SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “surface science”
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.
The Integration of Science Into Artemis Surface Mission Planning: Lessons Learned from the JETT3 Artemis Mission Simulation
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Space Weathering Impact on Solar System Surfaces and Planetary Mission Science
We often look "through a glass, darkly" at solar system bodies with tenuous atmospheres and direct surface exposure to the local space environment. Space weathering exposure acts via universal space-surface interaction processes to produce a thin patina of outer material covering, potentially obscuring endogenic surface materials of greatest interest for understanding origins and interior evolution. Examples of obscuring exogenic layers are radiation crusts on cometary nuclei and iogenic components of sulfate hydrate deposits on the trailing hemisphere of Europa. Weathering processes include plasma ion implantation into surfaces, sputtering by charged particles and solar ultraviolet photons, photolytic chemistry driven by UV irradiation, and radiolytic chemistry evolving from products of charged particle irradiation. Regolith structure from impacts, and underlying deeper structures from internal evolution, affects efficacy of certain surface interactions, e.g. sputtering as affected by porosity and surface irradiation dosage as partly attenuated by local topographic shielding. These processes should be regarded for mission science planning as potentially enabling, e.g. since direct surface sputtering, and resultant surface-bound exospheres, can provide in-situ samples of surface composition to ion and neutral mass spectrometers on orbital spacecraft. Sample return for highest sensitivity compOSitional and structural analyses at Earth will usually be precluded by limited range of surface sampling, long times for return, and high cost. Targeted advancements in instrument technology would be more cost efficient for local remote and in-situ sample analysis. More realistic laboratory simulations, e.g. for bulk samples, are needed to interpret mission science observations of weathered surfaces. Space environment effects on mission spacecraft and science operations must also be specified and mitigated from the hourly to monthly changes in space weather and from longer term (e.g., solar cycle) evolution of space climate. Capable instrumentation on planetary missions can and should be planned to contribute to knowledge of interplanetary space environments. Evolving data system technologies such as virtual observatories should be explored for more interdisciplinary application to the science of planetary surface, atmospheric, magnetospheric, and interplanetary interactions.
The Role of the Exploration Science Officer in Lunar Surface Operations
A review has been performed of exploration science and payload operations during the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs to extract information of potential usefulness to the Constellation program. That work has resulted in creation of the concept for a unique type of flight controller: the exploration science officer. The controller s primary responsibility is to integrate the tasks and goals of the spacecraft flight control team and the science team in order to maximize science return while maximizing crew safety. Far from being just a mouthpiece for either team, this individual must be fluent in the knowledge and language of two communities: spacecraft operations and planetary science. Responsibilities begin during the requirements phase of vehicle and lunar surface systems development and continue through development, training, planning, mission execution, and post-flight mission phases.
Notional Habitat Science Outfitting for a Lunar Surface Habitat or Mars Transit Habitat
Science outfitting is often given insufficient treatment in the development of early conceptual studies for lunar surface habitats. In some cases, only control masses and volumes are used as placeholders. In others, one science discipline may be given detailed treatment while others are largely ignored. It is not unheard of for science outfitting to be entirely forgotten in initial concept layouts. This is exacerbated by the reality that spacecraft design studies are often initiated long before science objectives have been established for any given human spaceflight destination. When those objectives later emerge, they can be difficult to accommodate if sizing studies did not allocate sufficient resources for them. A notional science outfitting can be created for virtually any human exploration habitat, however, utilizing data created by the International Space Station and Constellation programs. Biology, human research, physics, and geology science laboratories and a general-purpose work area for a lunar surface habitat will be derived using equipment identified by the Constellation-era Optimizing Science and Exploration Working Group (OSEWG) or flown on the International Space Station. Early science outfitting definition and inclusion in surface habitat sizing is critical for developing an exploration architecture that meets science needs. The mass, volume, power, and use cases associated with these notional laboratories impacts all of the habitat subsystems, habitat dimensions, hatch dimensions, logistics operations, launch vehicles and landers.
Life Sciences Implications of Lunar Surface Operations
The purpose of this report is to document preliminary, predicted, life sciences implications of expected operational concepts for lunar surface extravehicular activity (EVA). Algorithms developed through simulation and testing in lunar analog environments were used to predict crew metabolic rates and ground reaction forces experienced during lunar EVA. Subsequently, the total metabolic energy consumption, the daily bone load stimulus, total oxygen needed, and other variables were calculated and provided to Human Research Program and Exploration Systems Mission Directorate stakeholders. To provide context to the modeling, the report includes an overview of some scenarios that have been considered. Concise descriptions of the analog testing and development of the algorithms are also provided. This document may be updated to remain current with evolving lunar or other planetary surface operations, assumptions and concepts, and to provide additional data and analyses collected during the ongoing analog research program.
