Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ARTEMIS”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 163 records · Page 9

Space Launch System Base Aerothermodynamics Post-Flight Reconstruction for Artemis I

Artemis I was the first uncrewed integrated test flight of the NASA heavy-lift, human-rated, exploration-class launch vehicle, Space Launch System (SLS), and Orion spacecraft. Artemis I successfully launched from Pad39B at NASA Kennedy Space Center on November 16th, 2023. The integrated test flight is composed of launch and ascent of the SLS vehicle from lift-off to RS-25 main engine cut-off (MECO), interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS) in-space flight and Orion’s trajectory around the moon and landing in the Pacific Ocean which occurred on December 11th, 2023. The SLS total thrust of 8,800,000 lbf is powered by four LOX/LH2 RS-25 engines and two 5-segment solid rocket boosters. As a result, base flow environments for this vehicle are highly complex and extreme. SLS base aerothermodynamics covers rocket plume-induced convection and radiation of the vehicle’s aft region during powered flight from lift-off to MECO. This work discusses the SLS base flow physics observed during Artemis I and comparisons of post-flight reconstruction with pre-flight models and Space Shuttle data. This is the first time in-depth base heating flight reconstruction has been investigated for an exploration-class launch vehicle since the Saturn V Program.

aerothermodynamics↗

Base Aerodynamics Post-Flight Reconstruction for Artemis I

Artemis I was the first uncrewed integrated test flight of the NASA heavy-lift, human-rated, exploration-class launch vehicle, Space Launch System (SLS), and Orion spacecraft. Artemis I successfully launched from Pad39B at NASA Kennedy Space Center on November 16th, 2022. The integrated test flight was composed of launch and ascent of SLS vehicle from lift-off to RS-25 main engine cut-off (MECO), interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS) in-space flight and Orion’s trajectory around the moon and landing in the Pacific Ocean which occurred on December 11th, 2022. The SLS total thrust of 8,800,000 lbf was powered by four LOX/LH2 RS-25 engines and two 5-segment solid rocket boosters. As a result, the base flow field had highly complex phenomena and regimes. SLS base aerodynamics covers vehicle base pressure and integrated axial force during powered flight from lift-off to MECO. This work discusses the SLS base flow physics observed during Artemis I and comparisons of post-flight reconstruction with pre-flight models and Space Shuttle data. This was the first time in-depth base aerodynamics flight reconstruction has been investigated for an exploration-class launch vehicle since the Saturn V Program.

aerothermodynamics↗

Analysis of Launch Vehicle Liftoff Debris: Historical Perspective from Space Shuttle and Application to Artemis I

