SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Return Period”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

1,491 records · Page 83

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the moon and eventually enable a human Mars mission. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the crew health and performance (CHP) research and technology development (R&D) necessary to enable these future missions. These organizations include flight programs as well as other organizations such as the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), Human Research Program, Space Technology Mission Directorate, and System Capability Leadership Teams, each of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for the management of risks and strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA for identifying and prioritizing R&D needs. Alignment and evolution of these strategic planning constructs is ongoing and will allow for alignment and traceability between M2M objectives and R&D investments at a detailed level. While this reorganization is ongoing, and even after it is established, there is a recognized need among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&D priorities in a unified and digestible way that synthesizes the considerations and perspectives of the CHP community across NASA. To achieve this, the HMTA facilitated a series of group discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, which culminated in a product identifying the eight highest priority mission-enabling CHP capabilities for human missions to Mars, referred to as the “Top Human System Capability Needs for Mars”. The list includes Earth-Independent Human Operations; Mars Duration Food System; Mars Duration Effects on Human Physiology; Risks Mitigations for Vehicle Atmospheres; Computational Injury & Anthropometric Models; Exploration Exercise Countermeasures; Individual Variability in Responses to Spaceflight; and Sensorimotor Countermeasures. Existing strategic planning and risk management tools and processes were considered, as well as practicalities of technical, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&D risk mitigations and technology solutions. The product is not owned by any one organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. It is anticipated that this list will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&D progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

Life Support↗

DOE OSTI2012

Renewal of Collaborative Research: Economically Viable Forest Harvesting Practices That Increase Carbon Sequestration

Forests provide wildlife habitat, water and air purification, climate moderation, and timber and nontimber products. Concern about climate change has put forests in the limelight as sinks of atmospheric carbon. The C stored in the global vegetation, mostly in forests, is nearly equivalent to the amount present in atmospheric CO 2 . Both voluntary and government-mandated carbon trading markets are being developed and debated, some of which include C sequestration resulting from forest management as a possible tradeable commodity. However, uncertainties regarding sources of variation in sequestration rates, validation, and leakage remain significant challenges for devising strategies to include forest management in C markets. Hence, the need for scientifically-based information on C sequestration by forest management has never been greater. The consequences of forest management on the US carbon budget are large, because about two-thirds of the ≈300 million hectare US forest resource is classified as 'commercial forest.' In most C accounting budgets, forest harvesting is usually considered to cause a net release of C from the terrestrial biosphere to the atmosphere. However, forest management practices could be designed to meet the multiple goals of providing wood and paper products, creating economic returns from natural resources, while sequestering C from the atmosphere. The shelterwood harvest strategy, which removes about 30% of the basal area of the overstory trees in each of three successive harvests spread out over thirty years as part of a stand rotation of 60-100 years, may improve net C sequestration compared to clear-cutting because: (1) the average C stored on the land surface over a rotation increases, (2) harvesting only overstory trees means that a larger fraction of the harvested logs can be used for long-lived sawtimber products, compared to more pulp resulting from clearcutting, (3) the shelterwood cut encourages growth of subcanopy trees by opening up the forest canopy to increasing light penetration. Decomposition of onsite harvest slash and of wastes created during timber processing releases CO 2 to the atmosphere, thus offsetting some of the C sequestered in vegetation. Decomposition of soil C and dead roots may also be temporarily stimulated by increased light penetration and warming of the forest floor. Quantification of these processes and their net effect is needed. We began studying C sequestration in a planned shelterwood harvest at the Howland Forest in central Maine in 2000. The harvest took place in 2002 by the International Paper Corporation, who assisted us to track the fates of harvest products (Scott et al., 2004, Environmental Management 33: S9-S22). Here we present the results of intensive on-site studies of the decay of harvest slash, soil respiration, growth of the remaining trees, and net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO 2 during the first six years following the harvest. These results are combined with calculations of C in persisting off-site harvest products to estimate the net C consequences to date of this commercial shelterwood harvest operation. Tower-based eddy covariance is an ideal method for this study, as it integrates all C fluxes in and out of the forest over a large 'footprint' area and can reveal how the net C flux, as well as gross primary productivity and respiration, change following harvest. Because the size of this experiment precludes large-scale replication, we are use a paired-airshed approach, similar to classic large-scale paired watershed experiments. Measurements of biomass and C fluxes in control and treatment stands were compared during a pre-treatment calibration period, and then divergence from pre-treatment relationships between the two sites measured after the harvest treatment. Forests store carbon (C) as they accumulate biomass. Many forests are also commercial sources of timber and wood fiber. In most C accounting budgets, forest harvesting is usually considered to cause a net release of C from the terrestrial biosphere to the atmosphere. However, it might also be possible for commercial use of forests to contribute to terrestrial sequestration of C. The objective of the our research project is to determine whether shelterwood cutting regimes now being adopted in the commercial forests of Maine and other areas of the country can achieve these multiple goals.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

NASA NTRS2012

Missions to Near-Earth Asteroids: Implications for Exploration, Science, Resource Utilization, and Planetary Defense

