Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ARTEMIS”

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

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

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Artemis 2 and Artemis 5 Model Outcomes Using the Impact Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND The Artemis campaign is a Moon exploration program with a series of six planned missions, five of which will be crewed. These five crewed missions will contain a single mission segment (space flight), or multiple mission segments involving space flight (Orion), lunar landing (LTV) and/or space habitat (Gateway). Each crewed segment faces the risk of unique medical conditions, necessitating medical sets/kits tailored to those specificities. To support and enable a data-driven and evidence-based decision-making process through out a mission’s life cycle, a software tool called IMPACT was developed. Using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodologies, IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a novel tool built for analyzing the possibility of encountering complex medical risks during space flight, and for identifying the medical resources and capabilities needed to treat those potential at-risk medical conditions. This presentation will seek to compare IMPACT’s computational results upon potential complex space medical conditions (e.g., sprain/strain back or sleep disturbance) using IMPACT’s risk metrics and the associated optimized medical sets/kits between two Artemis missions: single segment Artemis 2 and multi-segmented Artemis 5. OVERVIEW By identifying potential medical conditions in space using input criteria such as crew quantity and composition, certain crew physical characteristics, mission duration and mission activities, IMPACT can produce analyses on the type of medical resources and capabilities needed to produce an optimized medical set/kit to address those medical conditions. IMPACT achieves this by performing hundreds of thousands of Monte Carlo simulations of missions to build aggregate pictures of medical risk. IMPACT’s risk metrics include loss of crew life (LOCL) – a measure of crew mortality due to medical conditions in space, return to definitive care (RTDC) – the need to perform crew evacuation, and task time lost (TTL) – a measure of the inability to perform activities due to crew disability. These risk metrics are applied to every medical condition identified by IMPACT’s computation analyses for every segment of the mission. Medical sets/kits are optimized to address these medical conditions but must fit within the stated Artemis Design Reference Mission (DRM) request for mass and volume physical size constraints. ANTICIPATED ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Using two Artemis missions, Artemis 2 and Artemis 5, IMPACT will provide the analyses for comparison of medical set/kit contents based upon mass and/or volume requirements and identify the at-risk medical conditions within both missions. This paper serves as an initial exploration of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) medical risk calculations between two crewed Artemis missions and is not intended to be deemed the official medical response for the Artemis campaign.

probabilistic risk assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis Internal Science Team Update: Artemis Science Flight Operations

The Artemis Internal Science Team (AIST) is positioned across NASA to provide crossmission Science leadership across the Agency and Artemis. To prepare for the next generation of planetary surface exploration-based extravehicular activities (EVAs), we draw heavily from experience with Apollo, SkyLab, Space Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS), and analog tests to design the structure by which science will be integrated in the Plan, Train, and Fly phases of Artemis missions. AIST members have been working for years to integrate science into the Artemis flight operations structure, most notably through a tight collaboration with the NASA JSC Flight Operations Directorate (FOD). This abstract describes several examples of this integration, including Structure of RealTime Science Integration, the development of the EVA Science Officer Flight Controller Position, the development and testing of the Science Evaluation Room, and the development of Training for Artemis Science Teams.

K E Young↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Space Launch System Successfully Launches Artemis I Mission and Hardware Progress Continues for Next Artemis Missions

NASA’s Artemis I mission will be the first flight of the agency’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. It will launch an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to the Moon, where it will enter a highly elliptical retrograde orbit. In 2022, final tests, checkouts, and preparations were on schedule to be completed, including the vital wet dress rehearsal (WDR) at Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) Launch Complex 39B. Following successful completion of WDR, which is expected in summer 2022, the Artemis I launch vehicle will be returned to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at KSC where it will be prepared for launch. Important data were collected during launch and will be shared as applicable. While the Artemis I hardware and mission took center stage in 2022, significant progress was made on hardware and software for future Artemis missions, including for the first crewed launch and the following SLS Block 1B and Block 2 variants of the rocket.

