Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Soyuz spacecraft”

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.

136 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Mission Operations Directorate Preparations for the COTS Visiting Vehicles

With the retirement of the Space Shuttle looming, a series of new spacecraft is under development to assist in providing for the growing logistical needs of the International Space Station (ISS). Two of these vehicles are being built under a NASA initiative known as the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. These visiting vehicles ; Space X s Dragon and Orbital Science Corporation s Cygnus , are to be domestically produced in the United States and designed to add to the capabilities of the Russian Progress and Soyuz workhorses, the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the Japanese H-2 Transfer Vehicle (HTV). Most of what is known about the COTS program has focused on the work of Orbital and SpaceX in designing, building, and testing their respective launch and cargo vehicles. However, there is also a team within the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at NASA s Johnson Space Center working with their operational counterparts in these companies to provide operational safety oversight and mission assurance via the development of operational scenarios and products needed for these missions. Ensuring that the operational aspect is addressed for the initial demonstration flights of these vehicles is the topic of this paper. Integrating Dragon and Cygnus into the ISS operational environment has posed a unique challenge to NASA and their partner companies. This is due in part to the short time span of the COTS program, as measured from initial contract award until first launch, as well as other factors that will be explored in the text. Operational scenarios and products developed for each COTS vehicle will be discussed based on the following categories: timelines, on-orbit checkout, ground documentation, crew procedures, software updates and training materials. Also addressed is an outline of the commonalities associated with the operations for each vehicle. It is the intent of the authors to provide their audience with a better understanding of the mission assurance that MOD brings to commercial ventures to the ISS

Shull, Sarah A.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Interstellar helium flow experiment MA-088

The Apollo Soyuz Test Project Interstellar Helium Glow Experiment (MA-088) studied the motion of helium in the local interstellar medium as that medium passed through the solar system to determine several poorly known properties of the local interstellar gas. The instrument used was a photometer sensitive to two solar extreme ultraviolet spectral lines that are resonantly scattered by helium gas. The instrument surveyed the entire celestial sphere during a series of slow, rolling maneuvers by the Apollo spacecraft. The equipment operated properly, and usable data were obtained.

Bowyer, S.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Experiments on plants grown in space. Status and prospects

Space flight provides a unique capability to gravitational research by providing an environment in which gravity can be manipulated below the Earth norm of 1 to a state comparable to weightlessness. Although space experiments with seeds and plants have been conducted for almost 25 years, we are only now entering an era that promises the capability of routinely conducting controlled plant experiments in space. Results from experiments with higher plants and seeds flown thus far in both manned and unmanned spacecraft from both the USA and USSR are briefly summarized. An overview of the current status of space biology experimentation as it relates to plants is presented and present and future opportunities to conduct plant experiments under space flight conditions are discussed.

Flight Experiment↗
NASA NTRS1976

Lightning - Apollo to Shuttle

The history of lightning striking NASA spacecraft and the development of lightning protection systems is reviewed from the Apollo 12 flight, involving a lightning strike thirty six seconds after launch, to the present date. Particular attention is paid to problems that may arise in this field in the context of planning and implementing the Space Shuttle program. The lightning protection design for Apollo is described: a folding mast mounted on top of the hammerhead crane on top of the Launcher Umbilical Tower, with a lightning rod on top. The effect of lightning storms on the launches of Apollos 12 through 17 is examined, as is the effect of lightning in the Skylab program. The lightning problems encountered by the Apollo-Soyuz mission and by the two unmanned Viking launches to Mars are discussed. The Lightning Detection And Ranging system for detecting RF emission from lightning discharges is described.