Introduction: In 2009 the Augustine Commission identified near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) as high profile destinations for human exploration missions beyond the Earth-Moon system as part of the Flexible Path. More recently the U.S. presidential administration directed NASA to include NEAs as destinations for future human exploration with the goal of sending astronauts to a NEA in the mid to late 2020s. This directive became part of the official National Space Policy of the United States of America as of June 28, 2010. NEA Space-Based Survey and Robotic Precursor Missions: The most suitable targets for human missions are NEAs in Earth-like orbits with long synodic periods. However, these mission candidates are often not observable from Earth until the timeframe of their most favorable human mission opportunities, which does not provide an appropriate amount of time for mission development. A space-based survey telescope could more efficiently find these targets in a timely, affordable manner. Such a system is not only able to discover new objects, but also track and characterize objects of interest for human space flight consideration. Those objects with characteristic signatures representative of volatile-rich or metallic materials will be considered as top candidates for further investigation due to their potential for resource utilization and scientific discovery. Once suitable candidates have been identified, precursor spacecraft are required to perform basic reconnaissance of a few NEAs under consideration for the human-led mission. Robotic spacecraft will assess targets for potential hazards that may pose a risk to the deep space transportation vehicle, its deployable assets, and the crew. Additionally, the information obtained about the NEA's basic physical characteristics will be crucial for planning operational activities, designing in-depth scientific/engineering investigations, and identifying sites on the NEA for sample collection. Human Exploration Considerations: These missions would be the first human expeditions to interplanetary bodies beyond the Earth-Moon system and would prove useful for testing technologies required for human missions to Mars, Phobos and Deimos, and other Solar System destinations. Current analyses of operational concepts suggest that stay times of 15 to 30 days may be possible at a NEA with total mission duration limits of 180 days or less. Hence, these missions would undoubtedly provide a great deal of technical and engineering data on spacecraft operations for future human space exploration while simultaneously conducting detailed investigations of these primitive objects with instruments and equipment that exceed the mass and power capabilities delivered by robotic spacecraft. All of these activities will be vital for refinement of resource characterization/identification and development of extraction/utilization technologies to be used on airless bodies under low- or micro-gravity conditions. In addition, gaining enhanced understanding of a NEA s geotechnical properties and its gross internal structure will assist the development of hazard mitigation techniques for planetary defense. Conclusions: The scientific, resource utilization, and hazard mitigation benefits, along with the programmatic and operational benefits of a human venture beyond the Earth-Moon system, make a piloted sample return mission to a NEA using NASA s proposed human exploration systems a compelling endeavor.

Abell, P. A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities

Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships [1]. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach [2]. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface [3], is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration [4]. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life [5]. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface [6]. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission [5]. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. Table 1 Notional ECLSS consumables per mission use for SH and TH [5]. SH (28-day) Open Loop: Water (kg) 288 | Oxygen (kg) 30 TH (1110-day) Closed-Loop: Water (kg) 182 | Oxygen (kg) 123 In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project [7]. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.

habitation↗

DOE OSTI2018

Managing Through Continuous Improvement: If it doesn’t challenge you, it won’t change you

The past 24 months has been one of non-stop continuous improvement – every month, every week, every day, and every hour. It has been filled with continuously re-examining and challenging business systems, work processes, and legacy culture. The journey was difficult, but well worth it. It began by examining the existing conditions in each organization and building the case for change. When we stepped back and looked at our processes, systems, tools, and performance objectively, we realized we were struggling with frequent organizational, resource, and schedule conflicts, work processes that were not well-defined or expert based, project delays were common, management methods were predominantly reactive, advanced planning was limited to the near-term, no integration in scheduling across organizations, limited to no performance metrics to measure and manage performance, and internal and external customers did not feel like we were meeting their quality and performance expectations. It was a wake-up call. Change began at the top with a change leadership with where a new vision, expectations, and commitment were established. Leaving no stone left unturned, every aspect of the business was challenged which opened up communication and exposed the gaps. This was done in a ‘safe’ environment allowing for honest and solution-oriented discussion and action. The leadership team committed to managing through continuous improvement. The organizational structure was realigned to better align scope, responsibilities, execution, and customer focus. Visibility and transparency became the norm as higher levels of leadership and supporting organizations were invited to be part of regular strategy meetings and partnership discussion, effectively opening up the dialogue. This required a tremendous amount of trust and faith in a short period of time. Health assessments were conducted on each organization with specific lines of inquiry. These self-assessments helped to identify better define the scope of the organization and where targeted improvements were needed. Frequent organizational reviews were implemented to answer three fundamental questions: 1) What is your organization paid to do (scope)?, 2) How does your organization, or you, demonstrate that you are doing the job effectively?, and 3) What are you doing to improve your performance? To answer the first question, leaders defined the scope of the organization. Leaders were required to provide a path forward, with specific actions, where performance was not at expected levels internally at first and then from the stakeholders. Where business processes were not clearly understood, process maps were developed to provide this clarity for both those performing the work and those utilizing the process – the customers. To help answer the second question, numerous automated or semi-automated real-time, dynamic performance metrics were developed and implement to help leaders gain the visibility and demonstrate performance in six areas of operational excellence: safety, security, quality, effectiveness, productivity, and sustainability. Analysis of the performance provided windows of transparency and trends of work performance, work delays, cycle times, utilization, and much more that revealed many areas of improvement that were either not visible or desired to be visible. At the same time, they provided real-time progress which generated initial performance improvements by just beginning to measure. To address the third question, where systems did not support effectiveness of an existing or new process, then systems and tools were developed and implemented to drive the right behaviors and reinforce the processes. Tools and metrics were one of the major catalysts for culture shift and change. Risk assessments were leveraged into continuous improvement strategies, plans, and schedules. Targeted initiatives were identified and performed. Change and improvement was not, and is not, without significant and common challenges including limited/fixed budgets, resource availability, data access, natural resistance to change, and numerous other reasons or excuses – we called them ‘off-ramps’ and began to close them one-by-one. The results and outputs were significant and impactful in each organization and across the business with increased productivity, efficiency, visibility, accountability, management, and performance. Stakeholder satisfaction also increased. Cost and time savings allowed to more continuous improvement efforts to be performed. The effort clearly provided clear and measurable return on investment and value. Efforts that once seemed impossible, not feasible, or not achievable were performed. Decades-long issues were solved. ‘Impossible things are simply those which so far have never been done’ said Elbert Hubbard. So what will the next year be for you and your organization? Are you satisfied with the ‘same ‘ol, same ‘ol?’ Will you fall into the complacency trap and believe that change is too difficult, too expensive, and not necessary (or any number of possible excuses) or will you make this year your year or continuous improvement (and every year thereafter…)? Remember – what you do today can improve all your tomorrows’ (Ralph Marston).