John Honeycutt↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Under Pressure: The Artemis I Heatshield Char Loss Investigation and Artemis II’s Successful Entry

Following the successful Artemis I skip reentry on December 11, 2022, unexpected char liberation from the Orion heat- shield prompted formation of an Anomaly Response Team to determine root cause and establish flight rationale and corrective actions for subsequent missions. Through a comprehensive investigation including detailed hardware analysis, modeling & simulation, and ground testing, the team determined that the low permeability Avcoat experienced extreme internal gas pressure buildup during the skip entry that could not adequately outgas, leading to crack formation and char liberation. Key discoveries included significant performance differences between permeable and impermeable heatshield regions and successful replication of the anomaly through ground testing. Based on extensive ground testing and analysis, Artemis II flew a modified trajectory without the skip entry to minimize crack-inducing conditions, and successfully splashed down on April 10, 2026 with significantly reduced char loss. For Artemis III and beyond, a corrective action was implemented to produce a more permeable version of Avcoat that will substantially reduce internal pressure accumulation during entry.

Artemis II↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA) Activities in Support of Artemis I and Plans for Artemis II

The Artemis I mission in 2022 accomplished humanity’s first venture beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) with a human-rated spacecraft in over fifty years. Artemis comprises several key Program elements – Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Orion Crew Module, Service Module, Launch Abort System; the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Exploration Ground System (EGS). Much of our human spaceflight experience with crewed lunar missions is captured in historical program documents, but first-hand knowledge is limited to a few spaceflight veterans. Missions to LEO have offered the opportunity of direct, near-instantaneous communications and assistance, and the ability to return to Earth within a matter of hours in case of emergency. Outward-bound missions do not have these features and will require a more autonomous and reliable spacecraft. The assessment of compliance with applicable safety requirements and adequacy of hazard controls and verifications is the responsibility of the MPCV Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP), along with a Joint [NASA/ESA] Safety and Engineering Review Panel (JSERP) for the review of the European Service Module (ESM). The MSERP has two features that are relatively unique amongst NASA safety panels. First, NASA Engineering was added as a Panel co-chair, which enhanced the Engineering organization’s engagement and level of understanding of hazard analysis methodology and results. The MSERP has representation from each office, including Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) and Health and Medical Technical Authority, supporting the Orion Program in addition to the Engineering and Safety Technical Authority co-chairs. Second, the JSERP has a second set of co-chairs from ESA Engineering and ESA Product Assurance and Safety organizations, which recognizes the international arrangement as one of partnership. This paper will focus on SMA processes, activities, and plans for the Orion element and explore unique challenges associated with Artemis II as we approach the flight of the first crewed Orion vehicle.

Paul J. Collier↗
NASA NTRS2024

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Launch System Artemis I CubeSats: SmallSat Vanguards of Exploration, Science and Technology

When NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket launches in 2021 with the Orion crew vehicle, it will lay the foundation for NASA’s goal of landing the first woman and the next man on the Moon as part of the Artemis program. This first flight—Artemis I—will also mark a milestone for smallsats. Thirteen6U CubeSats are manifested on the Artemis I flight, the first fleet of CubeSats carried as a ride share opportunity to deep space.(NASA’s first CubeSats to deep space, the twin Mars Cube One [MarCO] spacecraft, were an integral part of the InSight Mars lander mission). The Artemis I CubeSat manifest represents a diverse collection of smallsats performing an array of science missions and technology demonstrations. Payloads from NASA, international partners, academia and industry will execute a variety of experiments. Several smallsats will perform lunar-focused missions that may return data that addresses Strategic Knowledge Gaps (SKGs) in the agency’s lunar exploration program. Indeed, the Artemis I CubeSats will be in the vanguard of the agency’s 21st-century lunar program. The Artemis I missions will produce data to support space radiation awareness,crewed landings and in-situ resource utilization, helping to support a sustained human lunar presence. Several of the Artemis I CubeSats are demonstrating new technologies, including propulsion capabilities. Among the Artemis I CubeSats are three selected through NASA’s Cube Quest Challenge, part of the Centennial Challenges program. These three missions will compete for prize money while meeting specific technical development goals. Payloads from the Japanese and Italian space agencies provide an early opportunity for international involvement in the Artemis program. Student involvement in almost half of the payloads allow STEM engagement with NASA’s Artemis program. The SLS Block 1 vehicle for the Artemis I flight is manufactured with several elements delivered to Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and being prepared for stacking and integration. The new-development of the program, the 212-footcore stage with its four RS-25 engines installed is currently at Stennis Space Center (SSC) for “green run” testing. Following the green run test campaign, the stage will ship to KSC, where it will be integrated with the rest of the vehicle, including the upper stage adapter, where the Artemis I smallsats will be housed.