Human exploration-class launch vehicles are inherently prone to debris due to the extreme environments generated during pre-launch operations, liftoff, and flight. The use of cryogenic propellants often requires thermal protection system (TPS) coatings, typically foam, to maintain the propellant conditions in the tank and prevent an accumulation ice on the external surface of the vehicle. Some ice growth is to be expected at umbilical interfaces, vents, flanges, or brackets where it is difficult to apply TPS. This ice may come loose at any time due to wind on the launch pad, structural vibration and acoustics after rocket ignition, or aerodynamic forces during flight. This phenomena is especially apparent on vehicles with no TPS, such as the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo Program, see Figure 1. During propellant tanking, the thermal contraction of the underlying substrate may generate cracks in the TPS (Figure 1). Chunks of TPS can release due to the expansion of ingested gas from cryopumping or from aerodynamic forces if the crack creates an offset surface. Most foams will also have a certain amount of “popcorning” where small pieces of foam will pop off during flight because of the differential between the static surface pressure and the pressure of the gas trapped in the foam cell structure. There are a number of other coating or closeout materials that may be shed from the vehicle and become debris. During pre-launch operations and liftoff, the vehicle may also be exposed to debris originating from the launch pad or ground support equipment. This debris is separate from foreign object debris, or FOD, which is not intended to be present and is strictly controlled through operations and maintenance procedures. In this case, debris is generated from hardware and materials that are necessary for launch and are subject to the intense vibration, acoustics, and direct plume impingement of the launch environment. Examples include ice from umbilicals, tape and tie wraps that protect cables, and rust or corrosion from the launch platform. While NASA has historically been aware of debris as a potential issue that could cause a failure resulting in loss of mission, loss of vehicle, or loss of crew, the likelihood and severity of that risk was not always well understood or given sufficient weight in program and flight decisions. After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (STS-107), the investigation found that foam TPS debris shed from the external tank was the proximate cause of the damage to the orbiter wing. Six previous observations of debris released from the foam ramp that covered the bipod connecting the forward end of the orbiter to the external tank resulted in minor changes or were determined to be accepted flight risks. Two occurrences of bipod ramp foam loss were not identified until the STS-107 investigation. Despite the damage inflicted by these debris strikes, the Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board deemed the vehicle safe to fly. During the Return to Flight effort following the Columbia disaster, NASA Engineering developed a process for the assessment of debris transport, impact, and damage tolerance to support independent assessments of risk by NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Under this system, each element (vehicle or ground system) defines a catalog of all expected debris based on launch history, component testing, or analysis. Debris transport analysis (DTA) is conducted using the debris catalog characteristics and potential flow transport mechanisms (e.g., vehicle aerodynamics, gravity, wind, plume-driven). The predicted debris impact locations and velocities are provided to the hardware owners, who use available test data and analysis to determine whether each component can withstand the impacts. In cases where the element hardware may be severely damaged or fail, the options are to mitigate the debris source through some change in design or operation, or to work with S&MA to try to characterize the probability of the impact and damage for program risk acceptance. Because of the differences in debris characteristics and transport, the DTA has been divided between the Liftoff and Ascent regimes. The development and application of Liftoff DTA methodology from the Shuttle Program to the current Artemis Program is the subject of this paper. Liftoff DTA covers the time from the start of pre-launch operations at the launch pad, up until the vehicle clears the launch tower and there is no longer any interaction with ground systems. Debris transport during this period is broadly classified as either gravity, wind, and plume-entrained (GWPE) or plume driven (PD). GWPE debris is generally lower speed, travelling in a forward-to-aft direction. PD transport includes flow features from the rocket ignition transient, as well as plume impingement and recirculation that occur as the vehicle lifts off the launch platform. In these cases, the debris typically moves in an aft-to-forward direction at higher speeds. The applicable transport mechanisms must be considered for each piece of debris depending on the material, and release location and time. For example, rust or metallic debris from the tower could fall (GWPE) and impact the vehicle before landing on the launch platform deck where it could be also be transported by plume impingement (PD). However, falling ice (GWPE) from an umbilical is unlikely to survive impact with the vehicle or launch platform and be available for PD transport. Modeling of debris transport is accomplished using a set of DTA tools which simulate debris trajectories subject to a reference frame acceleration (i.e., gravity) and aerodynamic drag. Where the trajectory encounters a solid surface, the debris is allowed to rebound with a specified coefficient of restitution. The drag is calculated by interpolating the fluid state at each point in the debris trajectory from high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the launch vehicle and pad. The CFD data may either be static (steady state or time averaged), typically for GWPE transport, or dynamic (time-accurate) for PD flow features like the ignition transient. Examples of the CFD flow field solutions for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and launch pad are shown in Figure 2. Typical SLS debris trajectory predictions from DTA are illustrated in Figure 3. The final version of this paper will include a more detailed examination of the Liftoff DTA process developed during the Shuttle Program, and how it has been augmented and applied to the SLS rocket under the Artemis Program. Comparisons with debris observations from the Artemis I launch will demonstrate validation of the tools and methodology.

Debris↗

Overview and Assessment of the ESM Pressure Control Performance on Artemis I

The European Service Module propulsion system is a bipropellant hypergolic serial system used to provide translational thrust and attitude control for Orion. To control propellant tank pressure, a bang-bang pressure control system is employed. Each propellant commodity is regulated by a pressure control assembly consisting of two pressurization branches (a primary and redundant pressurization path) where each branch includes 3 valves in series. Regulation is accomplished via flight software control of two downstream solenoid valves triggered off propellant tank ullage pressure. This paper presents an overview of system level challenges which have been overcome to enable a successful Artemis I flight. Principle among the challenges was valve-to-valve pneumatic interactions which drove changes to the control scheme. During the Artemis I mission, the pressure control assembly was able to control tank pressure within allowable tolerances. Comparison between flight data and mathematical models are presented showing excellent agreement. Finally, during flight, a pressure surge was observed during the first regulation cycle when there was propellant in the upstream propellant tank. This was attributed to a gas hammer effect within the pressurization system and was not observable in a 1g environment. This paper also discusses the conclusion that this gas hammer effect is a nominal feature of the system during operations. Assessment of the in-flight performance of the electronic pressure regulation scheme on the European Service Module propulsion system shows the system behaved nominally during the Artemis I mission.