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

NASA NTRS2006

Closure of Regenerative Life Support Systems: Results of the Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project

Future long duration human exploration missions away from Earth will require closed-loop regenerative life support systems to reduce launch mass, reduce dependency on resupply and increase the level of mission self sufficiency. Such systems may be based on the integration of biological and physiocochemical processes to produce potable water, breathable atmosphere and nutritious food from metabolic and other mission wastes. Over the period 1995 to 1998 a series of ground-based tests were conducted at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space Center, to evaluate the performance of advanced closed-loop life support technologies with real human metabolic and hygiene loads. Named the Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP), four integrated human tests were conducted with increasing duration, complexity and closure. The first test, LMLSTP Phase I, was designed to demonstrate the ability of higher plants to revitalize cabin atmosphere. A single crew member spent 15 days within an atmospherically closed chamber containing 11.2 square meters of actively growing wheat. Atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were maintained by control of the rate of photosynthesis through manipulation of light intensity or the availability of carbon dioxide and included integrated physicochemical systems. During the second and third tests, LMLSTP Phases II & IIa, four crew members spent 30 days and 60 days, respectively, in a larger sealed chamber. Advanced physicochemical life support hardware was used to regenerate the atmosphere and produce potable water from wastewater. Air revitalization was accomplished by using a molecular sieve and a Sabatier processor for carbon dioxide absorption and reduction, respectively, with oxygen generation performed by water hydrolysis. Production of potable water from wastewater included urine treatment (vapor compression distillation), primary treatment (ultrafiltration/reverse osmosis and multi-filtration) and post processing. For the Phase II test the water recovery rate ranged from 95 to 98%, depending on the processor. LMLSTP Phase III, the fourth test of the series, had a duration of 91 days and included four crew members. The test demonstrated an integration of physicochemical and biological technologies for air revitalization, water recovery and waste processing. Wheat supplemented the physicochemical air revitalization systems by providing approximately 25% of the oxygen required for the 4-person crew. The water recovery system included immobilized cell and trickling filter bioreactors for primary water treatment, reverse osmosis and air evaporation systems for secondary water treatment, followed by post processing. The 8 day initial supply of water was recycled through the chamber and crew 10 times over the course of the test. Grain from the wheat together with fresh lettuce from a small growth chamber within the crew chamber provided supplementation to the stored food system, but at a level less than 5% of the crew s caloric requirement. An incinerator was used to demonstrate mineralization of the crew s solid waste, with the combustion products (mainly carbon dioxide) returned to the wheat for conversion to oxygen.

Barta, Daniel↗

DOE OSTI2016

Two-Column Aerosol Project (TCAP) Field Campaign Report

This study included the deployment of the Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility’s Mobile Facility (AMF), ARM Mobile Aerosol Observing System (MAOS) and the ARM Aerial Facility (AAF). The study was a collaborative effort involving scientists from DOE national laboratories, NOAA, NASA, and universities. The AAF and MAOS were deployed for two approximately month-long Intensive Operational Periods (IOPs) conducted in June 2012 and February 2013. Seasonal differences in the aerosol chemical and optical properties observed using the AMF, AAF, and MAOS are presented in this report. The total mass loading of aerosol is found to be much greater in the summer than in the winter, with the difference associated with greater amounts of organic aerosol. The mass fraction of organic aerosol is much reduced in the winter, when sulfate is the dominant aerosol type. Surprisingly, very little sea-salt aerosol was observed in the summer. In contrast, much more sea salt aerosol was observed in the winter. The mass loading of black carbon is nearly the same in both seasons. These differences lead to a relative increase in the aerosol light absorption in the winter and an associated decrease in observed single-scattering albedo. Measurements of aerosol mixing state were made using a single-particle mass spectrometer, which showed that the majority of the summertime aerosol consisted of organic compounds mixed with various amounts of sulfate. A number of other findings are also summarized in the report, including: impact of aerosol layers aloft on the column aerosol optical depth; documentation of the aerosol properties at the AMF; differences in the aerosol properties associated with both columns, which are not systematic but reflect the complicated meteorological and chemical processes that impact aerosol as it is advected away from North America; and new instruments and data-processing techniques for measuring both aerosol and cloud properties that were deployed for the first time during the TCAP. Key lessons learned during TCAP include the need for closer coordination between the AMF, MAOS, and the AAF so that all AMF instruments can be online and functioning during the AAF IOPs. Based on experiences from TCAP, it is also important for instrument mentors, or other relevant individuals, to review data on a regular basis to ensure that data quality remains high during the entire deployment. TCAP was marked by two important meteorological events including the passage of Hurricane Sandy at the end of October 2012 and the occurrence of one of the largest New England blizzards in recorded history. During Sandy the AMF received some, generally minor, damage and was largely functional a short time after the storm. The blizzard led to extensive power outages on Cape Cod and a multi-day interruption of measurements by the AMF, MAOS, and AAF. In each case, however, the ARM Facilities were returned to service and functioning as soon as was reasonably possible.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Project 57 Air Monitoring Report: October 1, 2013, through December 31, 2014

