Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “space exploration”

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.

At least 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1965

Systems engineering in space exploration

Seminar on systems engineering in space exploration - systems design, systems analysis, space flight operations, and program engineering and project problems

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2017

The Opportunity in Commercial Approaches for Future NASA Deep Space Exploration Elements

In 2011, NASA released a report assessing the market for commercial crew and cargo services to low Earth orbit (LEO). The report stated that NASA had spent a few hundred million dollars in the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program on the portion related to the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Yet a NASA cost model predicted the cost would have been significantly more with a non-commercial cost-plus contracting approach. By 2016 a NASA request for information stated it must "maximize the efficiency and sustainability of the Exploration Systems development programs", as "critical to free resources for reinvestment...such as other required deep space exploration capabilities." This work joins the previous two events, showing the potential for commercial, public private partnerships, modeled on programs like COTS, to reduce the cost to NASA significantly for "...other required deep space exploration capabilities." These other capabilities include landers, stages and more. We mature the concept of "costed baseball cards", adding cost estimates to NASA's space systems "baseball cards." We show some potential costs, including analysis, the basis of estimates, data sources and caveats to address a critical question - based on initial assessment, are significant agency resources justified for more detailed analysis and due diligence to understand and invest in public private partnerships for human deep space exploration systems? The cost analysis spans commercial to cost-plus contracting approaches, for smaller elements vs. larger, with some variation for lunar or Mars. By extension, we delve briefly into the potentially much broader significance of the individual cost estimates if taken together as a NASA investment portfolio where public private partnership are stitched together for deep space exploration. How might multiple improvements in individual systems add up to NASA human deep space exploration achievements, realistically, affordably, sustainably, in a relevant timeframe?

cost modeling estimation↗
NASA NTRS1992

Rationale and constituencies for the Space Exploration Initiative

In order to maximize the benefits from prospective space-exploration endeavors, and to enlist the support of as many constituencies as possible, NASA is either conducting or developing programs which emphasize different aspects of the Space Exploration Initiative. Attention is presently given to the cases of education using space exploration themes as teaching tools and technology transfer from government to private industry. Only on the basis of the establishment of such constituencies, will it be possible to sustain funding over the three decades foreseen as required for a Mars exploration effort.

Johnson, Kristine A.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Perspective - Solid Oxide Cell Technology for Space Exploration

To enable long-term manned space exploration, there are critical needs in oxygen and water for life support, electrical power for on-board operation, and in situ generation of propellants for ascent vehicles. Low temperature electrochemical devices have been developed and utilized for on-board oxygen and power generation in several manned space programs. High temperature solid oxide cell technology offers unique advantages for future space missions. This perspective highlights recent advances in solid oxide cell technology that make it feasible for adoption in aerospace applications and outlines the projected needs in future research and development to better support space exploration

solid oxide↗
NASA NTRS2010

Parametric Analysis of Life Support Systems for Future Space Exploration Missions

Having adopted a flexible path approach to space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is in a process of evaluating future targets for space exploration. In order to maintain the welfare of a crew during future missions, a suite of life support technology is responsible for oxygen and water generation, carbon dioxide control, the removal of trace concentrations of organic contaminants, processing and recovery of water, and the storage and reclamation of solid waste. For each particular life support subsystem, a variety competing technologies either exist or are under aggressive development efforts. Each individual technology has strengths and weaknesses with regard to launch mass, power and cooling requirements, volume of hardware and consumables, and crew time requirements for operation. However, from a system level perspective, the favorability of each life support architecture is better assessed when the sub-system technologies are analyzed in aggregate. In order to evaluate each specific life support system architecture, the measure of equivalent system mass (ESM) was employed to benchmark system favorability. Moreover, the results discussed herein will be from the context of loop-closure with respect to the air, water, and waste sub-systems. Specifically, closure relates to the amount of consumables mass that crosses the boundary of the vehicle over the lifetime of a mission. As will be demonstrated in this manuscript, the optimal level of loop closure is heavily dependent upon mission requirements such as duration and the level of extra- vehicular activity (EVA) performed. Sub-system level trades were also considered as a function of mission duration to assess when increased loop closure is practical. Although many additional factors will likely merit consideration in designing life support systems for future missions, the ESM results described herein provide a context for future architecture design decisions toward a flexible path program.

