Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “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 NTRS2008

Simulation Assisted Risk Assessment Applied to Launch Vehicle Conceptual Design

A simulation-based risk assessment approach is presented and is applied to the analysis of abort during the ascent phase of a space exploration mission. The approach utilizes groupings of launch vehicle failures, referred to as failure bins, which are mapped to corresponding failure environments. Physical models are used to characterize the failure environments in terms of the risk due to blast overpressure, resulting debris field, and the thermal radiation due to a fireball. The resulting risk to the crew is dynamically modeled by combining the likelihood of each failure, the severity of the failure environments as a function of initiator and time of the failure, the robustness of the crew module, and the warning time available due to early detection. The approach is shown to support the launch vehicle design process by characterizing the risk drivers and identifying regions where failure detection would significantly reduce the risk to the crew.

Mathias, Donovan 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 NTRS2013

The Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle European Service Module: a European Contribution to Human Exploration

This paper provides an overview of the system and subsystem configuration of the MPCV European Service Module (ESM) at Preliminary Design Review (PDR) stage as well as its perspectives of utilisation within the global space exploration endeavour. The MPCV ESM is a cylindrical module with a diameter of 4500 mm and a total length – main engine excluded – of 2700 mm. It is fitted with four solar array wings with a span of 18.8 m. Its dry mass is 3.5 metric tons and it can carry 8.6 tons of propellant. The main functions of the European Service Module are to bring the structural continuity between the launcher and the crew module, to provide propulsion to the MPCV, to ensure its thermal control as well as electrical power and to store water, oxygen and nitrogen for the mission. The current agreement foresees the development and production by Europe of one flight model, with an option for a second one. This module will be assembled in Europe and delivered to NASA in 2016. It will be used for a flight of the MPCV Orion in December 2017.

European Service Module↗
NASA NTRS2019

Risk Analysis Associated with Loss of Toxic Gases During Orion Landing and Recovery Operations

Mission, landing and recovery operations for the Orion crew module involve reentry into the Earth's atmosphere and the deployment of three Nomex parachutes to slow the descent before landing along the west coast of the United States. Orion may have residual fuel (hydrazine, N2H4) or coolant (ammonia, NH3) on board which are both highly toxic to crew in the event of exposure. These risks were evaluated using a first principles analysis approach through fluid dynamics modeling. Plume calculations were first performed with the ANSYS Fluent computational fluid dynamics code. Data were then extracted at locations relevant to crew safety such as the snorkel fan inlet and the egress hatch. Mixing calculations were performed to quantify exposure concentrations within the crew bay before and during egress and departure. Finally, results included herein were used to inform the Orion post-landing Concept of Operations (ConOps) so that strategies could be formulated to maintain crew safety in the event of the loss of fuel or coolant.

Orion↗
NASA NTRS2009

Orbiting Depot and Reusable Lander for Lunar Transportation

A document describes a conceptual transportation system that would support exploratory visits by humans to locations dispersed across the surface of the Moon and provide transport of humans and cargo to sustain one or more permanent Lunar outpost. The system architecture reflects requirements to (1) minimize the amount of vehicle hardware that must be expended while maintaining high performance margins and (2) take advantage of emerging capabilities to produce propellants on the Moon while also enabling efficient operation using propellants transported from Earth. The system would include reusable single- stage lander spacecraft and a depot in a low orbit around the Moon. Each lander would have descent, landing, and ascent capabilities. A crew-taxi version of the lander would carry a pressurized crew module; a cargo version could carry a variety of cargo containers. The depot would serve as a facility for storage and for refueling with propellants delivered from Earth or propellants produced on the Moon. The depot could receive propellants and cargo sent from Earth on a variety of spacecraft. The depot could provide power and orbit maintenance for crew vehicles from Earth and could serve as a safe haven for lunar crews pending transport back to Earth.

Petro, Andrew↗
NASA NTRS2019

European Service Module - Structural Test Article (E-STA) Building Block Test Approach and Model Correlation Observations

The Orion European Service Module - Structural Test Article (E-STA) underwent sine vibration testing in 2016 using the Mechanical Vibration Facility (MVF) multi-axis shaker system at NASA Glenn Research Center’s (GRC) Plum Brook Station (PBS) Space Power Facility (SPF). The main objective was to verify the structural integrity of the European Service Module (ESM) under sine sweep dynamic qualification vibration testing. A secondary objective was to perform a fixed-base modal survey, while E-STA was still mounted to MVF, in order to achieve a test correlate the finite element model (FEM). To facilitate the E-STA system level correlation effort, a building block test approach was implemented. Modal tests were performed on two major subassemblies, the crew module/launch abort structure (CM/LAS) and the crew module adapter (CMA) mass simulators. These subassembly FEMs were individually correlated and then integrated into the E-STA FEM prior to the start of the E-STA sine vibration test. This paper summarizes the modal testing and model correlation efforts of both of these subassemblies and how the building block approach assisted in the overall correlation of the E-STA FEM. This paper will also cover modeling practices that should be avoided, recommended instrumentation positioning on complex structures, and the importance of the FEM geometrically matching CAD in sufficient detail in order to adequately replicate internal load paths. The goal of this paper is to inform the reader of the hard earned lessons learned and pitfalls to avoid when applying a building block test approach.