On April 24, 1957, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, now the Department of Energy [DOE]) conducted the Project 57 safety experiment in western Emigrant Valley north east of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS, formerly the Nevada Test Site) on lands withdrawn by the Department of Defense (DoD) for the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). The test was undertaken to develop (1) a means of estimating plutonium distribution resulting from a nonnuclear detonation; (2) biomedical evaluation techniques for use in plutonium-laden environments; (3) methods of surface decontamination; and (4) instruments and field procedures for prompt estimation of alpha contamination (Shreve, 1958). Although the test did not result in the fission of nuclear materials, it did disseminate plutonium across the land surface. Following the experiment, the AEC fenced the contaminated area and returned control of the surrounding land to the DoD. Various radiological surveys have been performed in the area and in 2007, the DOE expanded the demarked contamination area by posting signs 200 to 400 feet (60 to 120 meters) outside of the original fence. Plutonium in soil is thought to attach preferentially to smaller particles. Therefore, redistribution of soil particulates by wind (dust) is the mechanism most likely to transport plutonium beyond the boundary of the Project 57 contamination area. In 2011, DRI installed two instrumentation towers to measure radiological, meteorological, and dust conditions. The monitoring activity was implemented to determine if radionuclide contamination was detectable in samples of airborne dust and characterize meteorological and environmental parameters that influence dust transport. Collected data also permits comparison of radiological conditions at the Project 57 monitoring stations to conditions observed at Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) stations around the NTTR. Biweekly samples of airborne particulates are submitted for laboratory assessment of gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity and for determination of gamma-emitting radionuclides. Annual average gross alpha values at the Project 57 monitoring stations are in the same range as the highest two values reported for the CEMP stations surrounding the NTTR. Annual average gross beta values at the Project 57 monitoring stations are slightly higher than the lowest value reported for the CEMP stations surrounding the NTTR. Gamma spectroscopy analyses on samples collected from the Project 57 stations identified only naturally occurring radionuclides. No manmade radionuclides were detected. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) indicated that the average annual radioactivity dose at the monitoring stations is higher than the dose determined at surrounding CEMP stations but approximately half of the estimated national average dose received by the general public as a result of exposure to natural sources. The TLDs at the Project 57 monitoring stations are exposed to both natural sources (terrestrial and cosmic) and radioactive releases from the Project 57 contamination area. These comparisons show that the gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma spectroscopy levels at the Project 57 monitoring stations are similar to levels observed at the CEMP stations but that the average annual dose rate is higher than at the CEMP stations. Winds in excess of approximately 15 mph begin to generate dust movement by saltation (migration of sand at the ground surface) or direct suspension in the air. Saltated sand, PM10 (inhalable) dust, and PM2.5 (fine particulate dust) exhibit an approximately exponential increase with increasing wind speed. The greatest concentrations of dust occur for winds exceeding 20 mph. During the reporting period, winds in excess of 20 mph occurred approximately 1.6 percent of the time. Preliminary assessment of individual wind events suggests that dust generation is highly variable likely because of the influence of other meteorological and environmental parameters. Although winds sufficient to generate significant amounts of dust occur at the Project 57 site, they are infrequent and of short duration. Additionally, the potential for wind transport of dust is dependent on other parameters whose influence have not yet been assessed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Characterizing Detailed Grain Shape and Size Distribution Properties of Lunar Regolith