propulsion system↗

NASA Exploration Toilet Hardware Status and Crew Feedback from ISS Artemis-2 Demonstration

The Universal Waste Management System (UWMS), ISS operational nomenclature “Toilet”, was initially installed on the International Space Station (ISS) in 2020 with final installation completed in 2021. Technical progress continues to be made with each on-orbit operation and will ultimately culminate with nominal US crew use of the hardware on ISS. During 2023, the Artemis-2 Demonstration was started, and this paper discusses issues encountered, on-orbit troubleshooting, subsequent ground failure investigation and proposed repairs as well as near-term plans to resume the Artemis-2 demo. Also discussed is an update to the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Conductivity Monitor (CCM) which is planned to be flown for the resumption of the demo along with additional UWMS hardware and Toilet Integration Hardware (TIH). An updated design of the commode seat and fecal bag for Artemis-2 UWMS will be demonstrated on ISS and a summary of the hardware is included in the paper. Use of the hardware during the first days of the aborted demonstration by crewmembers and feedback received is summarized as well as hardware updates resulting from that feedback. The paper will also provide an overview of the demo results to date that inform the Orion-installed UWMS unit and future manifesting of consumables for both Orion and ISS.

Toilet↗

Overview and Assessment of the ESM Pressure Control Performance on Artemis I

The European Service Module propulsion system is a bipropellant hypergolic serial system used to provide translational thrust and attitude control for Orion. To control propellant tank pressure, a bang-bang pressure control system is employed. Each propellant commodity is regulated by a pressure control assembly consisting of two pressurization branches (a primary and redundant pressurization path) where each branch includes 3 valves in series. Regulation is accomplished via flight software control of two downstream solenoid valves triggered off propellant tank ullage pressure. This paper presents an overview of system level challenges which have been overcome to enable a successful Artemis I flight. Principle among the challenges was valve-to-valve pneumatic interactions which drove changes to the control scheme. During the Artemis I mission, the pressure control assembly was able to control tank pressure within allowable tolerances. Comparison between flight data and mathematical models are presented showing excellent agreement. Finally, during flight, a pressure surge was observed during the first regulation cycle when there was propellant in the upstream propellant tank. This was attributed to a gas hammer effect within the pressurization system and was not observable in a 1g environment. This paper also discusses the conclusion that this gas hammer effect is a nominal feature of the system during operations. Assessment of the in-flight performance of the electronic pressure regulation scheme on the European Service Module propulsion system shows the system behaved nominally during the Artemis I mission.

propulsion system↗

NASA Exploration Hardware Status and Crew Feedback from Artemis-2 Demonstration

The Universal Waste Management System (UWMS), ISS operational nomenclature “Toilet”, was initially installed on the International Space Station (ISS) in 2020 with final installation completed in 2021. Technical progress continues to be made with each on-orbit operation and will ultimately culminate with nominal US crew use of the hardware on ISS. During 2023, the Artemis-2 Demonstration was started, and this paper discusses issues encountered, on-orbit troubleshooting, subsequent ground failure investigation and proposed repairs as well as near-term plans to resume the Artemis-2 demo. Also discussed is an update to the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Conductivity Monitor which is planned to be flown for the resumption of the demo along with additional UWMS hardware and Toilet Integration Hardware (TIH). An updated design of the commode seat and fecal bag for Artemis-2 UWMS will be demonstrated on ISS and a summary of the hardware is included in the paper. Use of the hardware during the first days of the aborted demonstration by crewmembers and feedback received is summarized as well as hardware updates resulting from that feedback. The paper will also provide an overview of the demo results to date that inform the Orion-installed UWMS unit and future manifesting of consumables for both Orion and ISS.