Swickrath, Michael J.↗
NASA NTRS2025

Potential Health Impacts, Treatments, and Countermeasures of Martian Dust on Future Human Space Exploration

The challenges of human space exploration produce some of humanity’s greatest technological and scientific advances, not excluding innovations in medicine. The microgravity environment causes a whole host of physiological changes, and exposure to dust on the Moon caused considerable pulmonary distress to astronauts during the Apollo missions. As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)and other space organizations prepare for long duration exploration missions to Mars, the hazards and consequences of the Martian surface need to be accounted for. This review investigates how substances analogous to the hazardous components of Martian dust have caused disease in people on Earth. Because of the small grain size of Martian dust, dust on Mars is more likely to cause lung irritation, absorb into the bloodstream, and lead to diseases in astronauts. Toxic components of Martian dust to astronaut health include perchlorates, silica, nanophase iron oxides, and gypsum in addition to trace amounts of toxic metals whose abundances are debated: chromium, beryllium, arsenic, and cadmium. Predicted effects of dust exposure ranges from asymptomatic to life threatening, with many substances being carcinogenic and most damage impacting the pulmonary system. The longer transit time for astronauts to return home makes the operations of performing emergency medical treatment more difficult and increases both the likelihood and consequences of developing chronic disease. Exposure mitigation needs to be prioritized; however, supplements may be taken to prevent disease from breakthrough exposures and treatment regimens could lessen morbidity and mortality. Treatments and equipment need to be carefully thought out and transported with the astronauts to be prepared for all possible scenarios.

Justin L Wang↗
NASA NTRS2005

Materials Challenges in Space Exploration

The new vision of space exploration encompasses a broad range of human and robotic missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond. Extended human space travel requires high reliability and high performance systems for propulsion, vehicle structures, thermal and radiation protection, crew habitats and health monitoring. Advanced materials and processing technologies are necessary to meet the exploration mission requirements. Materials and processing technologies must be sufficiently mature before they can be inserted into a development program leading to an exploration mission. Exploration will be more affordable by in-situ utilization of materials on the Moon and Mars.

Vickers, John↗
NASA NTRS2005

Air and Water System (AWS) Design and Technology Selection for the Vision for Space Exploration

This paper considers technology selection for the crew air and water recycling systems to be used in long duration human space exploration. The specific objectives are to identify the most probable air and water technologies for the vision for space exploration and to identify the alternate technologies that might be developed. The approach is to conduct a preliminary first cut systems engineering analysis, beginning with the Air and Water System (AWS) requirements and the system mass balance, and then define the functional architecture, review the International Space Station (ISS) technologies, and discuss alternate technologies. The life support requirements for air and water are well known. The results of the mass flow and mass balance analysis help define the system architectural concept. The AWS includes five subsystems: Oxygen Supply, Condensate Purification, Urine Purification, Hygiene Water Purification, and Clothes Wash Purification. AWS technologies have been evaluated in the life support design for ISS node 3, and in earlier space station design studies, in proposals for the upgrade or evolution of the space station, and in studies of potential lunar or Mars missions. The leading candidate technologies for the vision for space exploration are those planned for Node 3 of the ISS. The ISS life support was designed to utilize Space Station Freedom (SSF) hardware to the maximum extent possible. The SSF final technology selection process, criteria, and results are discussed. Would it be cost-effective for the vision for space exploration to develop alternate technology? This paper will examine this and other questions associated with AWS design and technology selection.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2013

Development and Execution of Autonomous Procedures Onboard the International Space Station to Support the Next Phase of Human Space Exploration