Introduction: As the nation prepares to return to the Moon, there is an increasing need for testing tools, instruments, and equipment in simulated environments on Earth to ensure successful operations during lunar missions. Regolith will affect all aspects of future lunar missions, from plume interactions during landing to space suit and tool design [1]. Because of this, it is important to understand the grain shape and size properties of lunar regolith and how those influence regolith behavior in order to prepare for these missions. This knowledge is also vital to create more accurate lunar regolith simulants for testing equipment in a lunar environment. While particle size analyses have been performed on most Apollo soils using simple sieving, shape has only been crudely addressed [2]. This work analyzes 4 lunar regolith samples to provide a better understanding of these size and shape parameters and will provide a more accurate baseline of data to create high-fidelity lunar regolith simulants. Methods: New technologies exist today that are capable of measuring size and shape simultaneously for hundreds of thousands of particles in a single measurement. We conducted a rigorous analysis of the particle size distribution (PSD) as well as the size-dependent 2D and 3D shape parameters of lunar regolith samples of different compositions and maturity levels. This analysis was done using a Microtrac SYNC which provides a unique combination of tri-laser diffraction and Dynamic Image Analysis (DIA). Sample Selection. Four regolith samples were selected for analysis based on maturity level and lunar terrain type: • 10084 – Mature high-Ti mare regolith • 15601 – Immature low-Ti mare regolith • 64501 – Mature highland regolith • 67461 – Immature highland regolith Sample Analysis. After receiving the samples, each sample was imaged with an optical microscope (Figure 1). To obtain 2D and 3D particle size and shape, 0.1 g of each sample was then added to the SYNC for analysis, which outputs more than 30 size and shape parameters for each individual grain as well as the complete size distribution from 0.01-2000 μm by blending laser diffraction and DIA together. For the 0.1 g sample masses requested, ~100,000 grains per sample were captured by DIA. Results: From the PSD analysis, it can be seen that the average particle size of 10084 is ~24.5 µm which is much smaller than the average particle size of the Apollo sample collection (~72 µm) [3], while the average particle size of samples 15601, 64501, and 67461 are larger than the Apollo sample average at ~106 µm, ~103 µm, and ~118.5 µm respectively. The size and shape measurements for the samples output ~30 parameters, four of which were focused on for this study: sphericity, aspect ratio, roundness, and concavity (Figure 3). However, after analyzing the plots it was found that only sphericity and aspect ratio showed differences between the samples. These two parameters are measured on a scale from 0 to 1, with 1 being a perfect sphere with equal dimensions. The results show that the sphericity values are slightly high-er for the mature samples 10084 and 64501 (~0.96) than they are for samples 15601 and 67461 (~0.95) (Figure 4). The aspect ratio values are slightly lower for samples 64501 (~0.7) and 67461 (~0.74) than they are for samples 10084 (~0.76) and 15601 (~0.8) (Figure 5). Discussion: Mature regoliths are those that have been exposed to micrometeorite and solar wind bombardment for long periods of time, breaking up particles and causing them to become more rounded [4]. Therefore, the smaller particle sizes and higher sphericity values for samples 10084 and 64501 are expected due to their higher maturity level compared to 15601 and 67461. However, the aspect ratio values are not dependent on maturity and are instead dependent on terrain type. The lower aspect ratio values for the high-land samples is potentially due to the higher plagioclase content, which occurs in elongated particles and does not break down as easily as the pyroxenes or olivines that are present in the mare. Conclusion and Future Work: The results of this work provide a baseline of high-quality data that will contribute to the creation of high-fidelity lunar simulants and will greatly benefit NASA’s efforts of establishing a human presence on the Moon. Future work includes performing unsupervised image classification on the ~105 particle images per sample in order to identify different classes of grains. These grain classes can then be linked to detailed shape properties, and the relative abundance of each class in the samples can be compared. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the Extraterrestrial Materials Analysis Group (ExMAG) and the Astromaterials Allocation Review Board (AARB) for allocating lunar regolith samples 10084,9010, 15601,365, 64501,249, and 67461,171 for this work. References: [1] Taylor, L. A. et al. (2005) AIAA #2510. [2] Katagiri et al. (2015) ASCE. [3] Carrier III, W. D. (2005) Lunar Geotech Institute Tech Report. [4] McKay, D. S. et al. (1991) The Lunar Sourcebook, Chapter 7.

S R Deitrick↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Alternative Architectures for Cargo Lunar Landers

NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) program has been working with commercial partners to develop human-class lunar landers to return the first American woman and next American man to the lunar surface in the mid 2020’s. In an effort to expand human presence beyond low Earth orbit, NASA’s Artemis program aims to facilitate a sustainable, long-term human presence in cis-lunar space. A component of this will require significant infrastructure to be delivered to the lunar surface. Delivering this infrastructure will require a significant lander capability that has yet to be developed. A thorough understanding of cargo lunar lander architectures is required such that select alternatives can be identified that best support the Artemis program’s objective of sustainability. The goal of this study is to aid NASA and its partners in the understanding of the cargo lunar lander trades space, as well as identify potential robust alternatives. The results will support NASA as it moves forward with key activities such as requirements formulation, agency strategic planning, and potential cargo lunar lander procurements. The study builds off of recent work performed by the Human Landing System program’s Architecture and Systems Analysis group to encompass a broad trade space of cargo lunar lander architecture alternatives. The current trade space as depicted by the morphological matrix and mission graph in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively, includes key alternative options that have become highly relevant due to current HLS activities and include on-orbit refueling, active cryogenic fluid management, Earth orbit aggregation, and global lunar access. The authors believe that there is also a statistically relevant impact of lander-payload configuration on the primary structure of the vehicle that could greatly impact alternative selection. Because of this, several conceptual lander-payload configurations will be evaluated to determine the level of impact. The current set of conceptual configurations are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. To aid the conceptual evaluation of these configurations, a catalogue of notional payloads has been developed that represent a wide range of masses and volumes that are expected to be delivered in support of a sustained human lunar presence, including pressurized and unpressurized rovers, surface habitats, power systems, and other support infrastructure. In order to execute this study in a timely fashion, a similar approach to that utilized in a similar 2019 study focused on 2024 human lunar sorties will be employed [1]. The team utilized a novel architecture synthesis framework currently being developed by NASA/MSFC to evaluate over 600,000 lunar lander architectures over a two month time frame [2]. From this large data set, varying ground rules and assumptions were applied as filters to explore the trade space to identify alternatives which exhibited robustness, as measured by launch vehicle payload margin, to absorb the natural growth that occurs during design maturation. The set of Earth-Moon system Delta-Vs assumed from the 2019 study, shown in Fig. 5, will be repurposed to accelerate model formulation for this effort. Additionally, current efforts in collaboration with the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Aerospace System Design Lab will be integrated to provide probabilistic modeling of the cargo lunar lander architectures to aid in identifying robust design alternatives [3]. The approach will help minimize potential impacts due to large levels of uncertainty inherent to pre phase-A conceptual design. By leveraging these past and present studies and partnerships, a highly detailed set of data can be generated in a short time period to aid NASA in the coming years to support the goal of a sustained human lunar presence.

