SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Manual thrust vector control development for Apollo Command and Service Module Stabilization and Control System
The Apollo 13 mission, planned as a lunar landing in the Fra Mauro area, was aborted because of an abrupt loss of service module cryogenic oxygen associated with a fire in one of the two tanks at approximately 56 hours. The lunar module provided the necessary support to sustain a minimum operational condition for a safe return to earth. A circumlunar profile was executed as the most efficient means of earth return, with the lunar module providing power and life support until transfer to the command module just prior to entry. Although the mission was unsuccessful as planned, a lunar flyby and several scientific experiments were completed.
A review of the Apollo command and service module instrumentation subsystem is presented. The measurements provided, design aspects considered, problems encountered, and flight results obtained are discussed.
The sequence of the command and service module milestone review process is given, and the Customer Acceptance Readiness Review and Flight Readiness Review plans are presented. Contents of the System Summary Acceptance Documents for the two formal spacecraft reviews are detailed, and supplemental data required for presentation to the review boards are listed. Typical forms, correspondence, supporting documentation, and minutes of a board meeting are included.
Selenium Technologies has been conducting preliminary design work on a manned lunar lander for use in NASA's First Lunar Outpost (FLO) program. The resulting lander is designed to carry a crew of four astronauts to a prepositioned habitat on the lunar surface, remain on the lunar surface for up to 45 days while the crew is living in the habitat, then return the crew to earth via direct reentry and land recovery. Should the need arise, the crew can manually guide the lander to a safe lunar landing site, and live in the lander for up to ten days on the surface. Also, an abort to earth is available during any segment of the mission. The main propulsion system consists of a cluster of four modified Pratt and Whitney RL10 rocket engines that use liquid methane (LCH4) and liquid oxygen (LOX). Four engines are used to provide redundancy and a satisfactory engine out capability. Differences between the new propulsion system and the original system include slightly smaller engine size and lower thrust per engine, although specific impulse remains the same despite the smaller size. Concerns over nozzle ground clearance and engine reliability, as well as more information from Pratt and Whitney, brought about this change. The power system consists of a combination of regenerative fuel cells and solar arrays. While the lander is in flight to or from the moon, or during the lunar night, fuel cells provide all electrical power. During the lunar day, solar arrays are deployed to provide electrical power for the lander as well as electrolyzers, which separate some water back into hydrogen and oxygen for later use by the fuel cells. Total storage requirements for oxygen, hydrogen, and water are 61 kg, 551 kg, and 360 kg, respectively. The lander is a stage-and-a-half design with descent propellant, cargo, and landing gear contained in the descent stage, and the main propulsion system, ascent propellant, and crew module contained in the ascent stage. The primary structure for both stages is a truss, to which all tanks and components are attached. The crew module is a conical shape similar to that of the Apollo Command Module, but significantly larger with a height and maximum diameter of six meters.
LEM rendezvous radar for tracking transponder on lunar surface or on Command Module
The conceptual aspects of the command and service module entry monitor subsystem, together with an interpretation of the displays and their associated relationship to entry trajectory control, are presented. The entry monitor subsystem is described, and the problems encountered during the developmental phase and the first five manned Apollo flights are discussed in conjunction with the design improvements implemented.
A review of the command and service module controls and displays subsystem is presented. The subsystem is described, and operational requirements, component history, problems and solutions, and conclusions and recommendations for the subsystem are included.
An overview of the Apollo Command and Service Module (CSM) propulsion systems is provided. The systems for CSM propulsion and control are defined, the times during the mission when each system is used are listed, and, the basic components and operation of the service propulsion system, SM reaction control system and CM reaction control system are described.
