Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Apollo Crew Module”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1995

A Simple Space Station Rescue Vehicle

Early in the development of the Space Station it was determined that there is a need to have a vehicle which could be used in the event that the Space Station crew need to quickly depart and return to Earth when the Space Shuttle is not available. Unplanned return missions might occur because of a medical emergency, a major Space Station failure, or if there is a long-term interruption in the delivery of logistics to the Station. The rescue vehicle ms envisioned as a simple capsule-type spacecraft which would be maintained in a dormant state at the Station for several years and be quickly activated by the crew when needed. During the assembly phase for the International Space Station, unplanned return missions will be performed by the Russian Soyuz vehicle, which can return up to three people. When the Station assembly is complete there will be a need for rescue capability for up to six people. This need might be met by an additional Soyuz vehicle or by a new vehicle which might come from a variety of sources. This paper describes one candidate concept for a Space Station rescue vehicle. The proposed rescue vehicle design has the blunt-cone shape of the Apollo command module but with a larger diameter. The rescue vehicle would be delivered to the Station in the payload bay of the Space Shuttle. The spacecraft design can accommodate six to eight people for a one-day return mission. All of the systems for the mission including deorbit propulsion are contained within the conical spacecraft and so there is no separate service module. The use of the proven Apollo re-entry shape would greatly reduce the time and cost for development and testing. Other aspects of the design are also intended to minimize development cost and simplify operations. This paper will summarize the evolution of rescue vehicle concepts, the functional requirements for a rescue vehicle, and describe the proposed design.

Petro, Andrew↗
NASA NTRS1971

Apollo 15 Mission Report

A detailed discussion is presented of the Apollo 15 mission, which conducted exploration of the moon over longer periods, greater ranges, and with more instruments of scientific data acquisition than previous missions. The topics include trajectory, lunar surface science, inflight science and photography, command and service module performance, lunar module performance, lunar surface operational equipment, pilot's report, biomedical evaluation, mission support performance, assessment of mission objectives, launch phase summary, anomaly summary, and vehicle and equipment descriptions. The capability of transporting larger payloads and extending time on the moon were demonstrated. The ground-controlled TV camera allowed greater real-time participation by earth-bound personnel. The crew operated more as scientists and relied more on ground support team for systems monitoring. The modified pressure garment and portable life support system provided better mobility and extended EVA time. The lunar roving vehicle and the lunar communications relay unit were also demonstrated.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1989

An Earth Orbiting Satellite Service and Repair Facility

A conceptual design was produced for the Geosynchronous Satellite Servicing Platform (GSSP), an orbital facility capable of repairing and servicing satellites in geosynchronous orbit. The GSSP is a man-tended platform, which consists of a habitation module, operations module, service bay and truss assembly. This design review includes an analysis of life support systems, thermal and power requirements, robotic and automated systems, control methods and navigation, and communications systems. The GSSP will utilize existing technology available at the time of construction, focusing mainly on modifying and integrating existing systems. The entire facility, along with two satellite retrieval vehicles (SRV), will be placed in geosynchronous orbit by the Advanced Launch System. The SRV will be used to ferry satellites to and from the GSSP. Technicians will be transferred from Earth to the GSSP and back in an Apollo-derived Crew Transfer Capsule (CTC). These missions will use advanced telerobotic equipment to inspect and service satellites. Four of these missions are tentatively scheduled per year. At this rate, the GSSP will service over 650 satelites during the projected 25 year lifespan.

Berndt, Andrew↗
NASA NTRS1975

Facility and test support equipment for the manned thermal vacuum tests of the Apollo Soyuz docking module

In order to accommodate manned thermal-vacuum testing of the Apollo-Soyuz docking module (ASDM), modifications to the facility, cleanliness and access control, and special test equipment were required. Facility modifications discussed briefly include: the addition of an oxygen supply system; the modification of manlock (ML) piping for cleaning and access controls; the addition of a nitrogen diluent system; the removal of manlock internal lights and the addition of external lights as well as fusing all power circuits over 10 watts; the removal/containment of flammable materials; the upgrading of a ML fire suppression system; and the addition of a garment donning station for cleanliness control. Special test equipment discussed include: an access tunnel for crew ingress/egress; a support device for the docking module (DM) and simulators; a command module thermal simulator; a DM infrared (IR) simulator; a docking system IR simulator; a metabolic heat load simulator; and a television camera simulator.