Durrett, W. R.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Challenges and Opportunities of International Cooperation for Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA) on the European Service Module (ESM) of the Orion Program

ESA is providing the ESM to NASA for the Orion Program in accordance with the Implementing Arrangement (IA) established between the two Agencies in 2012. This IA is a barter agreement, in which ESA provides Service Module vehicles for the first two flights of Orion in exchange for two servicing missions to the ISS. This arrangement has provided opportunities and challenges to both communities. It represents an important opportunity for ESA to build on its experience in the development and operations of ATV and play an active role in the development and flight of a manned space vehicle. This paper will explore some of the unique aspects of this arrangement as it affects Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA).The assessment of ESM compliance with applicable safety requirements is the responsibility of the Joint Safety and Engineering Review Panel (JSERP). The JSERP has two features that are relatively unique amongst NASA safety panels. First, NASA Engineering and SMA organizations co-chair this Panel. Previously, Safety has chaired, with Engineering as a member of the Panel. Inclusion of Engineering as a co-chair has offered greater leverage within the technical community. Second, the JSERP includes a second set of co-chairs from ESA Engineering and ESA Product Assurance and Safety (PA/S) organizations. This recognizes the international arrangement as one of partnership.Another source of both opportunity and challenge is the differing experience base of ESA and NASA. NASA has decades of experience in manned spaceflight, dating back to the Mercury program and following through Gemini, Apollo, Apollo-Soyuz, Skylab, Shuttle and the International Space Station. The risk posture for manned missions is much more rigorous than for unmanned missions. ESA brings a wealth of knowledge as well, with their flights of Ariane and Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), development and operation of the Columbus module on ISS, and satellite programs. The result is that both parties have developed paradigms related to risk and failure that contribute to ESM discussions.Orion represents humanity's first venture beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) in over fifty years. Much of that experience is captured in program documents, but first-hand knowledge is limited to a few spaceflight veterans. Missions to LEO have offered the opportunity of direct, near-instantaneous communications and assistance, and the ability to return to Earth within a matter of hours in case of emergency. Outward-bound missions do not have these features and will require a more autonomous spacecraft with attendant safety-related issues.This paper will explore these and other challenges as we approach the flight of the first Orion vehicle.

Ciancone, Michael L.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Space Rescue

Space Rescue has been a topic of speculation for a wide community of people for decades. Astronauts, aerospace engineers, diplomats, medical and rescue professionals, inventors and science fiction writers have all speculated on this problem. Martin Caidin's 1964 novel Marooned dealt with the problems of rescuing a crew stranded in low earth orbit. Legend at the Johnson Space Center says that Caidin's portrayal of a Russian attempt to save the American crew played a pivotal role in convincing the Russians to join the real joint Apollo-Soyuz mission. Space Rescue has been a staple in science fiction television and movies portrayed in programs such as Star Trek, Stargate-SG1 and Space 1999 and movies such as Mission To Mars and Red Planet. As dramatic and as difficult as rescue appears in fictional accounts, in the real world it has even greater drama and greater difficulty. Space rescue is still in its infancy as a discipline and the purpose of this chapter is to describe the issues associated with space rescue and the work done so far in this field. For the purposes of this chapter, the term space rescue will refer to any system which allows for rescue or escape of personnel from situations which endanger human life in a spaceflight operation. This will span the period from crew ingress prior to flight through crew egress postlanding. For the purposes of this chapter, the term primary system will refer to the spacecraft system that a crew is either attempting to escape from or from which an attempt is being made to rescue the crew.

Muratore, John F.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Crew Survivability After a Rapid Cabin Depressurization Event