As part of its overall objectives, the Orion spacecraft will be required to perform entry and Earth landing functions for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Lunar missions. Both of these entry scenarios will begin with separation of the Service Module (SM), making them unique from other Orion mission phases in that only the Command Module (CM) portion of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) will be involved, requiring a CM specific Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) system. Also common to these mission scenarios will be the need for GN&C to safely return crew (or cargo) to earth within the dynamic thermal and structural constraints of entry and within acceptable accelerations on the crew, utilizing the limited aerodynamic performance of the CM capsule. The lunar return mission could additionally require an initial atmospheric entry designed to support a precision skip and second entry, all to maximize downrange performance and ensure landing in the United States. This paper describes the Entry GN&C reference design, developed by the NASA-led team, that supports these entry scenarios and that was used to validate the Orion System requirements. Description of the reference design will include an overview of the GN&C functions, avionics, and effectors and will relate these to the specific design drivers of the entry scenarios, as well as the desire for commonality in vehicle systems to support the different missions. The discussion will also include the requirement for an Emergency Entry capability beyond that of the nominal performance of the multi-string GNC system, intended to return the crew to the earth in a survivable but unguided manner. Finally, various analyses will be discussed, including those completed to support validation efforts of the current CEV requirements, along with those on-going and planned with the intention to further refine the requirements and to support design development work in conjunction with the prime contractor. Some of these ongoing analyses will include work to size effectors (jets) and fuel budgets, to refine skip entry concepts, to characterize navigation performance and uncertainties, to provide for SM disposal offshore and to identify requirements to support target site selection.
The environmental control systems and system requirements of the Apollo command service module and the lunar module are described. The overall performance of both systems during the Apollo program is discussed. Other topics covered include: dust control, EVA provisions, Apollo 13 emergency, component redundancy, modular construction, and subatmospheric design.
Development and verification of vibration test requirements for Apollo command and service modules
On this eighth day of the STS-108 mission, the STS-108 crew (Commander Dominic Gorie, Pilot Mark Kelly, and Mission Specialists Linda Godwin and Daniel Tani), Expedition 3 crew (Commander Frank Culbertson, Jr. and Flight Engineers Mikhail Turin and Vladimir Dezhurov), and Expedition 4 crew (Commander Yuri Onufrienko and Flight Engineers Carl Walz and Daniel Bursch) work to reload the Rafaello Multipurpose Logistics Module. Commander Culbertson is seen on the International Space Station's treadmill.
The Orion Spacecraft will be required to perform entry and landing functions for both Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Lunar return missions, utilizing only the Command Module (CM) with its unique systems and GN&C design. This paper presents the current CM Flight Control System (FCS) design to support entry and landing, with a focus on analyses that have supported its development to date. The CM FCS will have to provide for spacecraft stability and control while following guidance or manual commands during exo-atmospheric flight, after Service Module separation, translational powered flight required of the CM, atmospheric flight supporting both direct entry and skip trajectories down to drogue chute deploy, and during roll attitude reorientation just prior to touchdown. Various studies and analyses have been performed or are on-going supporting an overall FCS design with reasonably sized Reaction Control System (RCS) jets, that minimizes fuel usage, that provides appropriate command following but with reasonable stability and control margin. Results from these efforts to date are included, with particular attention on design issues that have emerged, such as the struggle to accommodate sub-sonic pitch and yaw control without using excessively large jets that could have a detrimental impact on vehicle weight. Apollo, with a similar shape, struggled with this issue as well. Outstanding CM FCS related design and analysis issues, planned for future effort, are also briefly be discussed.
A final report is made on the trajectory and vehicle requirements for a fast crew transfer vehicle to Mars which will complete an Earth to Mars (and Mars to Earth) transfer in 150 days and will have a stay time at Mars of 40 days. This vehicle will maximize the crew's effectiveness on Mars by minimizing detrimental physiological effects such as bone demineralization and loss of muscle tone caused by long period exposure to zero gravity and radiation from cosmic rays and solar flares. The crew transfer vehicle discussed will complete the second half of a Split Mission to Mars. In the Split Mission, a slow, unmanned cargo vehicle, nicknamed the Barge, is sent to Mars ahead of the crew vehicle. Once the Barge is in orbit around Mars, the fast crew vehicle will be launched to rendezvous with the Barge in Mars orbit. The vehicle presented is designed to carry six astronauts for a mission duration of one year. The vehicle uses a chemical propulsion system and a nuclear power system. Four crew modules, similar to the proposed Space Station Common Modules, are used to house the crew and support equipment during the mission. The final design also includes a command module that is shielded to protect the crew during radiation events.