Pearson, O. L.↗
NASA NTRS2019

After LM: NASA Lunar Lander Concepts Beyond Apollo

As this document is being compiled in 2019, NASA is once again planning a return to the Moon, and new lunar lander designs are being generated. Compared to Apollo, crews are projected to be larger (at least four per mission) and stay times longer (beginning at 6.5 days). However, it is expected that the landers will look much like the designs in this document because, as stated in the introduction, lunar lander design is a response to the simple physics that governs the tasks they are asked to perform. Design is also a living thing. New crewed lander designs will continue to emerge up until the point that humans return to the Moon, and even beyond. New players from different countries and commercial providers will create new designs based on new technologies and new requirements. Until some breakthrough technology or new physics principle is created, each lander will respond to the current physics of lunar landing. There may come a time, generations from now, when future engineers are paging through a digital copy of this catalog and reflecting on the early work of lunar lander designers. “Those Apollo guys were really smart, given that they started with nothing as a reference. The Lunar Module – now THAT was a great lunar lander design.”

Altair spacecraft↗
NASA NTRS2009

Apollo 13 Guidance, Navigation, and Control Challenges

Combustion and rupture of a liquid oxygen tank during the Apollo 13 mission provides lessons and insights for future spacecraft designers and operations personnel who may never, during their careers, have participated in saving a vehicle and crew during a spacecraft emergency. Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) challenges were the reestablishment of attitude control after the oxygen tank incident, re-establishment of a free return trajectory, resolution of a ground tracking conflict between the LM and the Saturn V S-IVB stage, Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) alignments, maneuvering to burn attitudes, attitude control during burns, and performing manual GNC tasks with most vehicle systems powered down. Debris illuminated by the Sun and gaseous venting from the Service Module (SM) complicated crew attempts to identify stars and prevented execution of nominal IMU alignment procedures. Sightings on the Sun, Moon, and Earth were used instead. Near continuous communications with Mission Control enabled the crew to quickly perform time critical procedures. Overcoming these challenges required the modification of existing contingency procedures.

Goodman, John L.↗
NASA NTRS2011

MLAS and LAS: Project Comparison of Lessons Learned

The development of new and safer manned space vehicles is a top priority at NASA. Recently two different approaches of how to accomplish this mission of keeping astronauts safe was successfully demonstrated. With work already underway on an Apollo-like launch abort system for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), an alternative design concept named the Max Launch Abort System, or MLAS, was developed as a parallel effort. The Orion system, managed by the Constellation office, is based on the design of a single solid launch abort motor in a tower positioned above the capsule. The MLAS design takes a different approach placing the solid launch abort motor underneath the capsule. This effort was led by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). Both escape systems were designed with the Ares I Rocket as the launch vehicle and had the same primary requirement to safely propel a crew module away from any emergency event either on the launch pad or during accent. Beyond these two parameters, there was little else in common between the two projects, except that they both concluded in successful launches that will further promote the development of crew launch abort systems. This presentation will compare both projects from the standpoint of technical requirements; program management and flight test objectives and highlight the synergistic lessons learned by two engineers who worked on each program.

Dittemore, Gary↗
NASA NTRS2011

Comparison of Two Recent Launch Abort Platforms

The development of new and safer manned space vehicles is a top priority at NASA. Recently two different approaches of how to accomplish this mission of keeping astronauts safe was successfully demonstrated. With work already underway on an Apollo-like launch abort system for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), an alternative design concept named the Max Launch Abort System, or MLAS, was developed as a parallel effort. The Orion system, managed by the Constellation office, is based on the design of a single solid launch abort motor in a tower positioned above the capsule. The MLAS design takes a different approach placing the solid launch abort motor underneath the capsule. This effort was led by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). Both escape systems were designed with the Ares I Rocket as the launch vehicle and had the same primary requirement to safely propel a crew module away from any emergency event either on the launch pad or during accent. Beyond these two parameters, there was little else in common between the two projects, except that they both concluded in successful launches that will further promote the development of crew launch abort systems. A comparison of these projects from the standpoint of technical requirements; program management and flight test objectives will be done to highlight the synergistic lessons learned by two engineers who worked on each program. This comparison will demonstrate how the scope of the project architecture and management involvement in innovation should be tailored to meet the specific needs of the system under development.