Anecdotal evidence acquired through historic failure investigations involving rapid cabin decompression (e.g. Challenger, Columbia and Soyuz 11) show that full evacuation of the cabin atmosphere may occur within seconds. During such an event, the delta-pressure between the sealed suit ventilation system and the cabin will rise at the rate of the cabin depressurization; potentially at a rate exceeding the capability of the suit relief valve. It is possible that permanent damage to the suit pressure enclosure and ventilation loop components may occur as the integrated system may be subjected to delta pressures in excess of the design to pressures. Additionally, as the total pressure of the suit ventilation system decreases, so does the oxygen available to the crew. The crew may be subjected to a temporary incapacitating, but non-lethal, hypoxic environment. It is expected that the suit will maintain a survivable atmosphere on the crew until the vehicle pressure control system recovers or the cabin has otherwise attained a habitable environment. A common finding from the aforementioned reports indicates that the crew would have had a better chance at surviving the event had they been in a protective configuration, that is, in a survival suit. Making use of these lessons learned, the Constellation Program implemented a suit loop in the spacecraft design and required that the crew be in a protective configuration, that is suited with gloves on and visors down, during dynamic phases of flight that pose the greatest risk for a rapid and uncontrolled cabin depressurization event: ascent, entry, and docking. This paper details the evaluation performed to derive suit pressure garment and ventilation system performance parameters that would lead to the highest probability of crew survivability after an uncontrolled crew cabin depressurization event while remaining in the realm of practicality for suit design. This evaluation involved: (1) assessment of stakeholder expectations to validate the functionality being imposed; (2) review/refinement of concept of operations to establish the potential triggers for such an event and define the response of the spacecraft and suit ventilation loop pressure control systems; and (3) assessment of system capabilities with respect to structural capability and pressure control. 1 Crew and Thermal Systems Division, NASA Johnson Space Center, Mail Code: AES29, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston,

Sargusingh, Miriam J.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Manned Spacecraft Landing and Recovery

As recent history has tragically demonstrated, a successful space mission is not complete until the crew has safely returned to earth and has been successfully recovered. It is noted that a safe return to earth does not guarantee a successful recovery. The focus of this presentation will be a discussion of the ground operation assets involved in a successful recovery. The author's experience in land and water-based recovery of crewed vehicles and flight hardware at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Edwards Air Force Base, international landing sites, and the Atlantic Ocean provides for some unique insight into this topic. He has participated in many aspects of Space Shuttle landing and recovery operations including activation of Transatlantic Abort Landing (TAL) sites and Emergency Landing Sites (ELS) as an Operations Test Director, execution of post landing convoy operations as an Orbiter Move Director, Operations Test Director, and Landing and Recovery Director, and recovery of solid rocket boosters, frustum and their parachutes 140 miles offshore in a wide range of sea states as a Retrieval Diver/Engineer. The recovery operations for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were similar from a landing and recovery perspective in th t they all were capsules with limited "flying" capability and had a planned End of Mission (EOM) in an ocean with a descent slowed by parachutes. The general process was to deploy swim teams via helicopters to prepare the capsule for recovery and assist with crew extraction when required. The capsule was then hoisted onto the deck of a naval vessel. This approach required the extensive use and deployment of military assets to support the primary landing zone as well as alternate and contingency locations. The Russian Soyuz capsule also has limited "flying" capability; however, the planned EOM is terrestrial. In addition to use of parachutes to slow the reentry descent, soft-landing rockets on the bottom of the vehicle are employed to cushion the landing. The recovery forces are deployed via helicopters and the capsule is transported by a specialized all-terrain vehicle. The Space Shuttle Orbiter landing and recovery process is considerably different. The added lift capability and maneuverability allow the Orbiter to land at an exact location/runway for a nominal EOM. This allows for a timely response of recovery/contingency rescue forces, centralized staging of personnel and equipment, and assured access by ground vehicles. The well defined landing zone also provides for far more options when selecting landing sites for EOM and emergency returns and the relatively large cross-range capability increases the number of landing opportunities at the preferred sites.

