Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Orbiter Landing Loads”

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.

149 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crew members and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3%) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

N Newby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

P Greenhalgh↗
NASA NTRS2000

Navigation Strategy for the Mars 2001 Lander Mission

The Mars Surveyor Program (MSP) is an ongoing series of missions designed to robotically study, map and search for signs of life on the planet Mars. The MSP 2001 project will advance the effort by sending an orbiter, a lander and a rover to the red planet in the 2001 opportunity. Each vehicle will carry a science payload that will Investigate the Martian environment on both a global and on a local scale. Although this mission will not directly search for signs of life, or cache samples to be returned to Earth, it will demonstrate certain enabling technologies that will be utilized by the future Mars Sample Return missions. One technology that is needed for the Sample Return mission is the capability to place a vehicle on the surface within several kilometers of the targeted landing site. The MSP'01 Lander will take the first major step towards this type of precision landing at Mars. Significant reduction of the landed footprint will be achieved through two technology advances. The first, and most dramatic, is hypersonic aeromaneuvering; the second is improved approach navigation. As a result, the guided entry will produce in a footprint that is only tens of kilometers, which is an order of magnitude improvement over the Pathfinder and Mars Polar Lander ballistic entries. This reduction will significantly enhance scientific return by enabling the potential selection of otherwise unreachable landing sites with unique geologic interest and public appeal. A landed footprint reduction from hundreds to tens of kilometers is also a milestone on the path towards human exploration of Mars, where the desire is to place multiple vehicles within several hundred meters of the planned landing site. Hypersonic aeromaneuvering is an extension of the atmospheric flight goals of the previous landed missions, Pathfinder and Mars Polar Lander (MPL), that utilizes aerodynamic lift and an autonomous guidance algorithm while in the upper atmosphere. The onboard guidance algorithm will control the direction of the lift vector, via bank angle modulation, to keep the vehicle on the desired trajectory. While numerous autonomous guidance algorithms have been developed for use during hypersonic flight at Earth, this will be the first flight of an autonomously directed lifting entry vehicle at Mars. However, without sufficient control and knowledge of the atmospheric entry conditions, the guidance algorithm will not perform effectively. The goal of the interplanetary navigation strategy is to deliver the spacecraft to the desired entry condition with sufficient accuracy and knowledge to enable satisfactory guidance algorithm performance. Specifically, the entry flight path angle must not exceed 0.27 deg. to a 3 sigma confidence level. Entry errors will contribute directly to the size of the landed footprint and the most significant component is entry flight path angle. The size of the entry corridor is limited on the shallow side by integrated heating constraints, and on the steep side by deceleration (g-load) and terminal descent propellant. In order to meet this tight constraint it is necessary to place a targeting maneuver seven hours prior to the time of entry. At this time the trajectory knowledge will be quite accurate, and the effects of maneuver execution errors will be small. The drawback is that entry accuracy is dependent on the success of this final late maneuver. Because propulsive maneuvers are critical events, it is desirable to minimize their occurrence and provide the flight team with as much response time as possible in the event of a spacecraft fault. A mission critical maneuver at Entry - 7 hours does not provide much fault tolerance, and it is desirable to provide a strategy that minimizes reliance on this maneuver. This paper will focus on the Improvements in interplanetary navigation that will decrease entry errors and will reduce the landed footprint, even in the absence of aeromaneuvering. The easiest to take advantage of are Improvements In the knowledge of the Mars ephemeris and gravity field due to the MGS and MSP'98 missions. Improvements In data collection and reduction techniques such as "precislon ranging' and near-simultaneous tracking will also be utilized. In addition to precise trajectory control, a robust strategy for communications and flight operations must also be demonstrated. The result Is a navigation and communications strategy on approach that utilizes optimal maneuver placement to take advantage of trajectory knowledge, minimizes risk for the flight operations team, is responsive to spacecraft hardware limitations, and achieves the entry corridor. The MSP2001 mission Is managed at JPL under the auspices of the Mars Exploration Directorate. The spacecraft flight elements are built and managed by Lockheed-Martin Astronautics in Denver, Colorado.

Mase, Robert A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uranus Probe Entry and Descent Mission Concept

