Results for “Number of Crew” — Page 7

NASA NTRS2010

Three Years of on Orbit ISS Oxygen Generation System Operation 2007-2010

The International Space Station (ISS) United States Orbital Segment (USOS) Oxygen Generation System (OGS) has accumulated 240 days of continuous operation at varied oxygen production rates within the US Laboratory Module (LAB) since it was first activated in July 2007. OGS relocated from the ISS LAB to Node 3 during 20A Flight (February 2010). The OGS rack delivery was accelerated for on-orbit checkout in the LAB, and it was launched to ISS in July of 2006. During the on-orbit checkout interval within the LAB from July 2007 to October 2008, OGS operational times were limited by the quantity of feedwater in a Payload Water Reservoir (PWR) bag. Longer runtimes are now achievable due to the continuous feedwater availability after ULF2 delivery and activation of the USOS Water Recovery System (WRS) racks. OGS is considered a critical function to maintaining six crew capability. There have been a number of failures which interrupted or threatened to interrupt oxygen production. Filters in the recirculation loop have clogged and have been replaced, Hydrogen sensors have fallen out of specifications, a pump delta pressure sensor failed, a pump failed to start, and the voltage on the cell stack increased out of tolerance. This paper will discuss the operating experience and characteristics of the OGS, as well as operational issues and their resolution.

Diderich, Greg S.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Autonomous Mission Operations Roadmap

As light time delays increase, the number of such situations in which crew autonomy is the best way to conduct the mission is expected to increase. However, there are significant open questions regarding which functions to allocate to ground and crew as the time delays increase. In situations where the ideal solution is to allocate responsibility to the crew and the vehicle, a second question arises: should the activity be the responsibility of the crew or an automated vehicle function? More specifically, we must answer the following questions: What aspects of mission operation responsibilities (Plan, Train, Fly) should be allocated to ground based or vehicle based planning, monitoring, and control in the presence of significant light-time delay between the vehicle and the Earth?How should the allocated ground based planning, monitoring, and control be distributed across the flight control team and ground system automation? How should the allocated vehicle based planning, monitoring, and control be distributed between the flight crew and onboard system automation?When during the mission should responsibility shift from flight control team to crew or from crew to vehicle, and what should the process of shifting responsibility be as the mission progresses? NASA is developing a roadmap of capabilities for Autonomous Mission Operations for human spaceflight. This presentation will describe the current state of development of this roadmap, with specific attention to in-space inspection tasks that crews might perform with minimum assistance from the ground.

Mission Operations↗

NASA NTRS2012

Issues and Design Drivers for Deep Space Habitats

A cross-disciplinary team of scientists and engineers applied expertise gained in Lunar Lander development to the conceptual design of a long-duration, deep space habitat for Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) missions. The design reference mission involved two launches to assemble 5-modules for a 380-day round trip mission carrying 4 crew members. The conceptual design process yielded a number of interesting debates, some of which could be significant design drivers in a detailed Deep Space Habitat (DSH) design. These issues included: Design to minimize crew radiation exposure, launch loads, communications challenges, docking system and hatch commonality, pointing and visibility, consumables, and design for contingency operations.

Rucker, Michelle A.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Crew Resource Management for Automated Teammates (CRM-A)

Crew Resource Management (CRM) is the application of human factors knowledge and skills to ensure that teams make effective use of all resources. This includes ensuring that pilots bring in opinions of other teammates and utilize their unique capabilities. CRM was originally developed 40 years ago in response to a number of airline accidents in which the crew was found to be at fault. The goal was to improve teamwork among airline cockpit crews. The notion of "team" was later expanded to include cabin crew and ground resources. CRM has also been adopted by other industries, most notably medicine. Automation research now finds itself faced with similar issues to those faced by aviation 40 years ago: how to create a more robust system by making full use of both the automation and its human operators. With advances in machine intelligence, processing speed and cheap and plentiful memory, automation has advanced to the point that it can and should be treated as a teammate to fully take advantage of its capabilities and contributions to the system. This area of research is known as Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT). Research on HAT has identified reusable patterns that can be applied in a wide range of applications. These patterns include features such as bi-directional communication and working agreements. This paper will explore the synergies between CRM and HAT. We believe that HAT research has much to learn from CRM and that there are benefits to expanding CRM to cover automation.