Architectures↗

DOE OSTI2018

Project 57 Air Monitoring Report: January 1 through December 31, 2017

On April 24, 1957, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (now the Department of Energy [DOE]) conducted the Project 57 safety experiment in western Emigrant Valley northeast of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS, formerly the Nevada Test Site) on lands withdrawn by the Department of Defense (DOD) for the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). The test was undertaken to develop (1) a means of estimating plutonium distribution resulting from a non-nuclear detonation; (2) biomedical evaluation techniques for use in plutonium-laden environments; (3) methods of surface decontamination; and (4) instruments and field procedures for prompt estimation of alpha contamination (Shreve, 1958). Although the test did not result in the fission of nuclear materials, it did disseminate plutonium across the land surface. Following the experiment, the AEC fenced the contaminated area and returned control of the surrounding land to the DOD. Various radiological surveys were performed in the area and in 2007, the DOE expanded the demarked Contamination Area (CA) by posting signs 200 to 400 ft (60 to 120 m) outside of the original fence. Plutonium in soil attaches preferentially to smaller particles (Tamura, 1985; Friesen, 1992; Murarik et al., 1992; and Misra et al., 1993). Therefore, redistribution of soil particles by wind (dust) and water are the mechanisms most likely to transport plutonium beyond the boundary of the Project 57 CA. Monitoring was implemented in 2011 by Desert Research Institute (DRI) to determine if radionuclide contamination was detectable in samples of airborne dust and to characterize meteorological and environmental parameters that influence dust transport. Initially, two monitoring stations consisting of radiological, meteorological, and dust sampling equipment were installed near the southeast and northeast corners of the CA. In January 2015, the original monitoring stations were dismantled and moved farther to the west along the CA boundary. This move was made to place the monitoring stations downwind of ground zero and the High Contamination Area (HCA) during the dominant northerly and southerly winds. Samples of particles suspended in the air are collected every two weeks and submitted for laboratory assessments of gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity, and for determinations of gamma-emitting radionuclides. In calendar year (CY) 2017, the mean gross alpha concentration at monitoring station P57-4 was approximately 4.25 times the value at monitoring station P57-3. In CY2015 and CY2016, the difference in mean gross alpha concentration at the two stations was approximately 1.5. The mean gross alpha concentrations at P57-3 and P57-4 were approximately 1.9 and 7.9 times, respectively, the mean gross alpha concentrations at the surrounding Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) stations. The minimum gross alpha concentrations reported for the Project 57 stations are in the range of the minimum values observed at the CEMP stations. However, maximum gross alpha concentrations are greater than the maximum concentrations observed at the surrounding CEMP stations. Gamma spectroscopy analyses resulted in the detection of seven radionuclides. Except for americium-241 (Am-241), all reported radionuclides occur naturally in the environment. The Am-241 detection by gamma spectroscopy was confirmed by alpha spectroscopy. During each quarter of CY2017, four suspended particulate matter samples were selected for alpha spectroscopy analysis. Two were selected each quarter from the regular biweekly samples collected at each of the two monitoring stations. Of the eight samples from P57-3, one was reported to have plutonium-238 (Pu-238) above the minimum detectable activity (MDA) and five were reported to have plutonium 239/240 (Pu-239/240) above the MDA. Of the eight samples from P57-4, three were reported to have Pu-238 above the MDA and six were reported to have Pu-239/240 above the MDA. Soil material is also transported by saltation, which is a wind driven phenomena that bounces sand-sized soil particles across the land surface because they are too heavy to be suspended in the air. Samples of particles transported by saltation were collected downwind and upwind of the CA at both monitoring stations in May 2017 after a 190-day deployment and again in September 2017 after a 114-day deployment. Mass of the saltation samples was determined after oven drying. The September sample had greater mass than the May sample. The same relationship was observed for the suspended particulate matter samples during periods of saltation sample collection. The difference in the collected mass appears to be because of the amount of soil moisture. Higher soil moisture exerts additional isotopic bonds between soil particles and water molecules, and between water molecules that envelop soil particles, making it more difficult for wind to raise the particles as dust. In general, samples collected from saltation traps facing south contained more material than samples collected from traps facing north. This suggests that although saltation material may have been moving back and forth in conjunction with the two dominant wind directions, there was a net trend for saltation material to be transported toward the north. Radiological analyses of the saltation samples show that the smaller particle size faction (<63 μm) generally produced the highest activity levels of Am-241, Pu-238, and Pu-239/240. In general, the isotope activity levels decreased as the particle size increased. These results are consistent with the expectation that the greatest potential for transport of radiological contamination is with the smaller particles. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) indicated that the average annual external radioactivity dose at the monitoring stations is slightly higher than the dose determined at the surrounding CEMP stations, but approximately half of the estimated national average dose received by the general public from exposure to natural sources. The TLDs at the Project 57 monitoring stations are exposed to both natural sources (terrestrial and cosmic) and radioactive releases from the Project 57 CA. Winds in excess of approximately 15 mph (24 km/hr) begin to generate dust movement by saltation or suspension, as determined by the monitoring instruments. Saltated particles, PM10 (i.e., inhalable dust), and PM2.5 (i.e., fine particulate dust) exhibit an approximately exponential increase with increasing wind speed. The greatest concentrations of dust occurred for winds exceeding 20 mph (32 km/hr). When the wind/dust analysis was performed for winds separated into the dominant northerly and southerly wind directions, it was evident that the northerly winds generated the higher PM10 concentrations and had the dominate influence on the PM10 concentration determined for all wind speeds when all wind directions were evaluated together. During the year, winds in excess of 20 mph (32 km/hr) occurred approximately one percent of the time. Although winds sufficient to generate dust occur at the Project 57 site, they are infrequent and of short duration. A preliminary assessment of individual wind events suggests that dust generation in response to specific wind conditions is highly variable. Wind speeds that would be expected to generate noticeable dust may not do so in every instance. Additionally, saltation transport in response to wind conditions was less common than expected. These variations were likely because of the influence of meteorological and environmental parameters other than wind.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2010