Introduction: Uranus was identified as the third highest priority flagship mission in the 2012-2022 Planetary Science Decadal Survey. This latest concept study was requested by the Decadal Survey panel to determine NASA’s planetary science priorities from 2022-2032. This study focused on the probe’s entry and descent aspects and associated trades for viable trajectory options. Uranus Mission and Descent Probe: The proposed Uranus Orbiter and Probe (UOP) Flagship mission will investigate Uranus and its surrounding moons using an orbiting spacecraft with a Uranus descent probe. Unlike previous studies the probe release will occur after orbit insertion allowing sufficient separation of critical events during the orbit insertion burn. The probe will be released at an altitude that allows one hour of in situ atmospheric readings that will be relayed to the orbiter. Afterwards the orbiter will transition to the moon tour phase of the mission. The configuration chosen for the entry aeroshell was a 45° sphere-cone. This shape has been used in the past in the Pioneer Venus Galileo missions. However, the nose radius considered in the present study differed from the values used in either of the previous configurations, primarily to reduce the heat flux at the stagnation point. A two-step approach was used in the development of flight trajectories for the chosen configuration. In the first step, the trajectory code POST2 was used to screen the thousands of entry states provided by interplanetary trajectory simulations, which were terminated at an altitude of 2000 km from the reference surface (1 bar) of Uranus. The screening criteria were: (i) optimization of the communication geometry between the entry probe and orbiter to ensure at least 1 hour of science measurements, (ii) peak stagnation point pressures to be less than six bar, (iii) peak heat fluxes to be less than 5 kW/cm2; the latter two constraints being the limits of ground-test capabilities of the arc jets at NASA Ames Research Center. The entry team investigated two trajectories that met the criteria above, a shallow entry (high heat load ~44 kJ/cm2) and a steeper entry (high heat rate ~1950 W/cm2). In the second step, the two bounding candidate entry states from the POST2 screening process were used in developing flight trajectories using TRAJ coupled with FIAT (a materials thermal response and sizing code) and a margins policy to determine a margined uniform thickness (hence mass) of the forward heatshield material based on the aerothermal environments at the stagnation point. Since the combination of TRAJ and FIAT size the TPS based on stagnation point environments only, flow field computations using DPLR were necessary to determine turbulent aerothermal environments on the conical flank, and the augmentation of these environments due to surface roughness. The environments at select locations on the forward heatshield were then used to size the thermal protection material, with the largest thickness value then used to estimate the mass. The newly developed woven thermal protection material –HEEET (Heatshield for Extreme Entry Environments Technology) –was considered for the forward heatshield and PICA (Phenolic-Impregnated Carbon Ablator) was considered for the backshell. These NASA-developed materials are at TRL 6 and TRL 9, respectively. Furthermore, two options were considered for the HEEET material: (i) a dual-layer option with a denser recession layer on top and an insulative layer underneath it, and (ii) a single layer option consisting of the insulative layer alone. Results: It is clear that probe entry states are feasible and the selected TPS options are able to perform in the predicted aerothermal environments thus enabling the mission to meet of the descent probe portion of this flagship mission

Entry Descent and Landing↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) Aeroshell Performance

On November 10, 2022, NASA launched the Low-earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) vehicle as a secondary payload mounted inside the launch vehicle adaptor on an Atlas V 401 out of the Vandenburg Space Force Base (VSFB). The primary payload, Joint Polar Satellite System-2 (JPSS-2), was delivered successfully to a sun synchronous trajectory shortly after launch, at which point the Centaur upper stage performed a burn to de-orbit the system. Once on the desired trajectory to enter the atmosphere the top of the payload adaptor was ejected to expose the LOFTID vehicle, then the LOFTID aeroshell, a Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD), was deployed and inflated without issue. The Centaur pointed the LOFTID to the desired attitude to enter the atmosphere, spun the assembly to three rpm, separated the reentry vehicle, and finally performed a collision avoidance maneuver to prevent the Centaur from re-contacting the LOFTID after atmospheric entry. The LOFTID vehicle maintained the design attitude and spin rate from separation to atmospheric entry, roughly 30 minutes, demonstrating the aeroshell did not experience any energy damping from inflatable structure flexibility. The LOFTID vehicle entered the atmosphere over Alaska at >8km/sec and decelerated as designed demonstrating stable flight from hypersonic entry through subsonic parachute deployment. On-board visible light cameras captured the reactions of the heatshield through all phases of flight, and co-located infrared light cameras captured the temperature distribution of the aft side of the heat shield anchored to a distribution of thermocouples on the inflatable structure (IS) in the field of view. Thermocouples were also embedded in the forward side of the aeroshell both in the Flexible Thermal Protection System (FTPS) as well as the IS. This paper will discuss aeroshell response to the atmospheric entry. The visible light cameras captured mechanical response of the deployable aeroshell to the loads applied in the different phases of entry. Events seen on the visible light cameras correlate with the response of the load cell pins on webbing elements that attach the aeroshell to the centerbody structure. Thermocouple data captured verifies the aerothermal response of the aeroshell was in-kind with pre-flight analysis predictions although somewhat lower in most locations. This data will allow the improvement of the aeroshell modeling tools predictive capability. Post-flight inspection of the aeroshell after splash down and ocean recovery shows that all the aeroshell materials and manufacturing techniques developed over the past 15 years of HIAD technology development performed as designed at large scale, a scale which cannot be replicated in ground test facilities. The HIAD supported the LOFTID vehicle high in the water after touching down under parachute and maintained buoyancy and integrity for the hour it took to position the recovery vessel near the LOFTID after splash down. There was no indication the HIAD would have experienced an issue maintaining buoyancy for many more hours after water impact as the component maintained adequate inflation pressure more than 24 hours after water extraction with no additional inflation gas in tanks, as the inflation gas remaining in the tank was vented prior to impact.

Entry Descent Landing Atmospheric Entry Deployable↗