Crew Resource Management↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗

NASA NTRS2017

Computational Modeling to Limit the Impact Displays and Indicator Lights Have on Habitable Volume Operational Lighting Constraints

NASA has demonstrated an interest in improving astronaut health and performance through the installment of a new lighting countermeasure on the International Space Station. The Solid State Lighting Assembly (SSLA) system is designed to positively influence astronaut health by providing a daily change to light spectrum to improve circadian entrainment. Unfortunately, existing NASA standards and requirements define ambient light level requirements for crew sleep and other tasks, yet the number of light-emitting diode (LED) indicators and displays within a habitable volume is currently uncontrolled. Because each of these light sources has its own unique spectral properties, the additive lighting environment ends up becoming something different from what was planned or researched. Restricting the use of displays and indicators is not a solution because these systems provide beneficial crew feedback.

Clark, T. A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Computational Modeling to Limit the Impact Displays and Indicator Lights Have on Habitable Volume Operational Lighting Constraints

NASA has demonstrated an interest in improving astronaut health and performance through the installment of a new lighting countermeasure on the International Space Station. The Solid State Lighting Assembly (SSLA) system is designed to positively influence astronaut health by providing a daily change to light spectrum to improve circadian entrainment. Unfortunately, existing NASA standards and requirements define ambient light level requirements for crew sleep and other tasks, yet the number of light-emitting diode (LED) indicators and displays within a habitable volume is currently uncontrolled. Because each of these light sources has its own unique spectral properties, the additive lighting environment ends up becoming something different from what was planned or researched. Restricting the use of displays and indicators is not a solution because these systems provide beneficial feedback to the crew. The research team for this grant used computer-based computational modeling and real-world lighting mockups to document the impact that light sources other than the ambient lighting system contribute to the ambient spectral lighting environment. In particular, the team was focused on understanding the impacts of long-term tasks located in front of avionics or computer displays. The team also wanted to understand options for mitigating the changes to the ambient light spectrum in the interest of maintaining the performance of a lighting countermeasure. The project utilized a variety of physical and computer-based simulations to determine direct relationships between system implementation and light spectrum. Using real-world data, computer models were built in the commercially available optics analysis software Zemax Optics Studio(c). The team also built a mockup test facility that had the same volume and configuration as one of the Zemax models. The team collected over 1200 spectral irradiance measurements, each representing a different configuration of the mockup. Analysis of the data showed a measurable impact on ambient light spectrum. This data showed that obvious design techniques exist that can be used to bind the ambient light spectrum closer to the planned spectral operating environment for the observer's eye point. The following observations should be considered when designing an operational environment that is dominated by computer displays. When more light is directed into the field of view of the observer, the greater the impact it will make on various human factors issues that depend on spectral shape and intensity. Because viewing angle has a large part to play in the amount of light flux on the crewmember's retina, beam shape, combined with light source location is an important factor for determining percent probable incident flux on the observer from any combination of light sources. Computer graphics design and display lumen output are major factors influencing the amount of spectrally intense light projected into the environment and in the viewer's direction. Use of adjustable white point display software was useful only if the predominant background color was white and if it matched the ambient light system's color. Display graphics that used a predominantly black background had the least influence on unplanned spectral energy projected into the environment. Percent reflectance makes a difference in total energy reflected back into an environment, and within certain architectural geometries, reflectance can be used to control the amount of a light spectrum that is allowed to perpetuate in the environment. Data showed that room volume and distance from significant light sources influence the total spectrum in a room. Smaller environments had a homogenizing effect on total light spectrum, whereas light from multiple sources in larger environments was less mixed. The findings indicated above should be considered when making recommendations for practice or standards for architectural systems. The ambient lighting system, surface reflectance, and display and indicator implementation all factor into the users' spectral environment. A variety of low-cost solutions exist to mitigate the impact of light from non-architectural lighting systems, and much potential for system automation and integration of display systems with the ambient environment. This team believes that proper planning can be used to avoid integration problems and also believes that human-in-the-loop evaluations, real-world test and measurement, and computer modeling can be used to determine how changes to a process, display graphics, and architecture will help maintain the planned spectral operating lighting environment.

Clark, T. A.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Experimental and predicted aerodynamic characteristics of a proposed Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) lifting-body configuration at Mach 6 and 10

The effects of Mach number, Reynolds number, and ratio of specific heats on the aerodynamic characteristics of a proposed Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) lifting-body configuration were examined for a range of angles of attack from -5 deg to 50 deg. Predictions made with a Langley-developed, three-dimensional Navier Stokes solver known as LAURA, which was exercised as an Euler solver for the present study, are compared with the experimental results. Unlike the Shuttle Orbiter, which experienced a significant nose-up increment in pitching moment with decreasing specific heat ratio (i.e., real gas effects), the aerodynamic characteristics of this lifting-body configuration are insensitive to changes in specific heat ratio. The maximum trimmed lift-to-drag ratio achieved was about 1.5. Predicted inviscid values of aerodynamic coefficients were generally in good agreement with measurement.