Hammel, Don↗
NASA NTRS2012

Crew Survivability After a Rapid Cabin Depressurization Event

Anecdotal evidence acquired through historic failure investigations involving rapid cabin decompression (e.g. Challenger, Columbia and Soyuz 11) show that full evacuation of the cabin atmosphere may occur within seconds. During such an event, the delta-pressure between the sealed suit ventilation system and the cabin will rise at the rate of the cabin depressurization; potentially at a rate exceeding the capability of the suit relief valve. It is possible that permanent damage to the suit pressure enclosure and ventilation loop components may occur as the integrated system may be subjected to delta pressures in excess of the design-to pressures. Additionally, as the total pressure of the suit ventilation system decreases, so does the oxygen available to the crew. The crew may be subjected to a temporarily incapacitating, but non-lethal, hypoxic environment. It is expected that the suit will maintain a survivable atmosphere on the crew until the vehicle pressure control system recovers or the cabin has otherwise attained a habitable environment. A common finding from the aforementioned reports indicates that the crew would have had a better chance at surviving the event had they been in a protective configuration, that is, in a survival suit. Making use of these lessons learned, the Constellation Program implemented a suit loop in the spacecraft design and required that the crew be in a protective configuration, that is suited with gloves on and visors down, during dynamic phases of flight that pose the greatest risk for a rapid and uncontrolled cabin depressurization event: ascent, entry, and docking. This paper details the evaluation performed to derive suit pressure garment and ventilation system performance parameters that would lead to the highest probability of crew survivability after an uncontrolled crew cabin depressurization event while remaining in the realm of practicality for suit design. This evaluation involved: (1) assessment of stakeholder expectations to validate the functionality being imposed; (2) review/refinement of concept of operations to establish the potential triggers for such an event and define the response of the spacecraft and suit ventilation loop pressure control systems; and (3) assessment of system capabilities with respect to structural capability and pressure control.

Sargusingh, Miriam J.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Design of a welded joint for robotic, on-orbit assembly of space trusses

In the future, some spacecraft will be so large that they must be assembled on-orbit. These spacecraft will be used for such tasks as manned missions to Mars or used as orbiting platforms for monitoring the Earth or observing the universe. Some large spacecraft will probably consist of planar truss structures to which will be attached special purpose, self-contained modules. The modules will most likely be taken to orbit fully outfitted and ready for use in heavy-lift launch vehicles. The truss members will also similarly be taken to orbit, but most unassembled. The truss structures will need to be assembled robotically because of the high costs and risks of extra-vehicular activities. Some missions will involve very large loads. To date, very few structures of any kind have been constructed in space. Two relatively simple trusses were assembled in the Space Shuttle bay in late 1985. Here the development of a design of a welded joint for on-orbit, robotic truss assembly is described. Mechanical joints for this application have been considered previously. Welded joints have the advantage of allowing the truss members to carry fluids for active cooling or other purposes. In addition, welded joints can be made more efficient structurally than mechanical joints. Also, welded joints require little maintenance (will not shake loose), and have no slop which would cause the structure to shudder under load reversal. The disadvantages of welded joints are that a more sophisticated assembly robot is required, weld flaws may be difficult to detect on-orbit, the welding process is hazardous, and welding introduces contamination to the environment. In addition, welded joints provide less structural damping than do mechanical joints. Welding on-orbit was first investigated aboard a Soyuz-6 mission in 1969 and then during a Skylab electron beam welding experiment in 1973. A hand held electron beam welding apparatus is currently being prepared for use on the MIR space station. Presently, Marshall Space Flight Center is evaluating processes appropriate for on-orbit welding. A low gravity environment has been found to have very minor effects on the welding processes appropriate for this application. This is based on tests run on-orbit as well as low gravity environments achieved by flying aircraft in parabolic trajectories. It appears that a modified form of gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) will be most appropriate for welding together structures on-oribt. The process has been modified to work in a vacuum by providing gas to the arc zone by means of a hollow tungsten electrode with special shielding. A commercial tube welding head has been successfully modified for use on-orbit with a gas leakage rate of approximately 2.5 liters/min. To develop as realistic a joint as possible, a specific truss structure was selected on which to base the design. The structure considered was based on the 120 foot diameter aerobrake tetrahedral truss structure. The truss members were assumed to consist of graphite/epoxy tubes. Also, it was assumed that the nodes were constructed of 2219-T87 aluminum alloy. The magnitude of the member load assumed for design purposes was 100 kips.

Rule, William K.↗