It is stated that the aerodynamic forces on the vehicle being aerocaptured are controlled by "altering the angle of attack" and thereby controlling the lift coefficient. Furthermore, the resulting variation of drag coefficient with angle of attack was ignored. The purpose of this Comment is to point out that an aerodynamic control method that is much more effective than the pitch modulation has been studied and utilized during entries for many years. During aerocapture, it is desirable to have a large range of lift coefficients available, while keeping the vehicle's ballistic coefficients constant. This is accomplished by modulating the vehicle's bank angle, i.e., by rolling the vehicle about its velocity vector. By this method, the angle of attack can be held constant (at the trim angle, if desired), and the C(sub D) and the ballistic coefficient remain constant. Furthermore, the vertical component of the normal force vector (essentially the lift) can be varied over its entire range, from maximum positive to maximum negative values. Reaction controls, rather than aerodynamic ones, are usually utilized to change the bank angle of the vehicle, thus requiring the use of fuel. However, the fuel expenditure that is required to change the bank angle is far less than the amount that would have to be used to continuously hold the vehicle at pitch angles that differ significantly from its trim angle of attack. Also, it has been shown that bank angle modulation to vary the lift can enlarge the entry corridor by increasing the entry angle for the undershoot boundary, where both the heating rate and deceleration reach a maximum. Finally, the crew's deceleration tolerance can be increased somewhat when the bank angle is varied, as opposed to the pitch angle. For bank modulation, the deceleration force vector can be kept at a constant angle with respect to the occupants whose tolerance to g loads is highest when the force is applied in a direction normal to the upper torso. The advantages of bank angle variation to modulate the lift vector were recognized long ago, and this method of control was used successfully on the Apollo command module during lunar return' and, more recently, for the Space Shuttle Orbiter.
The reaction control systems of the Apollo command and service module were developed and modified between July 1961 and July 1969. The successful development of these systems, as part of the Apollo Program, was the result of extensive testing, retesting, and modifications of the hardware to ensure system capability and intrasystem compatibility.
The Altair Lunar Lander is currently carrying options for both cryogenic and hypergolic ascent stage propulsion modules. The cryogenic option uses liquid methane and liquid oxygen to propel Altair from the lunar surface back to rendezvous with the Orion command module. Recent studies have determined that the liquid methane should be densified by subcooling it to 93 K in order to prevent over-pressurization of the propellant tanks during the 210 day stay on the lunar surface. A trade study has been conducted to determine the preferred method of producing; loading, and maintaining the subcooled, densified liquid methane onboard Altair from a ground operations perspective. The trade study took into account the limitations in mass for the launch vehicle and the mobile launch platform as well as the historical reliability of various components and their thermal efficiencies. Several unique problems were encountered, namely delivering a small amount of a cryogenic propellant to a flight tank that is positioned over 350 ft above the launch pad as well as generating the desired delivery temperature of the methane at 93 K which is only 2.3 K above the methane triple point of 90.7 K. Over 20 methods of subcooled liquid methane production and delivery along with the associated system architectures were investigated to determine the best solutions to the problem. The top four cryogenic processing solutions were selected for further evaluation and detailed thermal modeling. This paper describes the results of the preliminary trade analysis of the 20 plus methane densification methods considered. The results of the detailed analysis will be briefed to the Altair Project Office and their propulsion team as well as the Ground Operations Project Office before the down-select is made between cryogenic and hypergolic ascent stages in August 2010.