Winkel, James P.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Predicting Ares I Reaction Control System Performance by Utilizing Analysis Anchored with Development Test Data

The Ares I launch vehicle is an integral part of NASA s Constellation Program, providing a foundation for a new era of space access. The Ares I is designed to lift the Orion Crew Module and will enable humans to return to the Moon as well as explore Mars.1 The Ares I is comprised of two inline stages: a Space Shuttle-derived five-segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) First Stage (FS) and an Upper Stage (US) powered by a Saturn V-derived J-2X engine. A dedicated Roll Control System (RoCS) located on the connecting interstage provides roll control prior to FS separation. Induced yaw and pitch moments are handled by the SRB nozzle vectoring. The FS SRB operates for approximately two minutes after which the US separates from the vehicle and the US Reaction Control System (ReCS) continues to provide reaction control for the remainder of the mission. A representation of the Ares I launch vehicle in the stacked configuration and including the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is shown in Figure 1. Each Reaction Control System (RCS) design incorporates a Gaseous Helium (GHe) pressurization system combined with a monopropellant Hydrazine (N2H4) propulsion system. Both systems have two diametrically opposed thruster modules. This architecture provides one failure tolerance for function and prevention of catastrophic hazards such as inadvertent thruster firing, bulk propellant leakage, and over-pressurization. The pressurization system on the RoCS includes two ambient pressure-referenced regulators on parallel strings in order to attain the required system level single Fault Tolerant (FT) design for function while the ReCS utilizes a blow-down approach. A single burst disk and relief valve assembly is also included on the RoCS to ensure single failure tolerance for must-not-occur catastrophic hazards. The Reaction Control Systems are designed to support simultaneously firing multiple thrusters as required

Stein, William B.↗
NASA NTRS2014

An Overview of the Launch Vehicle Blast Environments Development Efforts

NASA has been funding an ongoing development program to characterize the explosive environments produced during a catastrophic launch vehicle accident. These studies and small-scale tests are focused on the near field environments that threaten the crew. The results indicate that these environments are unlikely to result in immediate destruction of the crew modules. The effort began as an independent assessment by NASA safety organizations, followed by the Ares program and NASA Engineering and Safety Center and now as a Space Launch Systems (SLS) focused effort. The development effort is using the test and accident data available from public or NASA sources as well as focused scaled tests that are examining the fundamental aspects of uncontained explosions of Hydrogen and air and Hydrogen and Oxygen. The primary risk to the crew appears to be the high-energy fragments and these are being characterized for the SLS. The development efforts will characterize the thermal environment of the explosions as well to ensure that the risk is well understood and to document the overall energy balance of an explosion. The effort is multi-path in that analytical, computational and focused testing is being used to develop the knowledge to understand potential SLS explosions. This is an ongoing program with plans that expand the development from fundamental testing at small-scale levels to large-scale tests that can be used to validate models for commercial programs. The ultimate goal is to develop a knowledge base that can be used by vehicle designers to maximize crew survival in an explosion.

Richardson, Erin↗
NASA NTRS2007

Space Shuttle MMOD Threat Mitigation Techniques

Prior to each shuttle mission, threat assessments are performed to determine the risk of critical penetration, payload bay door radiator tube leak and crew module window replacement from Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD). Mission parameters, such as vehicle attitude, exposure time and altitude are used as inputs for the analysis. Ballistic limit equations, based on hypervelocity impact testing of shuttle materials are used to estimate the critical particle diameters of the outer surfaces of the vehicle. The assessments are performed using the BUMPER computer code at the NASA/JSC Hypervelocity Impact Technology Facility (HITF). The most critical involves the calculation of Loss of Crew and Vehicle (LOCV) risk. In recent years, NASA has implemented several techniques to reduce the risk to the Shuttle from MMOD impacts. This paper will describe on-orbit inspection of the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) regions and the methods used discern hypervelocity impact damage. Impact damage contingency plans and on-orbit repair techniques will also be discussed. The wing leading edge impact detection system (WLEIDS) and it's role in the reduction of on-orbit risk reduction will be presented. Finally, an analysis of the effectivity of alternative shuttle flight attitudes on MMOD risk will be demonstrated.

