Results for “Deep Space Logistics” — Page 9

NASA NTRS2018

Development of a Ground Test and Analysis Protocol for NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗

NASA NTRS2022

Moon to Mars (M2M) Habitation Considerations: A Snap Shot As of January 2022

The following NASA Technical Memorandum (TM) is intended to provide a snapshot in time of NASA’s current considerations (ground rules and assumptions, functional allocations, logistics) for habitation systems for the lunar surface (non-roving) and Mars transits. As NASA continues to refine the reference designs to meet the needs of an evolving architecture, it is expected that this information will also be updated as a result. Where appropriate, relevant publicly released documents will be referenced to provide further detail. NASA’s human lunar exploration plan under the Artemis program calls for achieving the goal of sending the first woman and first person of color to the surface of the Moon in the mid- 2020s and working toward sustainable exploration by the end of the decade. Working with both commercial and international partners, NASA will establish a permanent human presence on the Moon to uncover new scientific discoveries and lay the foundation for private companies to build a lunar economy. Longer duration missions on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit will also serve as a test bed for technologies to support future Mars exploration campaigns. The agency will use what we learn on the Moon to prepare for humanity's next giant leap – sending astronauts to Mars. NASA intends to establish a sustained lunar presence with the development of the Artemis Base Camp to prove technologies and capabilities that will one day enable humans to live and work on Mars, beginning with core elements including the Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV), the Pressurized Rover (PR), the lunar Surface Habitat (SH), power systems, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) systems. For in space operations and eventual transport of humans to Mars, NASA will utilize a Mars Transit Habitat (TH). Following deployment, the TH will complete a series of longer duration missions and shakedown testing while docked at Gateway, leveraging Gateway’s habitation redundancy for safety measures. Proposed Gateway-TH missions will far exceed the longest duration cislunar human missions to date. They will be the first operational readiness tests of our long-duration deep space systems, and of the split crew (two crew on the surface, two crew in space) operations that are vital to the approach for the first human Mars mission. Both the SH and TH are major architectural elements of NASA’s Moon to Mars (M2M) approach, each with very different concepts of operation. The SH is intended for use on the lunar surface as a home for astronauts, surface operations base, science facility, hub for communications, extravehicular activity (EVA) equipment repair site, waste processing facility, and supply hub. It serves as an enabler for a sustained surface presence and preparation for partial gravity operations during Mars missions. The SH will be designed to be self-sufficient for operations on the lunar surface. The SH will independently provide several functions, including its own power generation, energy storage capability, sleep quarters, hygiene areas, work areas, and dining areas. It will be capable of communicating with surface assets, orbital assets, and directly with Earth ground stations. It is planned to operate with two crew in the habitat for ~28- day stays with crew swap-outs in which the PR crew of two trades places with the habitat crew. During the swap-out, the habitat will nominally support four crew for a short period of time. For contingency scenarios, the habitat must also be capable of supporting four crew for up to 7 days. The TH will be designed to be capable of up to ~1,200-day Mars missions with the ability to carry all food and supplies needed to support a crew of four for this duration. An assumed Mars mission profile for the TH is to carry crew and supplies for ~850-day roundtrips between Earth and Mars orbit that allows 30-day stays on the Martian surface. To test the systems for this long journey, the TH will be used to extend the duration of missions at Gateway, enabling the orbiting outpost to be used as a Mars analog. These analog missions will be accomplished by attaching the TH to Gateway and conducting lunar surface operations from the TH. The TH may also need to perform free-flying shakedown missions to test out all systems prior to leaving for Mars. The habitat provides many critical functions including: a contingency airlock, crew quarters, galley, hygiene areas, safe haven capability, and science equipment. It can receive docked items from either axial end or on a radial port.