A conceptual venus rover mission using advanced radioisotope power system
The primary goal of this study is to examine the feasibility of using the novel Advanced RPS-driven Stirling thermoacoustic system to enable extended science operations in the extremely hostile surface environment of Venus. The mission concept entails landing a rover onto the Venus surface, conducting science measurements in different areas on the surface, and returning the science data to Earth. The study focused on developing a rover design to satisfy the science goals with the capability to operate for 60 days. This mission life influences several design parameters, including Earth elevation angle and the maximum communications range to Earth.
Plasma IMS Composition Measurements for Europa and the Other Galilean Moons
NASA and ESA are planning the joint Europa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM) to the Jupiter system with specific emphasis to Europa and Ganymede, respectively. The Japanese Space Agency is also planning an orbiter mission to explore Jupiter's magnetosphere and the Galilean satellites. For NASA's Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO) we are developing the 3D Ion Mass Spectrometer (IMS) with two main goals which can also be applied to the other Galilean moons, 1) measure the plasma interaction between Europa and Jupiter's magnetosphere and 2) infer the 4 pi surface composition to trace elemental and significant isotopic levels. The first goal supports the magnetometer (MAG) measurements, primarily directed at detection of Europa's sub-surface ocean, while the second gives information about transfer of material between the Galilean moons, and between the moon surfaces and subsurface layers putatively including oceans. The measurement of the interactions for all the Galilean moons can be used to trace the in situ ion measurements of pickup ions back to either Europa's or Ganymede's surface from the respectively orbiting spacecraft. The IMS instrument, being developed under NASA's Astrobiology Instrument Development Program, would maximally achieve plasma measurement requirements for JEO and EJSM while moving forward our knowledge of Jupiter system composition and source processes to far higher levels than previously envisaged. The composition of the global surfaces of Europa and Ganymede can be inferred from the measurement of ejected neutrals and pick-up ions using at minimum an in situ payload including MAG and IMS also fully capable of meeting Level 1 mission requirements for ocean detection and survey. Elemental and isotopic analysis of potentially extruded oceanic materials at the moon surfaces would further support the ocean objectives. These measurements should be made from a polar orbiting spacecraft about Europa or Ganymede at height 100 km. The ejecta produced by sputtering of the surfaces of Europa and Ganymede has been shown to be representative of the surface composition. Level 2 science on surface geology and composition can then be further enhanced by addition of the following: 3D Ion Neutral Mass Spectrometer (INNS), 3D plasma electron spectrometer (ELS), and hot plasma energetic particle instrument. The measurement approach is to alternate between times measuring pickup ions and times measuring plasma and magnetic field parameters along the spacecraft trajectory. By measuring the pickup ion energy, arrival direction and mass-per-charge, the ion can be traced back along the ejection trajectory to the approximate area of origin if the 3-D electric field and magnetic field are known. In situ observations of plasma flow velocities and vector magnetic fields can be used to determine the local convective electric field (E = -VXB) along the spacecraft trajectory. By combining this information with models of the magnetospheric interaction with Europa, one can generate 3D maps of the electric and magnetic field and compute the trajectories of the pickup ions back to the surface or exospheric points of origin. In the case of Ganymede there is the additional complexity of its own internal dipole magnetic field, while Io's volcanic activity introduces the complexity of a highly structured denser atmosphere. Callisto with its less globally extended exosphere will have a simpler interaction than for Europa (i.e., more like our moon). We will discuss these differences in light of the above proposed technique. Finally, the INNS observations and neutral exosphere models are needed to estimate production rates of pickup ions. The hot plasma measurements are needed to correct for sputtering rates which can be time dependent and electron plasma observations for electron impact ionization rates. Instrument characteristics, field-of-view requirements, modes of operation and effects of radiation on instrument functionality will be discussed.
An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration
Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.