Dittemore, Gary D.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Contingency Operations of Americas Next Moon Rocket, Ares V

America has begun the development of a new space vehicle system which will enable humans to return to the moon and reach even farther destinations. The system is called Constellation: it has 2 earth-launch vehicles, Ares I and Ares V; a crew module, Orion; and a lander, Altair with descent and ascent stages. Ares V will launch an Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and Altair into low earth orbit. Ares I will launch the Orion crew module into low earth orbit where it will rendezvous and dock with the Altair and EDS "stack". After rendezvous, the stack will contain four complete rocket systems, each capable of independent operations. Of course this multiplicity of vehicles provides a multiplicity of opportunities for off-nominal behavior and multiple mitigation options for each. Contingency operations are complicated by the issues of crew safety and the possibility of debris from the very large components impacting the ground. This paper examines contingency operations of the EDS in low earth orbit, during the boost to translunar orbit, and after the translunar boost. Contingency operations under these conditions have not been a consideration since the Apollo era and analysis of the possible contingencies and mitigations will take some time to evolve. Since the vehicle has not been designed, much less built, it is not possible to evaluate contingencies from a root-cause basis or from a probability basis; rather they are discussed at an effects level (such as the reaction control system is consuming propellant at a high rate). Mitigations for the contingencies are based on the severity of the off-nominal condition, the time of occurrence, recovery options, options for alternate missions, crew safety, evaluation of the condition (forensics) and future prevention. Some proposed mitigations reflect innovation in thinking and make use of the multiplicity of on-orbit resources including the crew; example: Orion could do a "fly around" to allow the crew to determine the condition and cause of a partially separated payload shroud. Other mitigations are really alternate missions; example, an engine out on during ascent resulted in insufficient propellant for the lunar mission, but the on-orbit vehicle stack is otherwise perfect and can pursue an alternate mission, such as a high ballistic trajectory to test the high-speed atmospheric reentry of Orion. Evaluation and presentation of contingency operations at this early stage of the development of the Ares V rocket will improve the design of the vehicle and lay the groundwork for the exhaustive contingency planning which must be done after the vehicle is built as preparations for operations.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS2009

Ares V: Shifting the Payload Design Paradigm

NASA is designing the Ares V heavy-lift cargo launch vehicle to send more crew and cargo to more places on the lunar surface than the 1960s-era Saturn V and to provide ongoing support for a permanent lunar outpost. This uncrewed cargo vehicle is designed to operate together with the Ares I crew vehicle (Figure 1). In addition to this role, however, its unmatched mass and volume capability represent a national asset for exploration, science, and commerce. The Ares V also enables or significantly enhances a large class of space missions not thought possible by scientists and engineers since the Saturn V program ended over 30 years ago. Compared to current systems, it will offer approximately five times the mass and volume to most orbits and locations. This should allow prospective mission planners to build robust payloads with margins that are three to five times the industry norm. The space inside the planned payload shroud has enough usable volume to launch the volumetric equivalent of approximately 10 Apollo Lunar Modules or approximately five equivalent Hubble Space Telescopes. This mass and volume capability to low-Earth orbit (LEO) enables a host of new scientific and observation platforms, such as telescopes, satellites, planetary and solar missions, as well as being able to provide the lift for future large in-space infrastructure missions, such as space based solar power and mining, Earth asteroid defense, propellant depots, etc. In addition, payload designers may also have the option of simplifying their designs or employing Ares V s payload as dumb mass to reduce technical and operational risk. The Ares V team is engaging the potential payload community now, two to three years before System Requirements Review (SRR), in order to better understand the additional requirements from the payload community that could be accommodated in the Ares V design in its conceptual phase. This paper will discuss the Ares V reference mission and capability, as well as its potential to perform other missions in the future.