Kimberly F Robinson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Risk Characterization Research for Artemis II: Human Factors and Behavioral Performance

BACKGROUND Artemis II will be the first time NASA astronauts go beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) since the Apollo era, and the first astronauts heading into space in the Orion vehicle. As such, it provides a critical opportunity to refine our understanding of the likelihood and consequences associated with the Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Human System Integration Architecture (HSIA), and Sleep Risks, and prepare for future Moon and Mars missions. However, Artemis II research efforts are uniquely shaped by in-mission data collection constraints. There is currently no in-mission crew time available to complete measures. In-mission data will need to be collected unobtrusively from available data streams (e.g., audiovisual, existing records such as schedules, and actigraphy). Accordingly, the overarching goal of our research is to utilize Artemis II data to further define the likelihood and consequences of these risks, and to create an unobtrusive research infrastructure that can be expanded to include future Artemis missions. This goal spans four aims across three research phases: (1) identify and operationally define key performances metrics and constructs across the four aforementioned risks, (2) develop an unobtrusive methodology and coding scheme for in-mission data collection, (3) characterize performance decrements due to Bmed, Team, HSIA, and Sleep Risks, and (4) develop a data infrastructure for future Artemis missions. The following details results of Phase I efforts in which we address Aims 1 and 2 to develop an unobtrusive measurement plan and coding scheme to capture key constructs, contributing factors, and performance decrements across each risk area. METHOD As part of Phase I, we conducted an interdisciplinary literature review and consulted with SMEs to identify unobtrusive methodologies that leverage text, audio, and/or video data as well as conceptualize key performance metrics, contributing factors, and BMed, Team, HSIA, and Sleep risk constructs related to performance decrements. The Phase I effort resulted in a finalized pre- and post-mission protocol for Artemis II, along with a measurement and coding scheme for in-mission Artemis II data. Phase II will involve data collection from the upcoming Artemis II mission. Phase III will include data processing, coding, depiction, analysis, and report writing of the Artemis II data. RESULTS & DISCUSSION To date, we have completed Phase I efforts. Specifically, we identified BMed, Team, HSIA, and Sleep risk constructs related to performance metrics, summarized how these constructs can be measured using audiovisual data collected during the mission, and worked with NASA’s HFBP Element to finalize a data collection protocol that leverages audiovisual input from the Orion spacecraft system. Our protocol includes novel unobtrusive methodologies that adhere to in-mission data streams and subsequent constraints (e.g., limited storage space on GoPro cameras, ambient noise impeding audio files) to best capture in-mission phenomena across each risk area. We will present our results from Phase I efforts, namely best practices for unobtrusive measurement as identified through literature reviews and SME consultation as well as codebook excerpts for use in Artemis II. We will include a description of planned work as we prepare for Phase II and Phase III of this research plan and the Artemis II mission itself. SUMMARY We describe progress on our Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Research for Artemis II study.

behavioral health↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Artemis Distributed Simulation FOMs