Toilet↗

NASA’s Space Launch System: Comprehensive Test Program Leads to Mission Success during Artemis I Flight Test

NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket had a successful first launch on Nov. 16, 2022, sending an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to the Moon on the agency’s Artemis I mission. Ten 6U CubeSats were also deployed from SLS during the mission. Orbital insertion parameters, including insertion velocity and altitude, were within hundredths and tenths of a percent from predicted values, corroborating data collected from the individual elements that showed similar performance accuracy. While launch remains the main test – and Artemis I was a true test flight – to collect data, confirm and refine computer models, and validate hardware test data, multiple test programs led up to the first flight and enabled the historic launch. Additionally, SLS was designed from the beginning to be a crew-rated launch vehicle, and teams put the astronauts who will fly on it at the forefront of the development process. This paper and presentation will cover the SLS design and development programs that led to the successful Artemis I mission, and which have set the stage to send the first astronauts back to cislunar space since the Apollo 17 crew in 1972.

John Honeycutt↗

Comprehensive Test Program of NASA's Space Launch System Rocket Leads to Successful Artemis Mission

NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket had a successful first launch on Nov. 16, 2022, sending an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to the Moon on the agency’s Artemis I mission. Ten 6U CubeSats were also deployed from SLS during the mission. Orbital insertion parameters, including insertion velocity and altitude, were within hundredths and tenths of a percent from predicted values, corroborating data collected from the individual elements that showed similar performance accuracy. While launch remains the main test – and Artemis I was a true test flight – to collect data, confirm and refine computer models, and validate hardware test data, multiple test programs led up to the first flight and enabled the historic launch. Additionally, SLS was designed from the beginning to be a crew-rated launch vehicle, and teams put the astronauts who will fly on it at the forefront of the development process. This paper and presentation will cover the SLS design and development programs that led to the successful Artemis I mission, and which have set the stage to send the first astronauts back to cislunar space since the Apollo 17 crew in 1972.

John Honeycutt↗

Validation of Artemis I Aerothermal Design Models Using Developmental Flight Instrumentation

The inaugural flight of the Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1 launch vehicle, Artemis I, occurred on November 16, 2022, and featured a full suite of Developmental Flight Instrumentation (DFI) that provided aerothermodynamic measurements to assess thermal design and substantiate aerothermodynamic models. The Block 1 launch vehicle aerothermal instrumentation consisted of approximately 277 aerothermal gauges mounted throughout the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), Integrated Spacecraft and Payload Element (ISPE), Core Stage (CS) and Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) and an additional 179 thermal gauges on the Orion Crew Module (CM). Instrumentation included calorimeters, radiometers, pressure transducers, gas temperature probes, and thermocouples. Data was collected from lift-off through CS Main Engine Cut-Off (MECO). The flight data was invaluable for determining aerothermal model performance and developing flight-derived aerothermal environments for flight reconstruction thermal analysis and future SLS aerothermal models. The data offered critical insights into the aerothermodynamic conditions experienced during the launch and ascent of the SLS vehicle. This study compares the flight derived environments to pre-existing design models. The aerothermal models were constructed using MINIVER, the aerothermal engineering code which predicts aerodynamic heating and acts as an integration tool for incorporating databases from computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and wind tunnel test data. The comparisons reveal the fidelity of the design models, highlighting areas where the design models accurately predicted flight conditions and instances where deviations were observed. Preliminary results suggest that while the design models largely aligned with the observed flight data, there were unique observations that reflected needed areas of model refinement. Aerothermal flight data from Artemis I for the SLS Block 1 vehicle will be further utilized to enhance the accuracy of Block 1B and Block 2 aerothermal models, ensuring improved safety and performance for subsequent Artemis missions.

aerothermodynamics↗

Validation of Artemis I Aerothermal Design Models Using Developmental Flight Instrumentation

The inaugural flight of the Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1 launch vehicle, Artemis I, occurred on November 16, 2022, and featured a full suite of Developmental Flight Instrumentation (DFI) that provided aerothermodynamic measurements to assess thermal design and substantiate aerothermodynamic models. The Block 1 launch vehicle aerothermal instrumentation consisted of approximately 277 aerothermal gauges mounted throughout the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), Integrated Spacecraft and Payload Element (ISPE), Core Stage (CS) and Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) and an additional 179 thermal gauges on the Orion Crew Module (CM). Instrumentation included calorimeters, radiometers, pressure transducers, gas temperature probes, and thermocouples. Data was collected from lift-off through CS Main Engine Cut-Off (MECO). The flight data was invaluable for determining aerothermal model performance and developing flight-derived aerothermal environments for flight reconstruction thermal analysis and future SLS aerothermal models. The data offered critical insights into the aerothermodynamic conditions experienced during the launch and ascent of the SLS vehicle. This study compares the flight derived environments to pre-existing design models. The aerothermal models were constructed using MINIVER, the aerothermal engineering code which predicts aerodynamic heating and acts as an integration tool for incorporating databases from computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and wind tunnel test data. The comparisons reveal the fidelity of the design models, highlighting areas where the design models accurately predicted flight conditions and instances where deviations were observed. Preliminary results suggest that while the design models largely aligned with the observed flight data, there were unique observations that reflected needed areas of model refinement. Aerothermal flight data from Artemis I for the SLS Block 1 vehicle will be further utilized to enhance the accuracy of Block 1B and Block 2 aerothermal models, ensuring improved safety and performance for subsequent Artemis missions.