Sumrall, Phil↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Orion's Powered Flight Guidance Performance During Artemis I

Artemis is NASA’s campaign to explore the Moon and beyond. Artemis I, the un-crewed exo-LEO test flight, was completed in 2022. The Artemis I mission provided the means to prove-out both vehicle and systems as a pre-cursor to more advanced missions. The Orion capsule and service module had to be capable of accurately executing all major orbital burns and numerous correction burns to successfully execute the mission profile. In support of this needed translation maneuver capability, a powered flight guidance algorithm has been designed that provides a number of guided burn options depending on the burn objective. Some of these guidance options are based on classic orbit transfer problems, such as Lambert's time-of-flight problem. Some are based on proven NASA heritage manned space programs like Apollo and Shuttle. Some are new concepts that fill unique niche requirements. All of these options are integrated into an architecture based on a proven Shuttle heritage design, with a simple closed-loop guidance strategy, that provides both modularity, simplicity and adaptability to future, as yet to be defined, mission profiles. This paper will summarize the performance of Orion’s orbital powered flight guidance during the mission.

space guidance↗
NASA NTRS1975

Proceedings of the 1973 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Endocrine Program Conference

Papers given at the conference are presented. Subjects covered include the following: biochemical changes during 28 days of space flight, modulating the pituitary-adrenal response to stress, the significance of biorhythms in space flight, the importance of the rein-angiotensin system in normal cardiovascular homeostasis, a progress report of stress-induced changes in corticosteroid metabolism, recent studies of physiological factors involved in the regulation of serotonin content and turnover in the brain, the role of brain biogenic amines in the control of pituitary-adrenocortical activity, application of the water immersion model to man by studies of acid-base homeostasis during simulated weightlessness, the present status of physiological studies and analysis of calcium homeostasis in the Apollo and Skylab programs, and endocrine considerations in the red-cell-mass and plasma-volume changes of Skylab 2 and 3 crews.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1974

Apollo experience report: Food systems

Development, delivery, and use of food systems in support of the Apollo 7 to 14 missions are discussed. Changes in design criteria for this unique program as mission requirements varied are traced from the baseline system that was established before the completion of the Gemini Program. Problems and progress in subsystem management, material selection, food packaging, development of new food items, menu design, and food-consumption methods under zero-gravity conditions are described. The effectiveness of various approaches in meeting food system objectives of providing flight crews with safe, nutritious, easy to prepare, and highly acceptable foods is considered. Nutritional quality and adequacy in maintaining crew health are discussed in relation to the establishment of nutritional criteria for future missions. Technological advances that have resulted from the design of separate food systems for the command module, the lunar module, The Mobile Quarantine Facility, and the Lunar Receiving Laboratory are presented for application to future manned spacecraft and to unique populations in earthbound situations.

Smith, M. C., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2007

NASA CEV Reference GN&C Architecture

The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) will be the first human spacecraft built by NASA in almost 3 decades and will be the first vehicle to perform both Low Earth Orbit (LEO) missions and lunar missions since Apollo. The awesome challenge of designing a Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) system for this vehicle that satisfies all of its various mission requirements is countered by the opportunity to take advantage of the improvements in algorithms, software, sensors, and other related GN&C technology over this period. This paper describes the CEV GN&C reference architecture developed to support the overall NASA reference configuration and validate the driving requirements of the Constellation (Cx) Architecture Requirements Document (CARD, Reference 1) and the CEV System Requirements Document (SRD, Reference 2). The Orion GN&C team designed the reference architecture based on the functional allocation of GN&C roles and responsibilities of CEV with respect to the other Cx vehicles, such as the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and Lunar Surface Area Module (LSAM), across all flight phases. The specific challenges and responsibilities of the CEV GN&C system from launch pad to touchdown will be introduced along with an overview of the navigation sensor suite, its redundancy management, and flight software (FSW) architecture. Sensors will be discussed in terms of range of operation, data utility within the navigation system, and rationale for selection. The software architecture is illustrated via block diagrams, commensurate with the design aspects.

Tamblyn, Scott↗
NASA NTRS1994

An analysis of interplanetary space radiation exposure for various solar cycles

The radiation dose received by crew members in interplanetary space is influenced by the stage of the solar cycle. Using the recently developed models of the galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) environment and the energy-dependent radiation transport code, we have calculated the dose at 0 and 5 cm water depth; using a computerized anatomical man (CAM) model, we have calculated the skin, eye and blood-forming organ (BFO) doses as a function of aluminum shielding for various solar minima and maxima between 1954 and 1989. These results show that the equivalent dose is within about 15% of the mean for the various solar minima (maxima). The maximum variation between solar minimum and maximum equivalent dose is about a factor of three. We have extended these calculations for the 1976-1977 solar minimum to five practical shielding geometries: Apollo Command Module, the least and most heavily shielded locations in the U.S. space shuttle mid-deck, center of the proposed Space Station Freedom cluster and sleeping compartment of the Skylab. These calculations, using the quality factor of ICRP 60, show that the average CAM BFO equivalent dose is 0.46 Sv/year. Based on an approach that takes fragmentation into account, we estimate a calculation uncertainty of 15% if the uncertainty in the quality factor is neglected.