Hyde, Justin L.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Advanced interface heat exchangers for the Space Station main thermal bus

Future evolution and growth of the Space Station will place increasing demands on the thermal management system by the addition of new payloads and from increased activity in the habitat modules. To meet this need, Creare is developing advanced evaporators, condensors, and single-phase heat exchangers for operation in microgravity. The objective is to achieve a several-fold increase in the heat flux capability of these components, while operating at the same temperature difference as specified for the present interface heat exchangers. Two prototype interface heat exchangers are presently being developed: one to interface the main thermal bus to a payload two-phase ammonia bus, and the other, to interface with the crew module single-phase water loop. The results achieved to date in the development of these heat exchangers are reviewed.

Valenzuela, Javier A.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Assessment of Prone Positioning of Restrained, Seated Crewmembers in a Post Landing Stable 2 Orion Configuration

During the Orion landing and recovery subsystem design review, June 2009, it was noted that the human system and various vehicle systems, the environmental control and life support (ECLSS) and guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) systems for example, are negatively affected by Orion assuming a stable 2 (upside down; Figure A) configuration post landing. The stable 2 configuration is predicted to occur about 50% of the time based on Apollo landing data and modeling of the current capsule. The stable 2 configuration will be countered by an active up-righting system (crew module up-righting system; CMUS). Post landing balloons will deploy and inflate causing the vehicle to assume or maintain the stable 1 (up-right; Figure B) configuration. During the design review it was proposed that the up-righting system could be capable of righting the vehicle within 60 seconds. However, this time limit posed a series of constraints on the design which made it less robust than desired. The landing and recovery subsystem team requested an analysis of Orion vehicle systems as well as the human system with regard to the effect of stable 2 in order to determine if an up-righting response time greater than 60 seconds could be tolerated. The following report focuses on the assessment of the human system in the posture assumed when Orion is in the stable 2 configuration. Stable 2 will place suited, seated, and restrained crewmembers in a prone (facedown), head-up position for a period of time dependent on the functionality of the up-righting systems, ability of the crew to release themselves from the seat and restraints, and/or time to arrival of rescue forces. Given that the Orion seat and restraint system design is not complete and therefore, not available for evaluation, Space Medicine assessed how long a healthy but deconditioned crewmember could stay in this prone, restrained position and the physiological consequences of this posture by researching terrestrial analogs and considered the known physiological alterations and deconditioning experienced by long duration crewmembers.

Barr, Yael↗
NASA NTRS2009

Spacecraft Internal Acoustic Environment Modeling

Acoustic modeling can be used to identify key noise sources, determine/analyze sub-allocated requirements, keep track of the accumulation of minor noise sources, and to predict vehicle noise levels at various stages in vehicle development, first with estimates of noise sources, later with experimental data. In FY09, the physical mockup developed in FY08, with interior geometric shape similar to Orion CM (Crew Module) IML (Interior Mode Line), was used to validate SEA (Statistical Energy Analysis) acoustic model development with realistic ventilation fan sources. The sound power levels of these sources were unknown a priori, as opposed to previous studies that RSS (Reference Sound Source) with known sound power level was used. The modeling results were evaluated based on comparisons to measurements of sound pressure levels over a wide frequency range, including the frequency range where SEA gives good results. Sound intensity measurement was performed over a rectangular-shaped grid system enclosing the ventilation fan source. Sound intensities were measured at the top, front, back, right, and left surfaces of the and system. Sound intensity at the bottom surface was not measured, but sound blocking material was placed tinder the bottom surface to reflect most of the incident sound energy back to the remaining measured surfaces. Integrating measured sound intensities over measured surfaces renders estimated sound power of the source. The reverberation time T6o of the mockup interior had been modified to match reverberation levels of ISS US Lab interior for speech frequency bands, i.e., 0.5k, 1k, 2k, 4 kHz, by attaching appropriately sized Thinsulate sound absorption material to the interior wall of the mockup. Sound absorption of Thinsulate was modeled in three methods: Sabine equation with measured mockup interior reverberation time T60, layup model based on past impedance tube testing, and layup model plus air absorption correction. The evaluation/validation was carried out by acquiring octave band microphone data simultaneously at ten fixed locations throughout the mockup. SPLs (Sound Pressure Levels) predicted by our SEA model match well with measurements for our CM mockup, with a more complicated shape. Additionally in FY09, background NC noise (Noise Criterion) simulation and MRT (Modified Rhyme Test) were developed and performed in the mockup to determine the maximum noise level in CM habitable volume for fair crew voice communications. Numerous demonstrations of simulated noise environment in the mockup and associated SIL (Speech Interference Level) via MRT were performed for various communities, including members from NASA and Orion prime-/sub-contractors. Also, a new HSIR (Human-Systems Integration Requirement) for limiting pre- and post-landing SIL was proposed.