Surface Modeling and Grid Generation of Orbital Sciences X34 Vehicle
The surface modeling and grid generation requirements, motivations, and methods used to develop Computational Fluid Dynamic volume grids for the X34-Phase 1 are presented. The requirements set forth by the Aerothermodynamics Branch at the NASA Langley Research Center serve as the basis for the final techniques used in the construction of all volume grids, including grids for parametric studies of the X34. The Integrated Computer Engineering and Manufacturing code for Computational Fluid Dynamics (ICEM/CFD), the Grid Generation code (GRIDGEN), the Three-Dimensional Multi-block Advanced Grid Generation System (3DMAGGS) code, and Volume Grid Manipulator (VGM) code are used to enable the necessary surface modeling, surface grid generation, volume grid generation, and grid alterations, respectively. All volume grids generated for the X34, as outlined in this paper, were used for CFD simulations within the Aerothermodynamics Branch.
The Mars Curiosity Rover Mission: Remotely Operating a Science Laboratory on the Surface of Another Planet
No abstract available
Managing Science Operations during Planetary Surface Operations at Long Light Delay-Time Targets: The 2011 Desert RATS Test
Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) is a multi-year series of hardware and operations tests carried out annually in the high desert of Arizona in the San Francisco Volcanic Field. Conducted since 1997, these activities are designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where multi-day tests are achievable. Desert RATS 2011 Science Operations Test simulated the management of crewed science operations at targets that were beyond the light delay time experienced during Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) and lunar surface missions, such as a mission to a Near-Earth Object (NEO) or the martian surface. Operations at targets at these distances are likely to be the norm as humans move out of the Earth-Moon system. Operating at these distances places significant challenges on mission operations, as the imposed light-delay time makes normal, two-way conversations extremely inefficient. Consequently, the operations approach for space missions that has been exercised during the first half-century of human space operations is no longer viable, and new approaches must be devised.
Lessons Learned in Science Operations for Planetary Surface Exploration
The six Apollo lunar surface missions represent the only occasions where we have conducted scientific operations on another planetary surface. While these six missions were successful in bringing back valuable geologic samples, technology advances in the subsequent forty years have enabled much higher resolution scientific activity in situ. Regardless of where astronauts next visit (whether it be back to the Moon or to Mars or a Near Earth Object), the science operations procedures completed during this mission will need to be refined and updated to reflect these advances. We have undertaken a series of operational tests in relevant field environments to understand how best to develop the new generation of science operations procedures for planetary surface exploration.
Science Operations on the Lunar Surface - Understanding the Past, Testing in the Present, Considering the Future
The scientific success of any future human lunar exploration mission will be strongly dependent on design of both the systems and operations practices that underpin crew operations on the lunar surface. Inept surface mission preparation and design will either ensure poor science return, or will make achieving quality science operation unacceptably difficult for the crew and the mission operations and science teams. In particular, ensuring a robust system for managing real-time science information flow during surface operations, and ensuring the crews receive extensive field training in geological sciences, are as critical to mission success as reliable spacecraft and a competent operations team.
A Dual Launch Robotic and Human Lunar Mission Architecture
This paper describes a comprehensive lunar exploration architecture developed by Marshall Space Flight Center's Advanced Concepts Office that features a science-based surface exploration strategy and a transportation architecture that uses two launches of a heavy lift launch vehicle to deliver human and robotic mission systems to the moon. The principal advantage of the dual launch lunar mission strategy is the reduced cost and risk resulting from the development of just one launch vehicle system. The dual launch lunar mission architecture may also enhance opportunities for commercial and international partnerships by using expendable launch vehicle services for robotic missions or development of surface exploration elements. Furthermore, this architecture is particularly suited to the integration of robotic and human exploration to maximize science return. For surface operations, an innovative dual-mode rover is presented that is capable of performing robotic science exploration as well as transporting human crew conducting surface exploration. The dual-mode rover can be deployed to the lunar surface to perform precursor science activities, collect samples, scout potential crew landing sites, and meet the crew at a designated landing site. With this approach, the crew is able to evaluate the robotically collected samples to select the best samples for return to Earth to maximize the scientific value. The rovers can continue robotic exploration after the crew leaves the lunar surface. The transportation system for the dual launch mission architecture uses a lunar-orbit-rendezvous strategy. Two heavy lift launch vehicles depart from Earth within a six hour period to transport the lunar lander and crew elements separately to lunar orbit. In lunar orbit, the crew transfer vehicle docks with the lander and the crew boards the lander for descent to the surface. After the surface mission, the crew returns to the orbiting transfer vehicle for the return to the Earth. This paper describes a complete transportation architecture including the analysis of transportation element options and sensitivities including: transportation element mass to surface landed mass; lander propellant options; and mission crew size. Based on this analysis, initial design concepts for the launch vehicle, crew module and lunar lander are presented. The paper also describes how the dual launch lunar mission architecture would fit into a more general overarching human space exploration philosophy that would allow expanded application of mission transportation elements for missions beyond the Earth-moon realm.