Habitat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Autonomous In-space Construction, Maintenance, and Reconfiguration Using Programmable Meta-Material

NASA ARC's Coded Structures Laboratory (CSL) is developing autonomous construction, maintenance, and reconfiguration technologies to meet long-duration and deep space infrastructure needs, in accordance with long-term NASA goals of "in-space reliance" and "mass-less exploration." We seek to achieve these capabilities by utilizing a "programmable meta-material" approach that integrates emerging advances in materials (mechanical meta-materials), manufacturing (cooperative mobile robotics), and autonomy (multi-agent planning algorithms). Through the ARMADAS project, we have shown assembly of high-performance engineered cellular materials using multiple cooperating mobile robotic assemblers. In this paper, we describe how such a programmable meta-material architecture may shift the paradigm of how we design, build, manufacture, and operate future space infrastructure and assets. The core of a programmable meta-material architecture consists of 3 main technology sub-areas: the structure, the assembly agents, and the assembly algorithms. We co-design these systems to ensure an adaptable system that can create and reconfigure structures from a base set of building block components. From this core technology, we can branch out and expand the capability of the system through additional secondary component types and robotic agents to perform activities such as inspections, maintenance, repair, payload installation, or perform power and communications interconnect. As these technologies mature, future designers will be able to utilize the system to rapidly integrate and operate assets in space or on planetary surfaces from a set of well-tested part library, or create their own modules to integrate into the system. A core trait to the development of this system is the automation approach. Because of the modular and functional discrete (pixel-like) nature of the structural system, a diverse set of powerful algorithms for analysis, planning, and simulation can be adapted and leveraged to optimize construction, maintenance, and dynamic reorganization (as hardware with programmable form and function). With an ability to free the design space from launch vehicle constraints and fundamentally shift how a mission is designed and conducted, we discuss the influence of a programmable meta-material architecture on mission design, build, and operations. For the "design phase", we discuss project lifecycle effects, costs, time, and performance. For the "build phase", we discuss reusability, ISRU, manufacturing, material logistics, and scalability. And for "operations", we discuss autonomy, maintenance and upgrades, reliability, and reconfiguration. Autonomy and modularity are the primary enabling traits of this system. Engineering systems that utilize a modular and reconfiguration building block approach such as digital communication and computation systems, currently lead all other areas of technology in size and complexity scalability. NASA is extending the benefits and flexibility of digital systems to hardware systems, to optimize materials lifecycle management and expand our space exploration mission capabilities.

in space assembly↗

NASA NTRS2020

Design of a Microgravity Hybrid Inflatable Airlock

Spacewalks, or extra-vehicular activities (EVAs), are a critical component of human space exploration for science activities and habitat construction and maintenance. For NASA's proposed lunar Gateway system, an airlock module is required for vehicle maintenance, repair, and exploration. Traditional airlock structures are fully metallic, with two chambers, known as an equipment lock and a crew lock. The larger volume, called the equipment lock, serves as the storage, logistics and electronics area, while the smaller volume, called the crew lock, serves as the volume to transition from the vacuum of space to the pressurized cabin. A traditional metallic structure design offers mass efficiency for these elements, but cannot offer volume efficiency. The potential to use an inflatable fabric pressure shell supplemented by a metallic support structure allows for efficiency in both mass and volume. Inflatable structures are being used for human habitable space modules, starting with the Bigelow Expandable Activities Module on the International Space Station. They are high-strength fabric-based structures that are compactly stowed for launch and then, once in space, they are expanded and rigidized with internal pressure. They provide significant launch volume savings over metallic structures. For Gateway, a hybrid airlock design is proposed with both metallic and inflatable structural elements, taking advantage of each material's capabilities. A metallic equipment lock serves as both a docking node and provides pressurized volume for pre-EVA activities including pre-breathe and suit donning/doffing. A rigid equipment lock offers stowage space during launch for integrated hardware and suits. Adding an integrated inflatable crew lock provides the volume required for EVAs with minimal use of launch volume. Using dual inflatable crew locks provides redundancy and the capability to move large pieces of equipment into and out of the vehicle for repair and maintenance. The inflatable crew lock is deflated and packaged in the launch shroud and expanded after installation on the Gateway. This packing capability allows additional volume to be added to the equipment lock and fully utilize the capability of the launch vehicle. This report outlines the work completed to design, analyze, and test the systems of a microgravity airlock with inflatable crew locks. In detail, it includes launch vehicles, structural sizing of the metallic equipment lock, the fabric layers of the inflatable crew lock, the internal structure of the crew lock, the space suit interface elements, the crew restraint system, the hatches and pass-throughs, the material and thermal elements, and the crew operations for the usage of the system. This paper is meant to offer a reference design for a hybrid microgravity airlock design for deep space human exploration.