Chu, SShao-sheng R.↗
NASA NTRS1979

Manned geosynchronous mission requirements and systems analysis study. Volume 1: Executive summary

The crew capsule of the MOTV was studied with emphasis on crew accommodations, crew capsule functional requirements, subsystem interface definition between crew module and propulsion module, and man rating requirements. Competing mission modes were studied covering a wide range of propulsion concepts. These included one stage, one and one half stage, and two stage concepts using either the standard STS or an augmented STS. Several deorbit concepts were considered, including all propulsive modes, direct re-entry, and aeromaneuvering skip in skip out in the upper reaches of Earth's atmosphere. A five year plan covering costs, schedules, and critical technology issues is discussed.

Boyland, R. E.↗
NASA NTRS1979

STS mission duration enhancement study: (orbiter habitability)

Habitability improvements for early flights that could be implemented with minimum impact were investigated. These included: (1) launching the water dispenser in the on-orbit position instead of in a locker; (2) the sleep pallet concept; and (3) suction cup foot restraints. Past studies that used volumetric terms and requirements for crew size versus mission duration were reviewed and common definitions of key habitability terms were established. An accurately dimensioned drawing of the orbiter mid-deck, locating all of the known major elements was developed. Finally, it was established that orbiter duration and crew size can be increased with minimum modification and impact to the crew module. Preliminary concepts of the aft med-deck, external versions of expanded tunnel adapters (ETA), and interior concepts of ETA-3 were developed and comparison charts showing the various factors of volume, weight, duration, size, impact to orbiter, and number of sleep stations were generated.

Carlson, A. D.↗
NASA NTRS1983

An alternate concept for expanding man's presence in space

A logical next step after shuttle is a manned orbital service system (MOSS) consisting of a two-man crew module mated with a propulsion module. The resulting spacecraft would remain in low Earth orbit for months or years at a time conducting civil or military satellite servicing, experimental, or applications missions while being periodically supplied and refueled by Shuttle flights from the ground. The system would accumulate experience invaluable to the design of future large and more expensive spacecraft. Key features of the vehicle are versatility and mobility. With Centaur-type propulsion and a large payload, the MOSS could leave an initial orbit of 370 km (200 nmi) altitude and inclinations up to 56 deg, make a plane change of up to + or - 14 deg, reach altitudes to 5500 km (2970 nmi), and then return the payload to the original orbit altitude and inclination. Obviously, the size of the performance envelope varies with the payload and propulsion-unit selected. The MOSS can reach orbits and perform tasks not possible with Shuttle alone or with the much larger space stations currently being proposed.

Hook, W. R.↗
NASA NTRS1990

High heat flux single phase heat exchanger

This paper presents the results obtained to date in a program to develop a high heat flux, single-phase heat exchanger for spacecraft thermal management. The intended application is a net generation interface heat exchanger to couple the crew module water thermal bus to the two-phase ammonia main thermal bus in the Space Station Freedom. The large size of the interface heat exchanger is dictated by the relatively poor water-side heat transfer characteristics. The objective of this program is to develop a single-phase heat transfer approach which can achieve heat fluxes and heat transfer coefficients comparable to those of the evaporation ammonia side. A new heat exchanger concept has been developed to meet these objecties. The main feature of this heat exchanger is that it can achieve very high heat fluxes with a pressure drop one to two orders of magnitude lower than those of previous microchannel or jet impingement high heat flux heat exchangers. This paper describes proof-of-concept experiments performed in air and water and presents analytical model of the heat exchanger.

Valenzuela, Javier A.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Spacelab 3 mission

Spacelab-3 (SL-3) was the first microgravity mission of extended duration involving crew interaction with animal experiments. This interaction involved sharing the Spacelab environmental system, changing animal food, and changing animal waste trays by the crew. Extensive microbial testing was conducted on the animal specimens and crew and on their ground and flight facilities during all phases of the mission to determine the potential for cross contamination. Macroparticulate sampling was attempted but was unsuccessful due to the unforseen particulate contamination occurring during the flight. Particulate debris of varying size (250 micron to several inches) and composition was recovered post flight from the Spacelab floor, end cones, overhead areas, avionics fan filter, cabin fan filters, tunnel adaptor, and from the crew module. These data are discussed along with solutions, which were implemented, for particulate and microbial containment for future flight facilities.

Dalton, Bonnie P.↗