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is formulating and developing the Artemis Program, a collaboration with domestic commercial and international partners that will establish a long term human presence on the Moon and extend human exploration beyond the Earth-Moon system ahead of exploring Mars. These Artemis partners are developing a portfolio of space and surface systems to support human missions to the lunar surface and beyond. The Artemis systems will provide the mobility, habitation, and logistics infrastructure that will support human exploration and foster robust scientific investigations. Each partner will contribute one or more elements to the Artemis Program with NASA having the overarching responsibility for defining the Artemis architecture and guiding the integration of this complex system of space systems. To successfully accomplish this audacious task, NASA will rely on the development and execution of many complex models and simulations. Many of these simulations will be provided by the Artemis partners. While each of these simulations will provide important insight into the characteristics and performance of an associated system, individually they will not provide insight into the integrated performance of the architecture and the system of systems working in concert to execute a given Artemis mission. To address this need, NASA is developing a distributed simulation capability called the Artemis Distributed Simulation (ADS). ADS’s distributed nature supports the complex aggregation of constituent Artemis element simulations. Artemis partner simulations will be able to join into an ADS-based distributed simulation and interact with other Artemis element simulations while limiting the exposure of proprietary designs and data. ADS is defining a distributed simulation capability built on international simulation interoperability standards, specifically the High Level Architecture (HLA) and the Space Reference Federation Object Model (SpaceFOM). While HLA and SpaceFOM provide the substantive necessary technology basis for ADS, additional common datatypes, message definitions, and execution protocols are required. These extensions constitute the ADS Federation Object Model (FOM). This paper describes the fundamental architectural elements of ADS and the FOM extensions needed to support the complex nature of the Artemis Program. This includes the examination of the ADS FOM modules, ADS base datatypes, ADS SpaceFOM Object Class extensions, new ADS Object Classes, and new ADS Interaction Classes.

HLA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Artemis Distributed Simulation FOMs

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is formulating and developing the Artemis Program, a collaboration with domestic commercial and international partners that will establish a long term human presence on the Moon and extend human exploration beyond the Earth-Moon system ahead of exploring Mars. These Artemis partners are developing a portfolio of space and surface systems to support human missions to the lunar surface and beyond. The Artemis systems will provide the mobility, habitation, and logistics infrastructure that will support human exploration and foster robust scientific investigations. Each partner will contribute one or more elements to the Artemis Program with NASA having the overarching responsibility for defining the Artemis architecture and guiding the integration of this complex system of space systems. To successfully accomplish this audacious task, NASA will rely on the development and execution of many complex models and simulations. Many of these simulations will be provided by the Artemis partners. While each of these simulations will provide important insight into the characteristics and performance of an associated system, individually they will not provide insight into the integrated performance of the architecture and the system of systems working in concert to execute a given Artemis mission. To address this need, NASA is developing a distributed simulation capability called the Artemis Distributed Simulation (ADS). ADS’s distributed nature supports the complex aggregation of constituent Artemis element simulations. Artemis partner simulations will be able to join into an ADS-based distributed simulation and interact with other Artemis element simulations while limiting the exposure of proprietary designs and data. ADS is defining a distributed simulation capability built on international simulation interoperability standards, specifically the High Level Architecture (HLA) and the Space Reference Federation Object Model (SpaceFOM). While HLA and SpaceFOM provide the substantive necessary technology basis for ADS, additional common datatypes, message definitions, and execution protocols are required. These extensions constitute the ADS Federation Object Model (FOM). This paper describes the fundamental architectural elements of ADS and the FOM extensions needed to support the complex nature of the Artemis Program. This includes the examination of the ADS FOM modules, ADS base datatypes, ADS SpaceFOM Object Class extensions, new ADS Object Classes, and new ADS Interaction Classes.

