operate independently. CSM SCS hardware are highlighted, including translation control, rotation controls, gyro assemblies, a gyro display coupler and flight director attitude indicators. The LM AGS hardware are also highlighted and include the abort electronics assembly and the abort sensor assembly; while the LM CES hardware includes the attitude controller assembly, thrust/translation controller assemblies and the ascent engine arming assemble. Other common hardware including the Orbital Rate Display - Earth and Lunar (ORDEAL) and the Crewman Optical Alignment Sight (COAS), a docking aid, are also highlighted.

Interbartolo, Michael↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of a Comprehensive Physics-Based Model for Study of NASA Gateway Lunar Dust Contamination

NASA is committed to landing the first woman and first person of color on the Moon by 2025 to begin a sustaining presence. A major component of this mission is NASA’s orbiting lunar outpost, Gateway, that will be subjected to the harsh environment of space during its 7-day orbit around the Moon. One aspect of this environment that is not well quantified is microscopic lunar regolith particles, or simply, lunar dust. As Apollo 17 Mission Commander Eugene Cernan said, “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the moon. I think we can overcome other physiological or physical or mechanical problems except dust” [1]. These dust particles, most of which are smaller than the width of two human hairs and of highly irregular shape, are composed mainly of dielectric materials. Such characteristics can allow the dust particles to collect electric charge from the surrounding environment, resulting in electrostatic interactions between the dust, electromagnetic fields, and electrically charged surfaces [2-3]. Due to the nature of these fields, dust can collect on and contaminate charged surfaces. Lunar dust introduced into the Gateway environment by a lunar ascent vehicle element returning from the surface of the Moon presents risks to Gateway hardware such as radiators, solar arrays, antennae, and docking mechanisms. To quantify this risk and inform NASA, International Partner, and Commercial Provider stakeholders, Booz Allen, in partnership with NASA, is developing a toolset to model the interaction of charged lunar dust particles with the cis-lunar and deep-space environments. This includes a comprehensive physics model of the space plasma and solar radiation environment and electromagnetic interaction of spacecraft and lunar dust. Spacecraft charging and plasma environment are solved using the open-source code from The French Aerospace Lab (ONERA) and the European Space Agency (ESA), known as Spacecraft Plasma Interaction Software (SPIS) [4]. The physics of particle charging and motion is handled by a time-dependent implementation of Orbital-Motion-Limited (OML) theory which accounts for plasma flows and positive potential grains [5-7], using Siemens STAR-CCM+ as the framework. Model validation includes lab experiments by NASA experts and academia, as well as future on-orbit dust detecting payloads on the exterior of Gateway and Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) missions to the lunar surface [7-9]. The results and analyses will inform Gateway Program system owners at risk for lunar dust contamination.

Complex Plasma↗

NASA NTRS1993

Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Test Facilities Subpanel

On 20 Jul. 1989, in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, President George Bush proclaimed his vision for manned space exploration. He stated, 'First for the coming decade, for the 1990's, Space Station Freedom, the next critical step in our space endeavors. And next, for the new century, back to the Moon. Back to the future. And this time, back to stay. And then, a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet, a manned mission to Mars.' On 2 Nov. 1989, the President approved a national space policy reaffirming the long range goal of the civil space program: to 'expand human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system.' And on 11 May 1990, he specified the goal of landing Astronauts on Mars by 2019, the 50th anniversary of man's first steps on the Moon. To safely and ever permanently venture beyond near Earth environment as charged by the President, mankind must bring to bear extensive new technologies. These include heavy lift launch capability from Earth to low-Earth orbit, automated space rendezvous and docking of large masses, zero gravity countermeasures, and closed loop life support systems. One technology enhancing, and perhaps enabling, the piloted Mars missions is nuclear propulsion, with great benefits over chemical propulsion. Asserting the potential benefits of nuclear propulsion, NASA has sponsored workshops in Nuclear Electric Propulsion and Nuclear Thermal Propulsion and has initiated a tri-agency planning process to ensure that appropriate resources are engaged to meet this exciting technical challenge. At the core of this planning process, NASA, DOE, and DOD established six Nuclear Propulsion Technical Panels in 1991 to provide groundwork for a possible tri-agency Nuclear Propulsion Program and to address the President's vision by advocating an aggressive program in nuclear propulsion. To this end the Nuclear Electric Propulsion Technology Panel has focused it energies; this final report summarizes its endeavor and conclusions.