Now that major assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) is complete, NASA's focus has turned to using this high fidelity in-space research testbed to not only advance fundamental science research, but also demonstrate and mature technologies and develop operational concepts that will enable future human exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. The ISS as a Testbed for Analog Research (ISTAR) project was established to reduce risks for manned missions to exploration destinations by utilizing ISS as a high fidelity micro-g laboratory to demonstrate technologies, operations concepts, and techniques associated with crew autonomous operations. One of these focus areas is the development and execution of ISS Testbed for Analog Research (ISTAR) autonomous flight crew procedures intended to increase crew autonomy that will be required for long duration human exploration missions. Due to increasing communications delays and reduced logistics resupply, autonomous procedures are expected to help reduce crew reliance on the ground flight control team, increase crew performance, and enable the crew to become more subject-matter experts on both the exploration space vehicle systems and the scientific investigation operations that will be conducted on a long duration human space exploration mission. These tests make use of previous or ongoing projects tested in ground analogs such as Research and Technology Studies (RATS) and NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO). Since the latter half of 2012, selected non-critical ISS systems crew procedures have been used to develop techniques for building ISTAR autonomous procedures, and ISS flight crews have successfully executed them without flight controller involvement. Although the main focus has been preparing for exploration, the ISS has been a beneficiary of this synergistic effort and is considering modifying additional standard ISS procedures that may increase crew efficiency, reduce operational costs, and raise the amount of crew time available for scientific research. The next phase of autonomous procedure development is expected to include payload science and human research investigations. Additionally, ISS International Partners have expressed interest in participating in this effort. The recently approved one-year crew expedition starting in 2015, consisting of one Russian and one U.S. Operating Segment (USOS) crewmember, will be used not only for long duration human research investigations but also for the testing of exploration operations concepts, including crew autonomy.

beyond low earth orbit (BLEO)↗
NASA NTRS2004

Low Gravity Materials Science Research for Space Exploration

On January 14, 2004, the President of the United States announced a new vision for the United States civil space program. The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has the responsibility to implement this new vision. The President also created a Presidential Commission 'to obtain recommendations concerning implementation of the new vision for space exploration.' The President's Commission recognized that achieving the exploration objectives would require significant technical innovation, research, and development in focal areas defined as 'enabling technologies.' Among the 17 enabling technologies identified for initial focus were advanced structures; advanced power and propulsion; closed-loop life support and habitability; extravehicular activity system; autonomous systems and robotics; scientific data collection and analysis; biomedical risk mitigation; and planetary in situ resource utilization. The Commission also recommended realignment of NASA Headquarters organizations to support the vision for space exploration. NASA has aggressively responded in its planning to support the vision for space exploration and with the current considerations of the findings and recommendations from the Presidential Commission. This presentation will examine the transformation and realignment activities to support the vision for space exploration that are underway in the microgravity materials science program. The heritage of the microgravity materials science program, in the context of residence within the organizational structure of the Office of Biological and Physical Research, and thematic and sub-discipline based research content areas, will be briefly examined as the starting point for the ongoing transformation. Overviews of future research directions will be presented and the status of organizational restructuring at NASA Headquarters, with respect to influences on the microgravity materials science program, will be discussed. Additional information is included in the original extended abstract.

Clinton, R. G., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2012

The Role of Cis-Lunar Space in Future Global Space Exploration

Cis-lunar space offers affordable near-term opportunities to help pave the way for future global human exploration of deep space, acting as a bridge between present missions and future deep space missions. While missions in cis-lunar space have value unto themselves, they can also play an important role in enabling and reducing risk for future human missions to the Moon, Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs), Mars, and other deep space destinations. The Cis-Lunar Destination Team of NASA's Human Spaceflight Architecture Team (HAT) has been analyzing cis-lunar destination activities and developing notional missions (or "destination Design Reference Missions" [DRMs]) for cis-lunar locations to inform roadmap and architecture development, transportation and destination elements definition, operations, and strategic knowledge gaps. The cis-lunar domain is defined as that area of deep space under the gravitational influence of the earth-moon system. This includes a set of earth-centered orbital locations in low earth orbit (LEO), geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO), highly elliptical and high earth orbits (HEO), earth-moon libration or "Lagrange" points (E-ML1 through E-ML5, and in particular, E-ML1 and E-ML2), and low lunar orbit (LLO). To help explore this large possibility space, we developed a set of high level cis-lunar mission concepts in the form of a large mission tree, defined primarily by mission duration, pre-deployment, type of mission, and location. The mission tree has provided an overall analytical context and has helped in developing more detailed design reference missions that are then intended to inform capabilities, operations, and architectures. With the mission tree as context, we will describe two destination DRMs to LEO and GEO, based on present human space exploration architectural considerations, as well as our recent work on defining mission activities that could be conducted with an EML1 or EML2 facility, the latter of which will be an emphasis of this paper, motivated in part by recent interest expressed at the Global Exploration Roadmap Stakeholder meeting. This paper will also explore the links between this HAT Cis-Lunar Destination Team analysis and the recently released ISECG Global Exploration Roadmap and other potential international considerations, such as preventing harmful interference to radio astronomy observations in the shielded zone of the moon.