HLA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operational Modal Analysis of the Artemis I Dynamic Rollout Test and Wet Dress Rehearsal

NASA has developed an expendable heavy lift launch vehicle capability, the Space Launch System (SLS), to support lunar and deep space exploration. The uncrewed Artemis I was the first flight of this new launch vehicle and tested critical systems for the upcoming crewed Artemis II flight to the moon. Accelerations were recorded at a multitude of locations on Artemis, the Mobile Launcher (ML), and the Crawler Transporter (CT)during the rollout of Artemis I from the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to Launch Pad 39B March 2022 and is referred to as the Artemis I Dynamic Rollout Test (DRT). While Artemis I was at Launch Pad 39B, the Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR) was performed to demonstrate launch readiness and acceleration measurements were also recorded. Finally, Artemis I rolled back from Launch Pad 39B to the VAB in April 2022, where acceleration measurements were also recorded and is referred to as the rollback portion of DRT. Because the forces during rollout and at the launch pad acting on Artemis I, the ML, and the CT are not directly measurable, Operational Modal Analysis (OMA) techniques, instead of traditional Experimental Modal Analysis (EMA) techniques, were used to identify modal characteristics. The OMA analysis of DRT and WDR directly builds upon the lessons learned from the OMA analysis of an earlier rollout of the ML from the VAB. DRT and WDR dynamic characteristics will be used to support SLS Integrated Modal Test finite element model correlation efforts and Exploration Ground System ML and CT finite element model verification and validation, which are part of the Building Block approach the Space Launch System program has implemented. The dynamic characteristics extracted from DRT as well as the rollout acceleration time histories themselves will be used in the development of generic rollout forcing functions that will provide refined estimates of the Artemis IV rollout forces, which will have the heavier and larger SLS Block 1B launch vehicle and Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2). This paper briefly describes Artemis I, the ML, and the CT physical characteristics, DRT rollout/rollback and WDR data collection, the challenges in implementing OMA techniques due in part to the CT harmonics, and how these challenges were overcome to obtain the Artemis I DRT configuration and WDR configuration modal characteristics.

Apollo↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operational Modal Analysis of the Artemis I Dynamic Rollout Test and Wet Dress Rehearsal

NASA has developed an expendable heavy lift launch vehicle capability, the Space Launch System (SLS), to support lunar and deep space exploration. The uncrewed Artemis I was the first flight of this new launch vehicle and tested critical systems for the upcoming crewed Artemis II flight to the moon. Accelerations were recorded at a multitude of locations on Artemis, the Mobile Launcher (ML), and the Crawler Transporter (CT)during the rollout of Artemis I from the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to Launch Pad 39B March 2022 and is referred to as the Artemis I Dynamic Rollout Test (DRT). While Artemis I was at Launch Pad 39B, the Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR) was performed to demonstrate launch readiness and acceleration measurements were also recorded. Finally, Artemis I rolled back from Launch Pad 39B to the VAB in April 2022, where acceleration measurements were also recorded and is referred to as the rollback portion of DRT. Because the forces during rollout and at the launch pad acting on Artemis I, the ML, and the CT are not directly measurable, Operational Modal Analysis (OMA) techniques, instead of traditional Experimental Modal Analysis (EMA) techniques, were used to identify modal characteristics. The OMA analysis of DRT and WDR directly builds upon the lessons learned from the OMA analysis of an earlier rollout of the ML from the VAB. DRT and WDR dynamic characteristics will be used to support SLS Integrated Modal Test finite element model correlation efforts and Exploration Ground System ML and CT finite element model verification and validation, which are part of the Building Block approach the Space Launch System program has implemented. The dynamic characteristics extracted from DRT as well as the rollout acceleration time histories themselves will be used in the development of generic rollout forcing functions that will provide refined estimates of the Artemis IV rollout forces, which will have the heavier and larger SLS Block 1B launch vehicle and Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2). This paper briefly describes Artemis I, the ML, and the CT physical characteristics, DRT rollout/rollback and WDR data collection, the challenges in implementing OMA techniques due in part to the CT harmonics, and how these challenges were overcome to obtain the Artemis I DRT configuration and WDR configuration modal characteristics.