aerothermodynamics↗

Lunar Laser Ranging in the Artemis Era

The retroreflector arrays placed on the lunar surface by the Apollo astronauts and the Soviet Luna missions continue to contribute to our understanding of gravitational physics, Earth and Moon geophysics, geodesy, and dynamics. The key science questions addressed by Lunar Laser Ranging remain very relevant today: What is the interior structure of the Moon? Is the Equivalence Principle exact? Does the strength of gravity vary with space and time? What is the nature of spacetime? Do extra dimensions or other new physics alter the inverse square law of gravity? The lunar retroreflectors are also an essential component of the realizations of the lunar reference frames. The half-century old lunar retroreflectors continue to provide excellent ranging targets but are showing signs of degradation and the measurement error associated with their physical size and varying tilt is becoming a limitation in the quest for more precise range measurements. In addition, the clustering of the arrays in the mid-latitudes of the Moon limits their geometrical strength and coverage. The south polar region planned for Artemis presents an ideal opportunity for improving the geometric distribution. Retroreflectors utilizing a large optical cross-section single cube corner do not have tilt error associated with the existing arrays making them good options for lunar deployment. Several new retroreflectors of this type are being prepared for upcoming Commercial Lunar Payload Services missions as well as Artemis. This presentation will discuss NASA’s plans for expanding the lunar laser ranging capabilities with a focus on the Artemis Lunar Laser Retroreflector.

Stephen Merkowitz↗

The Future of in-Situ Sequencing-Based Microbial Monitoring: Development of a Shelf-Stable Method for Artemis and Beyond

Microbial monitoring onboard the International Space Station (ISS) is essential for assessing the efficiency of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) and providing insight into potential risk to both crew and spacecraft. Historically, this monitoring required the need to culture organisms onboard, return these cultures to Earth, and then complete the identifications, a process that would take months. Over the past decade, and through numerous payloads, advances in molecular biology have enabled in-flight microbial identifications using nanopore sequencing. The swab-to-sequencer method resulting from these efforts was transitioned from research to operations for microbial monitoring under the Crew Health Care Systems (CHeCS) BioMole. Collectively, these accomplishments have propelled the swab-to-sequencer method to be selected as the Microbial Surface Monitor (MSM) for Gateway, as well as a payload on Artemis IV. However, the lack of cold stowage availability for Artemis requires modifications to the entire method due to the thermal instability of the reagents required for sample preparation. To achieve this, new development, optimization, and validations were undertaken. Key considerations included enzyme concentration, buffer compatibility, and equal or enhanced sensitivity and specificity. At each step, thorough side-by-side comparisons with the current ISS method were performed. The development of a robust shelf-stable method will ensure continued sequencing-based microbial monitoring for Artemis and beyond, providing data in near real-time, enhancing risk response time, and yielding clear insight into the microbiome of spacecraft.

Christian G Mena↗

Assessment of Cislunar Staging Orbits to Support the Artemis III Lunar Surface Mission

Since NASA’s selection of an L2 9:2 lunar synodic resonant Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO) as the baseline for the Gateway Program, the agency has worked to mature its understanding of this orbit and its use for the Artemis III, IV, and V missions. In parallel with these efforts, NASA has investigated alternative staging orbits to perform the Artemis III lunar surface landing mission and compared those options to the baseline NRHO. This paper evaluates a number of alternative orbits on their feasibility and favorability and compares them to the agency baseline NRHO.