Bobskill, Marianne R.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Supporting Crew Autonomy in Deep Space Exploration: Preliminary Onboard Capability Requirements and Proposed Research Questions. Technical Report of the Autonomous Crew Operations Technical Interchange Meeting

Communication delays are a critical challenge posed by long duration deep space exploration. Space missions historically have relied on an ever-present Mission Control Center (MCC) to direct operations in near real-time. As unanticipated anomalies that defeat fault detection and resolution systems do arise, the lack of real-time communication will significantly weaken what the MCC support represents: a reliable safety net for the flight crew through its deep and diverse areas of expertise and investigative resources. As a consequence, future space vehicles and habitats need to be equipped with capabilities to support the flight crew to operate with little or no ground support. Considerations must be given to vehicle and mission designs that will fortify the traditionally ground-centered safety net and forge new support systems, when communication delays exist. In August 2018, NASA’s Human Research Program, through its Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element, convened a Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) on Autonomous Crew Operations at NASA Ames Research Center. The goal of the meeting was to gather input from NASA centers, industry, academia, and branches of the Department of Defense (DoD) to address how intelligent technologies can be applied to augment onboard capabilities to support crew anomaly response. The TIM featured 24 presentations by 29 speakers and hosted a total of 59 attendees, including 43 from 5 NASA centers (Ames, Johnson, Langley, Marshall, and Jet Propulsion Lab) and 4 from the DoD (3 from Army Research Lab and 1 from Naval Postgraduate School), with remaining attendees from academia (e.g., UC Davis, CMU) and industry (e.g., IBM, Siemens). Discussions were centered around three themes: standards and guidelines, lessons learned in analog environments, and technologies. To help provide a framework for discussion, a concept matrix describing anomaly response processes was created prior to the TIM (Figure 1, page 6). The matrix captures the steps involved (monitoring and detection, diagnosis, solution development and evaluation, solution implementation and verification, resolution documentation) as well as the resources and capabilities required to support these steps (data, knowledge, analysis, synthesis, resource management). A wallpaper size printout of the matrix was utilized at the TIM to solicit attendee inputs along the three themes; the activity garnered 108 submissions of ideas. Overall, what emerged from TIM discussions was a picture of mismatch between crew anomaly response needs and support that can be provided by existing intelligent technologies. The needs are broad, spanning multiple steps and processes/resources, with many of which lacking support from existing technologies, such as knowledge management throughout the steps of problem solving (especially in resolution documentation) and manpower management. The solutions provided by existing intelligent technologies are specific to the steps/processes that they are designed to support and constrained to solving only problems similar to those that have occurred before. What is lacking from technologies is typically made up by humans, specifically their complex critical thinking, creative problem solving, and domain expertise. In the end, the TIM highlighted the pressing need to support responses to onboard anomalies during autonomous crew operations, particularly those that have eluded the system tests, inspection, and other assurance processes. Such anomalies can potentially threaten crew and vehicle safety, as well as significantly impact overall operations with additional workload. These fairly rare events are difficult to anticipate and prepare for, given the state-of-the-art in intelligent technologies. This is true even for anomalies that stem from “unknown knowns”—cases in which there is sufficient external information to characterize the problem but the overall pattern fails to be recognized by the problem solver, or in which the internal knowledge needed to solve a problem is held tacitly and potentially accessible by the problem solver but not articulated. It follows that the ability to tackle anomalies lies not only with the availability of relevant information and knowledge but also their accessibility in times of need. To that end, we propose research questions along the following three broad themes: • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information available? • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information accessible? • How intelligent technologies can help support the crew operating as a team in anomaly response processes?

autonomous crew operations↗