Micol, John R.↗

NASA NTRS2017

A Simulation Based Investigation of High Latency Space Systems Operations

This study was the first in a series of planned tests to use physics-based subsystem simulations to investigate the interactions between a spacecraft's crew and a ground-based mission control center for vehicle subsystem operations across long communication delays. The simulation models the life support system of a deep space habitat. It contains models of an environmental control and life support system, an electrical power system, an active thermal control systems, and crew metabolic functions. The simulation has three interfaces: 1) a real-time crew interface that can be use to monitor and control the subsystems; 2) a mission control center interface with data transport delays up to 15 minute each way; and 3) a real-time simulation test conductor interface used to insert subsystem malfunctions and observe the interactions between the crew, ground, and simulated vehicle. The study was conducted at the 21st NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) mission. The NEEMO crew and ground support team performed a number of relevant deep space mission scenarios that included both nominal activities and activities with system malfunctions. While this initial test sequence was focused on test infrastructure and procedures development, the data collected in the study already indicate that long communication delays have notable impacts on the operation of deep space systems. For future human missions beyond cis-lunar, NASA will need to design systems and support tools to meet these challenges. These will be used to train the crew to handle critical malfunctions on their own, to predict malfunctions and assist with vehicle operations. Subsequent more detailed and involved studies will be conducted to continue advancing NASA's understanding of space systems operations across long communications delays.

Li, Zu Qun↗

NASA NTRS2017

A Simulation Based Investigation of High Latency Space Systems Operations

This study was the first in a series of planned tests to use physics-based subsystem simulations to investigate the interactions between a spacecraft's crew and a ground-based mission control center for vehicle subsystem operations across long communication delays. The simulation models the life support system of a deep space habitat. It contains models of an environmental control and life support system, an electrical power system, an active thermal control system, and crew metabolic functions. The simulation has three interfaces: 1) a real-time crew interface that can be use to monitor and control the subsystems; 2) a mission control center interface with data transport delays up to 15 minute each way; and 3) a real-time simulation test conductor interface used to insert subsystem malfunctions and observe the interactions between the crew, ground, and simulated vehicle. The study was conducted at the 21st NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) mission. The NEEMO crew and ground support team performed a number of relevant deep space mission scenarios that included both nominal activities and activities with system malfunctions. While this initial test sequence was focused on test infrastructure and procedures development, the data collected in the study already indicate that long communication delays have notable impacts on the operation of deep space systems. For future human missions beyond cis-lunar, NASA will need to design systems and support tools to meet these challenges. These will be used to train the crew to handle critical malfunctions on their own, to predict malfunctions, and to assist with vehicle operations. Subsequent more detailed and involved studies will be conducted to continue advancing NASA's understanding of space systems operations across long communications delays.

Li, Zu Qun↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ISS External Microorganisms: A Payload to Close Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Crewed Missions

Before NASA or COSPAR is able to set planetary protection requirements for crewed missions to locations like Mars there are a number of critical knowledge gaps that must be addressed (1). One of the most important knowledge gaps is an understanding of microbial leakage from crewed habitats and space suits. Current ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) and PLSS (Portable Life Support System) requirements do not include any provisions to control microbes that may escape along with vented or leaked gasses. The current generation of NASA space suits can leak at rates as high as 100 cm2 /min. during nominal operation (2). ISS (International Space Station) intentionally vents atmospheric gases like CO2 to maintain habitable conditions for the crew. Furthermore, every time an airlock is used for EVA (extravehicular activity)there is an accompanying release of internal atmosphere. Since it is not possible to sterilize a crewed mission, it is important that we understand what if any microbes are entrained in these vented and leaked products. It is also important to understand if these microbes can survive on exterior surfaces. Recent sampling of the Russian segments of ISS suggest that bacteria and fungi from inside ISS may be capable of surviving on external surfaces(3). NASA is developing an aseptic sampling tool for use during EVA and plans to collect samples from vents on ISS to build on these results. The results of this work will be used to develop planetary protection requirements for vented and leaked gasses from crewed volumes. NASA has developed and tested a tool kit for collecting microbiological samples during EVA(4). This tool kit contains eight commercially available, 23 mm. diameter, foam swabs that can be used to aseptically collect samples while at vacuum. The swabs are individually housed in aluminum canisters that are equipped with 0.2 μm Teflon filters. These filters allow the canisters to equilibrate to pressure changes while preventing microbiological contamination. The canisters will be cleaned and sterilized before flight. Results from ground-based testing indicate that this tool kit is capable of aseptically collecting microbes while at vacuum without becoming contaminated during pressure changes(5). Based on the results of this ground testing we have modified the tool kit to meet NASA safety requirements and improve the ergonomics. We added additional mounting points to the tool kit to give astronauts more options for securing it during use. We also changed the opening mechanism to improve the precision with which swabs can be extracted from the tool kit. We plan to use this kit on an upcoming EVA to collect samples from non-propulsive vents and areas near the U.S. airlock on ISS. These samples will be frozen at -80 ̊C and stored on station until they can be returned to Earth. We will analyze these returned samples using next generation DNA sequencing to determine the community composition and function of external ISS environments. The results of this study will close planetary protection knowledge gaps for crewed missions and will help NASA determine appropriate planetary protection requirements for life support systems. The tool kit will also be useful for collecting aseptic samples on upcoming crewed or robotic missions and could easily be modified to collect samples with organic contamination control requirements as well.