Litteken, Douglas↗

NASA NTRS2020

Design of a Microgravity Hybrid Inflatable Airlock

Spacewalks, or extra-vehicular activities (EVAs), are a critical component of human space exploration for science activities and habitat construction and maintenance. For NASA's proposed lunar Gateway system, an airlock module is required for vehicle maintenance, repair, and exploration. Traditional airlock structures are fully metallic, with two chambers, known as an equipment lock and a crew lock. The larger volume, called the equipment lock, serves as the storage, logistics and electronics area, while the smaller volume, called the crew lock, serves as the volume to transition from the vacuum of space to the pressurized cabin. A traditional metallic structure design offers mass efficiency for these elements, but cannot offer volume efficiency. The potential to use an inflatable fabric pressure shell supplemented by a metallic support structure allows for efficiency in both mass and volume. Inflatable structures are being used for human habitable space modules, starting with the Bigelow Expandable Activities Module on the International Space Station. They are high-strength fabric-based structures that are compactly stowed for launch and then, once in space, they are expanded and rigidized with internal pressure. They provide significant launch volume savings over metallic structures. For Gateway, a hybrid airlock design is proposed with both metallic and inflatable structural elements, taking advantage of each material's capabilities. A metallic equipment lock serves as both a docking node and provides pressurized volume for pre-EVA activities including pre-breathe and suit donning/doffing. A rigid equipment lock offers stowage space during launch for integrated hardware and suits. Adding an integrated inflatable crew lock provides the volume required for EVAs with minimal use of launch volume. Using dual inflatable crew locks provides redundancy and the capability to move large pieces of equipment into and out of the vehicle for repair and maintenance. The inflatable crew lock is deflated and packaged in the launch shroud and expanded after installation on the Gateway. This packing capability allows additional volume to be added to the equipment lock and fully utilize the capability of the launch vehicle. This report outlines the work completed to design, analyze, and test the systems of a microgravity airlock with inflatable crew locks. In detail, it includes launch vehicles, structural sizing of the metallic equipment lock, the fabric layers of the inflatable crew lock, the internal structure of the crew lock, the space suit interface elements, the crew restraint system, the hatches and pass-throughs, the material and thermal elements, and the crew operations for the usage of the system. This paper is meant to offer a reference design for a hybrid microgravity airlock design for deep space human exploration.

Litteken, Douglas↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Launch System Payload Stage Capability for Ultra-High Characteristic Energy Missions

The Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle is NASA’s cornerstone capability for a new era of human and robotic exploration of deep space. The unrivalled performance of SLS provides the capability to launch the first woman and next man to walk on the lunar surface and to support development of a sustained human presence in cislunar space, and ultimately human missions to Mars. As an evolvable capability with unique launch performance, the opportunities enabled by SLS also include game-changing benefits for science missions, including probes to the outer solar system and beyond. For the last two years, the SLS Program has worked with the Interstellar Probe team at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory(APL) to provide data that describe how SLS could support a mission that would break through the boundary of the heliosphere and into pristine interstellar space only a decade after launch, enabling earlier science return and greatly increasing spacecraft life in the interstellar medium. In record-breaking time, the ISP as launched on SLS may answer questions raised by the extended mission of NASA’s Voyager spacecraft. While SLS and its efficient Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) offer benefits for exploration of the outer planets, adding one or more additional stages to this architecture makes it even more capable for missions beyond our solar system, offering more realistically appealing flight times that would allow the mission scientists to reap the rewards of exploration. During the time the SLS Program has been working with the Interstellar Probe team, it has identified an expedited path to the Block 2 capability planned for the Interstellar Probe mission, and further matured performance numbers for diverse multi-stage configurations using a combination of commercially available liquid hydrogen (LH2)/liquid oxygen (LOX) upper stages and solid motor kick stages. That work has demonstrated the SLS payload stage capability provides significant benefits and opens trade space for multiple missions in consideration during planning for the next Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey. This presentation details the significant benefits SLS can provides for very high characteristic (C3) energy missions by coupling the capabilities of SLS to current commercial rocket propulsion stage systems. These capabilities are explored specifically in the context of an Interstellar Probe architecture in which a small, capable science probe, coupled with carefully tailored mission design trajectories, could be used to explore the outer solar system and the interstellar medium. The presentation will also address the operational logistics of integrating such a mission, explaining the options available for “non-standard” SLS payloads, including processing those with radioisotope power generators or additional propulsion stages. An SLS system overview and capabilities will be presented, along with vehicle configuration and orbit performance capability studies, explaining how SLS is enabling for a variety of high-energy science mission profiles, including launching an exploratory probe bound for interstellar space only a decade after launch.

Rob Stough↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants

The Common Habitat is a large habitat developed as an alternative architecture study, not part of the current NASA baseline, that uses the SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as its primary structure. It has a gravity-independent internal architecture, such that identical units can be used on the lunar surface, Mars surface, and in microgravity. In developing the habitat, two key architectural questions emerged. Should the internal layout use a vertical or horizontal orientation of the tank? Should the crew size be four or eight? This led to the design of four variants: a four-crew horizontal, four-crew vertical, eight-crew horizontal, and eight-crew vertical. The four-crew variants use a shortened version of the tank while the eight-crew variants use the entire tank. The primary consideration applied for down-selection is the crew experience living and working in the habitat, inclusive of crew productivity, well-being, and survivability. Based on this consideration, a series of seven assessments were performed to compare the variants. This analysis was performed as an unfunded, volunteer activity leveraging civil servants across multiple field centers, most with expertise working in various Artemis teams. Additionally, the evaluation was limited to the use of CAD models, images, and spreadsheet data, with no resources available for mockups or Virtual Reality. A logistics analysis developed a standard logistics module and then estimated how much stowage could be carried onboard each Common Habitat and how many logistics modules are required by each variant for a given mission duration. It also considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the habitats, ranking them relative to each other. A crew time assessment first estimated the total crew time, building a weekly crew timeline for both four and eight-person crews. It then allocated time to activities linked to living and working functions, comparing how much time was available for each function in each variant. A science productivity assessment developed a relative metric using crew time, science stowage, and assumed rates of experiment consumables use to analytically compare the four variants. It also comparatively ranked the habitats with respect to a number of subjective parameters and a workstation acceptability rating. A maintenance capacity assessment identified and compared eleven generic maintenance capabilities across the variants and also ranked them for their predicted ability to complete twelve fabrication, maintenance, and repair scenarios. A contingency responsiveness analysis examined twelve serious in-flight contingencies. For each scenario, the number of crew needed to respond were predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response were evaluated, comparing the variants against each other. Finally, in a habitability assessment, 120 habitability characteristics reflecting 13 major categories were evaluated for each habitat. These results were compared to identify the most acceptable habitat in each category. Ultimately, the data favored the horizontal orientation over the vertical and an eight-person crew over four. Implications of selecting this variant are discussed, including specific architectural challenges that result from the use of the full tank.

Habitability↗