Allen, George C.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Laser-Based Relative Navigation and Guidance for Space Shuttle Proximity Operations

American manned spacecraft have used visual piloting techniques in the terminal phase of randezvous during the Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, and Space Shuttle programs. In the last several years, space- shuttle astronauts have used the Rendezvous and Proximity Operations Program (RPOP), running; on a laptop computer, as a guidance and navigation aid during proximity operations. By processing measurements to the target satellite taken by a laser sensor, RPOP provides the shuttle crew with a more accurate relative position and velocity than from any other source. The inclusion of guidance algorithms allows RPOP to determine delta-velocities to fly very efficient, repeatable trajectories. This paper will focus on the guidance and navigation algorithms in RPOP, as well as results from simulation and flight. Although developed for shuttle proximity operations, the RPOP algorithms have potential applicability to an automated vehicle.

Laser sensors↗

NASA NTRS2017

The Utility of a Small Pressurized Rover with Suit Ports for Lunar Exploration: A Geologist's Perspective

Rover trade study: As summarized recently, mission simulations at Black Point Lava Flow (Arizona) that included realistic extravehicular activity (EVA) tasking, accurate traverse timelines, and an in-loop science CAPCOM (or SciCOM) showed that a small pressurized rover (SPR) was a better mobility asset than an unpressurized rover (UPR). Traverses within the SPR were easier on crew than spending an entire day in a spacesuit, enhancing crew productivity at each station. The SPR, named Lunar Electric Rover (LER), and sometimes called the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), could also provide shelter during a suit malfunction, radiation event, or medical emergency that might occur on the Moon. Intravehicular activity (IVA) capabilities: From within the vehicle, crew could describe and photo-document distant features during drives between stations, as well as in the near-field, directly in front of the LER, providing an ability to begin EVA planning on approach to each outcrop prior to egress. The vehicle can rotate 360º without any lateral movement, providing views in all directions. It has high-visibility windows, a ForeCam, AftCam, port and starboard cameras, docking cameras, and a GigaPan camera. EVA capabilities: To reduce timeline, mass, and volumetric overhead, rapid egress and ingress were envisioned, replacing an airlock with lower cabin pressure than on the International Space Station and suit ports on the aft cabin wall [2]. When needed for closer inspection and sample collecting, crew could egress in about 10 minutes through suit ports. Crew use SuitCams for additional photo-documentation, transmit mobile observations verbally, and collect surface materials. Typical simulations involved 3 to 4 EVA stations/day and 2 to 3 hr/day of boots on the ground. This allowed crew to explore a far larger territory, with more complex geological and in situ resource utilization (ISRU) features, than would a single, longer-duration EVA at one location, while also minimizing crew time in a spacesuit. Additionally, the vehicle could be driven with crew locked into the suit ports. This approach could involve a driver in the cockpit with a suited crewmember in a suit port, or the vehicle could be driven from the aft deck with both crewmembers in their suit ports. This approach was used when distances between stops were short enough that vehicle ingress and egress were less efficient than remaining in the suits and driving. Utility of suit ports: The advantages of suit ports were clearly demonstrated in those field-based trade studies. To illustrate those advantages further, consider the consequences of a SPR without suit ports at the Apollo 17 landing site. At that site, the crew's second EVA was an approximately 18 km loop conducted in a UPR, called the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), in 7 hr 36 min 56 s. The traverse was composed of 5 formal stations, plus 8 additional LRV stations where crew made brief scientific stops. In a scenario involving a SPR without suit ports, crew would go EVA through an airlock and probably be limited to a single EVA per day. In that case, crew could drive the SPR ~9 km from the landing site to station 2, go EVA, and complete station 2 tasks. However, to conduct station 3 tasks, the crew would then need to walk approximately 3 km to station 3, while ground control in Houston tele-robotically drives the LER to station 3. A walk of approximately 3 km is possible, as that is what the Apollo 14 crew did before LRVs were deployed, but it is a lengthy and potentially grueling EVA. Assuming crew completes station 3 tasks, they would likely need to re-enter the SPR, ending the day's EVA, and return to the landing site. They would not be able to walk the additional distances to stations 4 and 5 (the latter being about 6 km from station 3). Thus, crew in an SPR without suit ports would require two days to accomplish the same tasks Apollo 17 crew completed in a single day. If a future crew is involved in long duration traverses on the lunar surface, the deployment of a vehicle with suit ports would probably be a better solution.

Kring, David A.↗