NASA Discipline Radiation Health↗
NASA NTRS2013

Faxing Structures to the Moon: Freeform Additive Construction System (FACS)

Using the highly articulated All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer (ATHLETE) robotic mobility system as a precision positioning tool, a variety of print head technologies can be used to 3D print large-scale in-situ structures on planetary surfaces such as the moon or Mars. In effect, in the same way CAD models can be printed in a 3D printer, large-scale structures such as walls, vaults, domes, berms, paving, trench walls, and other insitu derived elements can be FAXed to the planetary surface and built in advance of the arrival of crews, supplementing equipment and materials brought from earth. This paper discusses the ATHLETE system as a mobility / positioning platform, and presents several options for large-scale additive print head technologies, including tunable microwave "sinterator" approaches and in-situ concrete deposition. The paper also discusses potential applications, such as sintered-in-place habitat shells, radiation shielding, road paving, modular bricks, and prefabricated construction components.

Apollo Lunar Module↗
NASA NTRS2009

Ares V: Shifting the Payload Design Paradigm

NASA's Ares V heavy-lift cargo launch vehicle is being designed send more crew and cargo to more places on the lunar surface than the 1960s-era Apollo program and provide ongoing support to a permanent lunar outpost. In addition to that role, however, its unmatched mass and volume capability represent a global asset for exploration, science, and commerce. The Ares V also is an enabler of a large class of space missions not thought possible by scientists and engineers since the Saturn V program ended over 30 years ago. Compared to current systems, it will offer approximately 5 times the mass and volume to most orbits and locations. This should allow prospective mission planners to build robust payloads with margins that are 3 to 5 times the industry norm. The space inside the planned payload shroud has enough usable volume to launch the volumetric equivalent of approximately 10 Apollo Lunar Excursion Modules or approximately 5 equivalent Hubble Space Telescopes. This mass and volume capability to Low Earth Orbit enables a host of new scientific and observation platforms, such as telescopes, satellites, planetary and solar missions, as well as being able to provide the lift for future large in-space infrastructure missions, such as space based power and mining, Earth asteroid defense, propellant depots, etc. The Ares V team is engaging the potential payload community now, 2-3 years before System Requirements Review, in order to better understand the potential limitations and or additional requirements that could be added to the Ares V from the mission planning community. If a viable mission is determined and added to the Ares V as a design case, tradeoffs will be conducted to determine if other mission design requirements can be included in the system. Multiple shroud options for the Ares V have been analyzed to identify their impact on performance. Ares V is in a conceptual design stage prior to a formal design phase. The initial concept for the cargo launch vehicle (CaLV) that would later be dubbed "Ares V" was produced by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study in 2005. Since then, it has evolved through hundreds of concepts. The current point-of-departure (POD) concept was approved during the Lunar Capabilities Concept Review/Ares V Mission Concept Review in June 2008. This reference concept serves as a starting point for a renewed set of design trades and detailed analysis into its interaction with the other components of the Constellation architecture and existing launch infrastructure. This paper will discuss the Ares V design evolution, the most recent point-of-departure concept, and its capabilities to support future science missions.

Summrall, Phil↗
NASA NTRS1972

RAM - A concept for reducing space payload costs.

The post-Apollo era in manned space flight will be dominated in the short term by development of the space shuttle as an economical transportation system for payloads to low earth orbit. Research and Applications Modules (RAM) are a related group of shuttle-launched carriers for such payloads which can be used many times over, thus effecting great savings over currently conventional methods of implementing a program of this type. In order to maximize the potential savings, development and unit costs of the RAM vehicles must be minimized. All of the mission and operating modes can be covered in an economical fashion by the use of only three basic RAM elements - a pressurized module, an unpressurized pallet, and a pressurizable free-flying unit utilized in several combinations. These have been developed as a least cost approach through the consideration of such cost/weight related drivers as available crew size, separability of costly subsystems for multiple use, easy accessibility for maintenance/refurbishment for reuse, and a maximum commonality of hardware with existing and projected space projects.

Powell, D. J.↗