A B Regberg↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ISS External Microorganisms: A Payload to Close Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Crewed Missions

Before NASA or COSPAR is able to set planetary protection requirements for crewed missions to locations like Mars there are a number of critical knowledge gaps that must be addressed (1). One of the most important knowledge gaps is an understanding of microbial leakage from crewed habitats and space suits. Current ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) and PLSS (Portable Life Support System) requirements do not include any provisions to control microbes that may escape along with vented or leaked gasses. The current generation of NASA space suits can leak at rates as high as 100 cm2 /min. during nominal operation (2). ISS (International Space Station) intentionally vents atmospheric gases like CO2 to maintain habitable conditions for the crew. Furthermore, every time an airlock is used for EVA (extravehicular activity)there is an accompanying release of internal atmosphere. Since it is not possible to sterilize a crewed mission, it is important that we understand what if any microbes are entrained in these vented and leaked products. It is also important to understand if these microbes can survive on exterior surfaces. Recent sampling of the Russian segments of ISS suggest that bacteria and fungi from inside ISS may be capable of surviving on external surfaces(3). NASA is developing an aseptic sampling tool for use during EVA and plans to collect samples from vents on ISS to build on these results. The results of this work will be used to develop planetary protection requirements for vented and leaked gasses from crewed volumes. NASA has developed and tested a tool kit for collecting microbiological samples during EVA(4). This tool kit contains eight commercially available, 23 mm. diameter, foam swabs that can be used to aseptically collect samples while at vacuum. The swabs are individually housed in aluminum canisters that are equipped with 0.2 μm Teflon filters. These filters allow the canisters to equilibrate to pressure changes while preventing microbiological contamination. The canisters will be cleaned and sterilized before flight. Results from ground-based testing indicate that this tool kit is capable of aseptically collecting microbes while at vacuum without becoming contaminated during pressure changes(5). Based on the results of this ground testing we have modified the tool kit to meet NASA safety requirements and improve the ergonomics. We added additional mounting points to the tool kit to give astronauts more options for securing it during use. We also changed the opening mechanism to improve the precision with which swabs can be extracted from the tool kit. We plan to use this kit on an upcoming EVA to collect samples from non-propulsive vents and areas near the U.S. airlock on ISS. These samples will be frozen at -80 ̊C and stored on station until they can be returned to Earth. We will analyze these returned samples using next generation DNA sequencing to determine the community composition and function of external ISS environments. The results of this study will close planetary protection knowledge gaps for crewed missions and will help NASA determine appropriate planetary protection requirements for life support systems. The tool kit will also be useful for collecting aseptic samples on upcoming crewed or robotic missions and could easily be modified to collect samples with organic contamination control requirements as well.

A B Regberg↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ISS External Microorganisms: A Planetary Protection Payload Ready-for-Flight

Before NASA or COSPAR is able to set planetary protection requirements for crewed missions to locations like Mars there are a number of critical knowledge gaps that must be addressed (1). One of the most important knowledge gaps is an understanding of microbial leakage from crewed habitats and space suits. Current ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) and PLSS (Portable Life Support System) requirements do not include any provisions to control microbes that may escape along with vented or leaked gasses. The current generation of NASA space suits can leak at rates as high as 100 cm3/min. during nominal operation (2). ISS (International Space Station) intentionally vents atmospheric gases like CO2to maintain habitable conditions for the crew. Furthermore, every time an airlock is used for EVA (extravehicular activity) there is an accompanying release of internal atmosphere. Since it is not possible to sterilize a crewed mission, it is important that we understand what if any microbes are entrained in these vented and leaked products. It is also important to understand if these microbes can survive on exterior surfaces. Recent sampling of the Russian segments of ISS suggest that bacteria and fungi from inside ISS may be capable of surviving on external surfaces (3). NASA has developed an aseptic sampling tool for use during EVA and plans to collect samples from vents on ISS to build on these results. The results of this work will be used to develop planetary protection requirements for vented and leaked gasses from crewed volumes.