Artemis↗

Cumulative Distribution Overlap Technique for Artemis Mission Public Entry Risk Assessment

The Artemis missions use a skip-entry profile to accomplish a recovery near the western US coastline, however, the service module debris must still be disposed of safely. For certain contingency return scenarios, the expected dispersed entry profile is biased from the well-analyzed corridor. A novel method is presented for assessing the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of these biased results to ensure they do not contribute additional probabilistic risk to the public. More specifically, the weight of the flight path angle dispersion "tail" of the CDF needs to remain below the well-assessed region. The details of how this method was actually used to screen and plan entry profiles for specific launch windows during the Artemis I mission are shown. This method has potential applicability in other problems where a biased distribution needs to be assessed against a well-defined "core" region.

Reentry↗

Cumulative Distribution Overlap Technique for Artemis Mission Public Entry Risk Assessment

The Artemis missions use a skip-entry profile to accomplish a recovery near the western US coastline, however, the service module debris must still be disposed of safely. For certain contingency return scenarios, the expected dispersed entry profile is biased from the well-analyzed corridor. A novel method is presented for assessing the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of these biased results to ensure they do not contribute additional probabilistic risk to the public. More specifically, the weight of the flight path angle dispersion "tail" of the CDF needs to remain below the well-assessed region. The details of how this method was actually used to screen and plan entry profiles for specific launch windows during the Artemis I mission are shown. This method has potential applicability in other problems where a biased distribution needs to be assessed against a well-defined "core" region.

Reentry↗

A Comparison of ARTEMIS Observations and Particle-in-cell Modeling of the Lunar Photoelectron Sheath in the Terrestrial Magnetotail

As an airless body in space with no global magnetic field, the Moon is exposed to both solar ultraviolet radiation and ambient plasmas. Photoemission from solar UV radiation and collection of ambient plasma are typically opposing charging currents and simple charging current balance predicts that the lunar dayside surface should charge positively; however, the two ARTEMIS probes have observed energydependent loss cones and high-energy, surface-originating electron beams above the dayside lunar surface for extended periods in the magnetosphere, which are indicative of negative surface potentials. In this paper, we compare observations by the ARTEMIS P1 spacecraft with a one dimensional particle-in-cell simulation and show that the energy-dependent loss cones and electron beams are due to the presence of stable, non-monotonic, negative potentials above the lunar surface. The simulations also show that while the magnitude of the non-monotonic potential is mainly driven by the incoming electron temperature, the incoming ion temperature can alter this magnitude, especially for periods in the plasma sheet when the ion temperature is more than twenty times the electron temperature. Finally, we note several other plasma phenomena associated with these non-monotonic potentials, such as broadband electrostatic noise and electron cyclotron harmonic emissions, and offer possible generation mechanisms for these phenomena.

Lunar↗

A Comparison of ARTEMIS Data with the Lunar Plasma Design Environment for NASA Crewed Missions

NASA’s Gateway will provide the capability for sustaining a human presence in cis-lunar space. Operations of the Gateway will include spacecraft dockings, extra vehicular activities (EVA), and high-power solar arrays. NASA’s experience with the International Space Station highlighted the importance of evaluating spacecraft charging effects for such operations. For crewed spacecraft, which tend to employ the use of dielectric surfaces in this dynamic plasma environment, reliance on spacecraft charging simulation packages, such as the NASA/Air Force Spacecraft Charging Analyzer Program (Nascap-2k) [Mandell et al., 2006] and Spacecraft Plasma Interaction System (SPIS) [Roussel et al., 2008], is required to understand the risks to hardware and humans. The variability in the lunar plasma environment as the Moon revolves around the Earth, lunar wake effects, and a strong dependency on photoemission and secondary electron emission creates challenges for spacecraft charging analysis. The Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) [NASA, MSFC] is the primary resource for space environments affecting NASA’s crewed missions, and the DSNE provides plasma environments in a standard form for input into simulation packages. NASA developed the existing lunar plasma environment using data from Geotail [Nishida, 1994] along with published lunar plasma wake models [Halekas et al., 2005] based on Lunar Prospector. Since 2011, NASA’s twin Acceleration Reconnection Turbulence & Electrodynamics of Moon’s Interaction with the Sun (ARTEMIS) satellites [Angelopoulos, 2010] have been collecting high resolution plasma and fields observations within the lunar plasma environment providing a much larger dataset of the plasma properties in cislunar space. This research compares the existing lunar plasma environment definition with ARTEMIS data and makes recommendations on the refinement of the environment definition for future lunar missions.

ARTEMIS mission↗