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Sun Safe Mode

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), a spacecraft designed and built at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, MD, was launched on June 18, 2009 from Cape Canaveral. It is currently in orbit about the Moon taking detailed science measurements and providing a highly accurate mapping of the suface in preparation for the future return of astronauts to a permanent moon base. Onboard the spacecraft is a complex set of algorithms designed by the attitude control engineers at GSFC to control the pointig for all operational events, including anomalies that require the spacecraft to be put into a well known attitude configuration for a sufficiently long duration to allow for the investigation and correction of the anomaly. GSFC level requirements state that each spacecraft s control system design must include a configuration for this pointing and lso be able to maintain a thermally safe and power positive attitude. This stable control algorithm for anomalous events is commonly referred to as the safe mode and consists of control logic thatwill put the spacecraft in this safe configuration defined by the spacecraft s hardware, power and environment capabilities and limitations. The LRO Sun Safe mode consists of a coarse sun-pointing set of algorithms that puts the spacecraft into this thermally safe and power positive attitude and can be achieved wihin a required amount of time from any initial attitude, provided that the system momentum is within the momentum capability of the reaction wheels. On LRO the Sun Safe mode makes use of coarse sun sensors (CSS), an inertial reference unit (IRU) and reaction wheels (RW) to slew the spacecraft to a solar inertial pointing. The CSS and reaction wheels have some level of redundancy because of their numbers. However, the IRU is a single-point-failure piece of hardware. Without the rate information provided by the IRU, the Sun Safe control algorithms could not maintain the required pointing, so a sub-mode of the Sun Safe mode that does not use the IRU was designed. This submode, referred to as the Sun Safe Gyroless control mode, consists of an algorithm that estimates rate information from the CSS and the RW measurements. RW momentum information is used to estimate the body rate parallel to the target sunline, which CSS alone would not be able to observe. Sun Safe can be autonomously, or via ground command, entered from any other control mode and in the event the IRU is not providing rate information, the control mode is switched to the gyroless submode. This paper looks at the design of the Sun Safe modes and discusses the constraints placed on the algorithm and how the mode wored around these constraints. Items of particular interest include CSS placement on the Solar Array (SA) and its implications to design, estimation of body rate information for the Sun Safe Gyroless control mode, and the effect of solar eclipse on each of the Sun Safe modes. Placing CSS on the SA was necessary for the means to put the Sun along the targeted sun-line, nominally normal to the SA panels, for all operational considerations. This had design implications for determining a sun vector during normal SA operations, if one or both gimbals become inoperable and when the SA is in a stowed configuration. The ability of body rate estimation in Sun Safe Gyroless not only uses CSS sun vector data but requires RW momentum measuremens to estimate rates parallel to the sun-line. LRO encounters solar eclipses of some length for most of its orbits about the Moon. With the lack of CSS measurement data a design was implemented in both Sun Safe and Sun Safe Gyroless, they differ because of having or not having IRU measurement data, to carry the spacecraft through these eclipse periods. This paper also includes some discussion of sun avoidance and how it affected design decisions during nominal and eclipse perids for each of the Sun Safe modes.

Garrick, Joseph↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Swab Kit: Tools and Techniques for Collecting Aseptic Samples from Crewed Space Missions