M S Bell↗

NASA NTRS2011

Commercial Crew Development Environmental Control and Life Support System Status

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) Project was a short term Project that was managed within the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO) to help develop and demonstrate a small number of key human spaceflight capabilities in support of moving towards a possible commercial crew transportation system to low earth orbit (LEO). It was intended to foster entrepreneurial activities with a few selected companies. The other purpose of the Project was to try to reduce some of the possible risk with a commercial crew transportation system to LEO. The entrepreneurial activities were encouraged with these few selected companies by NASA providing only part of the total funding to complete specific tasks that were jointly agreed to by NASA and the company. These joint agreements were documented in a Space Act Agreement (SAA) that was signed by NASA and the company. This paper will provide an overview of the CCDev Project and it will also discuss in detail the Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) tasks that were performed under CCDev.

Williams, David E.↗

NASA NTRS1972

Roles of the ground and flight crew in Apollo operations.

The functions performed by ground personnel and flight crews of Apollo missions are reviewed, covering vehicle systems operation and management, Saturn launch vehicle, command-service and lunar modules, lunar rover, communication relay unit and ground-commanded TV assembly. Details of the flight path, scientific experiments, photographic equipment and crew health monitoring are also discussed in terms of these functions. The coordinated combination of large numbers of experts and data processing equipment on the ground with the crew's capabilities to operate the spacecraft and exercise on-the-spot judgements is viewed as the backbone of the successful fulfillment of Apollo missions.

Wolfer, B. M.↗

NASA NTRS1983

The space station - An overview of the design process

The design factors being considered in the NASA space-station development program are summarized. The currently envisioned mission requirements are listed, and the system architecture is defined as a core station, mission-dedicated elements, and supporting equipment such as an orbit maneuvering vehicle. System design factors discussed include orbit selection, contamination control, autonomy, system safety, technology implementation, long life, reliability and maintainability, and cost; subsystem design factors include structural considerations, electrical power, environmental control and life support, data management, communications and tracking, onboard propulsion, habitability, and crew support. Configurational design is seen as driven by a number of factors, primarily the need to fit all components into the Shuttle payload bay for assembly in LEO by the Shuttle crew.

Covington, C.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Technology for an intelligent, free-flying robot for crew and equipment retrieval in space

Crew rescue and equipment retrieval is a Space Station Freedom requirement. During Freedom's lifetime, there is a high probability that a number of objects will accidently become separated. Members of the crew, replacement units, and key tools are examples. Retrieval of these objects within a short time is essential. Systems engineering studies were conducted to identify system requirements and candidate approaches. One such approach, based on a voice-supervised, intelligent, free-flying robot was selected for further analysis. A ground-based technology demonstration, now in its second phase, was designed to provide an integrated robotic hardware and software testbed supporting design of a space-borne system. The ground system, known as the EVA Retriever, is examining the problem of autonomously planning and executing a target rendezvous, grapple, and return to base while avoiding stationary and moving obstacles. The current prototype is an anthropomorphic manipulator unit with dexterous arms and hands attached to a robot body and latched in a manned maneuvering unit. A precision air-bearing floor is used to simulate space. Sensor data include two vision systems and force/proximity/tactile sensors on the hands and arms. Planning for a shuttle file experiment is underway. A set of scenarios and strawman requirements were defined to support conceptual development. Initial design activities are expected to begin in late 1989 with the flight occurring in 1994. The flight hardware and software will be based on lessons learned from both the ground prototype and computer simulations.

Erickson, J. D.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Vortex conception of rotor and mutual effect of screw/propellers

A vortex theory of screw/propellers with variable circulation according to the blade and its azimuth is proposed, the problem is formulated and circulation is expanded in a Fourier series. Equations are given for inductive velocities in space for crews, including those with an infinitely large number of blades and expansion of the inductive velocity by blade azimuth of a second screw. Multiparameter improper integrals are given as a combination of elliptical integrals and elementary functions, and it is shown how to reduce elliptical integrals of the third kind with a complex parameter to integrals with a real parameter.

Lepilkin, A. M.↗