Experiment 5: Science and Technology of Surface Controlled Oscillations: Report on USML-2 Results
Minuscule amounts (e.g., 1 part in 10,000) of a surface-active material in a liquid can drastically affect the surface behavior of the liquid, influencing how the material flows and mixes with other liquid and solid materials. In many respects, the science of surfactants has been empirical, with trial and error dominating over the ability to predict how surfactant type and concentration influence surface behavior. A program for the modeling of surfactant behavior has been established at Yale. This program combines experimental work performed both on the ground and in space, and theoretical and numerical modeling. By levitating a drop of liquid in air, away from solid container surfaces, and by manipulating the drop with acoustic radiation forces, we have been able to establish idealized conditions for surface behavior studies. The primary experiments involve the study of the free oscillations of initially deformed drops. In STS-73, the USML-2 mission of the Space Shuttle, we performed the following measurements: 1) the oscillation of a spherical drop in its quadrupole mode; 2) the oscillation of a drop about a deformed (oblate) shape; 3) the slow static squeezing of the drop from spherical to nearly flat; and 4) the superoscillations of drops when the radiation forces maintaining the drop in a flattened state are suddenly reduced. Analytic and numerical studies have enabled us to understand the physics of these oscillations and to extract material properties such as the dynamic surface tension and the surface viscosities (shear and dilatational). The relation to ground-based studies is essential, because the knowledge and understanding gleaned from our space studies enable us to interpret ground-based data.
Managing Science Operations During Planetary Surface: The 2010 Desert RATS Test
Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) is a multi-year series of hardware and operations tests carried out annually in the high desert of Arizona on the San Francisco Volcanic Field. Conducted since 1997, these activities are designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where long-distance, multi-day roving is achievable. Such activities not only test vehicle subsystems through extended rough-terrain driving, they also stress communications and operations systems and allow testing of science operations approaches to advance human and robotic surface capabilities. Desert RATS is a venue where new ideas can be tested, both individually and as part of an operation with multiple elements. By conducting operations over multiple yearly cycles, ideas that make the cut can be iterated and tested during follow-on years. This ultimately gives both the hardware and the personnel experience in the kind of multi-element integrated operations that will be necessary in future human planetary exploration.
Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) 2010 Science Operations: Operational Approaches and Lessons Learned for Managing Science during Human Planetary Surface Missions
Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) is a multi-year series of hardware and operations tests carried out annually in the high desert of Arizona on the San Francisco Volcanic Field. These activities are designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where long-distance, multi-day roving is achievable, and they allow NASA to evaluate different mission concepts and approaches in an environment less costly and more forgiving than space.The results from the RATS tests allows election of potential operational approaches to planetary surface exploration prior to making commitments to specific flight and mission hardware development. In previous RATS operations, the Science Support Room has operated largely in an advisory role, an approach that was driven by the need to provide a loose science mission framework that would underpin the engineering tests. However, the extensive nature of the traverse operations for 2010 expanded the role of the science operations and tested specific operational approaches. Science mission operations approaches from the Apollo and Mars-Phoenix missions were merged to become the baseline for this test. Six days of traverse operations were conducted during each week of the 2-week test, with three traverse days each week conducted with voice and data communications continuously available, and three traverse days conducted with only two 1-hour communications periods per day. Within this framework, the team evaluated integrated science operations management using real-time, tactical science operations to oversee daily crew activities, and strategic level evaluations of science data and daily traverse results during a post-traverse planning shift. During continuous communications, both tactical and strategic teams were employed. On days when communications were reduced to only two communications periods per day, only a strategic team was employed. The Science Operations Team found that, if communications are good and down-linking of science data is ensured, high quality science returns is possible regardless of communications. What is absent from reduced communications is the scientific interaction between the crew on the planet and the scientists on the ground. These scientific interactions were a critical part of the science process and significantly improved mission science return over reduced communications conditions. The test also showed that the quality of science return is not measurable by simple numerical quantities but is, in fact, based on strongly non-quantifiable factors, such as the interactions between the crew and the Science Operations Teams. Although the metric evaluation data suggested some trends, there was not sufficient granularity in the data or specificity in the metrics to allow those trends to be understood on numerical data alone.