Introduction: When we send humans to search for life on other planets, we'll need to know what we brought with us versus what may already be there. To ensure our crewed spacecraft meet planetary protection requirements—and to protect our science from human contamination—we'll need to assess and verify whether micro-organisms may be leaking/venting from our spacesuits. This requires collecting samples under Extravehicular Activity (EVA) conditions. Detailed, systematic research on forward contamination from robotic spacecraft has been steadily progressing since the Viking missions, but systematic studies of contamination from space suits has not been conducted in many years. The modern EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit) suit used by NASA is designed to leak at rates as high as 100 cc/min. Before humans land on Mars there is a critical need to understand the types and quantities of microbes that could be introduced via space suits. The Human Forward Contamination Assessment team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) has developed a prototype EVA swab tool [1,2,3,4] designed for use in space to sample cleaned and uncleaned space suits to determine the present day microbial load and eventually the rate of leakage. The ability to assess microbial leakage early in advanced space suit and life support system design cycles will help avoid costly hardware redesign later. Test Objectives: The primary objective of EMU testing was to characterize the type of micro-organisms typically found on or near selected suit pressure joints under suit differential pressure conditions. Most human-borne microbes can fit through a 0.5 to 1.0 µm gap. Knowing which joints are more likely to leak will inform hardware design decisions. Knowing which types of micro-organisms may leak from EVA suits provides a basis for subsequent studies to characterize the viability of those organisms under destination conditions, as well as how far they might spread through natural or human-influenced processes. That data, in turn, will inform exploration mission operations and hardware design. The secondary objective of testing was to evaluate the interface between a fully suited test subject and the EVA swab tool at vacuum. Bulky EVA suits can restrict movement and limit visibility through the helmet visor. Fully suited testing is important for identifying tool design issues prior to flight. At exploration destinations, such as Mars, suited crew may be required to periodically sample their suits as part of an environmental monitoring protocol. Suit Microbial Sampling Results: This report details results of microbial swabs collected from current flight suit configurations worn by crew members assigned to upcoming ISS expedition missions as well as swabs collected from prototype suits intended for use on the Orion spacecraft. These tests were intended to characterize the types of contaminants found on flight suits under current, typical handling conditions. No attempt was made to change suit handling procedures, provide additional sterilization, or to limit typical potential contaminant sources. Using culture based techniques, we cultivated 235 CFU (colony forming units) comprised of 26 bacterial species and one fungal species on the outside of the suits. The fungal species and 14 of the bacterial species were unique to the suit surfaces and were not detected in any of the background samples collected within the chambers. We sequenced 755,434 ribosomal fragments on all of the suit surfaces from swab samples. 557,016 of these sequences represent DNA that survived at least 4 hours at vacuum. These sequences formed 2,464 OTU's (Operational Taxonomic Units, 97% similarity) showing low diversity in the samples. The most abundant sequences that survived vacuum belong to the genera Staphyloccocus, Ralstona, Bacillus and Rhodobacter all of which are common to the human microbiome. [5] See Danko et al., (2021) for more complete details of these first analyses. Further analysis of EVA suit materials with respect to the efficacy of various cleaning protocols and engineered containment solutions is planned to inform suit design for NASA’s Artemis Moon to Mars program crew testing. Swab Tool Function Results: The kit was demonstrated for fit and function in suited subject vacuum tests to determine how well the tool worked as an aseptic microbial sampling device as well as to identify any design elements that could be upgraded for EVA task specific improvement. It was found that sample acquisition efficacy could be enhanced by redesign of the sample canister to end-effector interface. Several modifications of the sample caddy assemblies to optimize EVA safety and functionality were also identified. Consequently, fabrication of the redesigned sample canister to end-effector assembly interfaces and and the sample caddy assemblies are required. Fabrication of sixteen flight sample canister assemblies (8 per each of two EVA Swab Kits) and two sample caddy assemblies are in process to be followed by hardware testing and certification to produce two flight-certified EVA Swab Kits for transport to ISS no earlier than summer of 2022. Sampling Strategy: The International Space Station is an ideal testbed for systematic studies of contamination from crewed vehicles since it has been continuously occupied for 20 years and exposed to non-terrestrial conditions. We will sample the exterior of the ISS during EVA using a purpose-built swab tool capable of maintaining sterility while undergoing temperature changes from -151 to +121°C under hard vacuum. Prior to each EVA, the project team will work with ISS mission managers to identify precise sampling locations, which will vary by EVA based on the translation paths and worksites scheduled for that particular EVA. Ideally, translation path handrails and areas near ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) external vent openings on a spacecraft would be assessed. There are currently more than a dozen ECLSS external vents on the ISS. Some are connected to systems that vent waste products, while others are intended to equalize cabin pressure. As EVA opportunity allows, microbial samples from any of these external vents would provide a valuable data point, though some will be more useful than others. Four criteria have been identified to help prioritize sampling sites near vents: • EVA Accessibility: To minimize cost, it is desired to piggy-back onto a planned EVA. Therefore, the sampling location must be readily accessible by an EVA crew • Type of Vented Products: Vent products that have been in direct contact with crew, such as cabin air, are more likely to contain microorganisms than vent products associated with isolated systems, such as experiment module combustion products. • Mass of Vented Products: Higher-flow vents are more likely to contain detectible levels of microbial contaminants than lower-flow vents. • Local Environment: Sample locations with relatively benign local conditions, such as warm surfaces shielded from direct ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure, may be more likely to support microbial growth than locations with harsher local environmental conditions. Because EVA accessibility is the most important criteria, the proposal team worked with an astronaut and flight controllers using the Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) tool. The DOUG virtual environment allows an operator to “fly” around the current ISS vehicle configuration to assess EVA translation paths, attach points, and keep-out zones. While analysis on station or rapid return to Earth would be preferable, samples collected from the exterior of the ISS have already been exposed to temperature variations between -157 and +121 °C as well as hard vacuum. Therefore, they should be fairly stable and robust. We hypothesize that samples collected from the ISS exterior could be stored for up to 6 months at -80°C without degradation. Sample canisters will be returned to Earth while frozen at -80°C for analysis, and sterilized canisters can be re-flown back to ISS to support additional sampling opportunities Relevance to NASA Exploration Objectives: These data will allow us to identify new or improved methods, technologies, and procedures for spacecraft sterilization and leakage mitigation to minimize the amount of contamination introduced to the environment by human explorers. This work is funded by NASA research grant: NNH18ZDA001N-PPR References: [1] Bell, M.S. et al. (2015) LPS XLVI, Abst. #1832 [2] Rucker et al. (2018) 42nd COSPAR (PPP.3) [3] Bell, M.S. et al. (2019) Mars Extant Life Conference, Abst. #5096.[4] Bell, M.S. et al., (2020) 43rd COSPAR (BO.2).[5] Danko D, et.al.,(2021)Front.Microbiol.12:608478.

Mary Suzanne Bell↗