Apollo↗
NASA NTRS2024

A Distributed Simulation Framework Applied to Artemis Analysis, Studies, Integration, and Test

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Artemis Program, a series of missions to return humans to the Moon and explore further than before. To execute the Artemis missions, NASA is collaborating with commercial and international partners to create the necessary infrastructure and logistics plan that will establish a long term presence on the Moon ahead of exploring Mars. NASA and its partners are developing a collection of space and surface systems to support crewed missions to the lunar surface that will provide the mobility, habitation, logistics, and exploration support necessary for Artemis mission successes which includes robust scientific investigations. This paper details the design, capabilities, and uses of the Artemis Distributed Simulation (ADS) being developed by the NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) Team to support Artemis architecture studies. ADS utilizes international interoperability standards to connect a collection of independent vehicle and service simulations; these include but are not limited to elements such as rovers, landers, and habitation elements along with services like communications, environment, visualization, and data logging. ADS’s distributed nature allows for the complex aggregation of constituent Artemis elements; this includes efficient scenario modification with the addition or removal of individual simulations representing Artemis elements or services. This capability provides support for the rapid performance of various Artemis mission trade studies exploring alternate configurations. Currently, ADS uses NASA developed simulations for development and testing; however, through the use of international simulation interoperability standards, ADS provides an integration framework to incorporate dissimilar authoritative vendor simulations as Artemis systems mature and vendor simulations become available. Vendor simulations will be able to join ADS and interact with other Artemis elements and vehicles while limiting the exposure of proprietary data. This paper describes the expansion of an existing distributed simulation infrastructure to accommodate a collaborative and dynamic framework for the Artemis Program. This work includes updated federation designs, integration into existing NASA facilities, advancements in visualizations, and advancements in human driven inputs. This paper will also outline recently completed and ongoing support and collaboration with NASA studies and testing, namely results from energetics and Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) studies. The paper concludes with a plan for future developments and facility integration to enable enhanced studies in preparation for a return of humans to the lunar surface.

Artemis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CubeSat Payloads on NASA’s Space Launch System Pave the Way for Artemis Moon Missions

Preparing for first launch in 2021, NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) super heavy-lift launch vehicle will usher in a new era of human spaceflight, returning astronauts to the Moon as part of the Artemis program. Although designed to send crew in the Orion spacecraft and large payloads to the Moon and beyond, SLS also provides CubeSats with rideshare opportunities for missions to deep space. The first launch of SLS and Orion, Artemis I, has 13 6U CubeSats manifested. The payloads have been tested and will soon ship to Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to be integrated into commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) dispensers and integrated into the SLS Block 1 vehicle. Leveraging launches for the Artemis program to deploy rideshare smallsats to deep space provides a low-cost opportunity to perform missions that previously would have required a larger spacecraft and a dedicated launch, and offers additional benefits to both NASA and the smallsat community. CubeSats, including those manifested on the Artemis I flight, have a valuable role to play in the Artemis program, providing data to address NASA’s identified Strategic Knowledge Gaps (SKGs) in its plans to permanently establish humanity in deep space. Payload sponsors and developers for the Artemis I CubeSats hail from a variety of NASA industry partners and mission directorates, as well as international space agencies and universities. Several payloads destined for cislunar space will demonstrate propulsion systems and other technologies useful to future exploration. Science missions manifested on the Artemis I flight include characterizing the effects of deep space radiation on living organisms, searching for hydrogen and other volatiles on the Moon’s South Pole, and studying the lunar radiation environment. Three of the payloads were selected through NASA’s Centennial Challenges Program. Those payloads are competing for prize money while meeting specific technical development goals, such as communication with Earth from millions of miles in space. Student involvement in almost half of the Artemis I payload development allows STEM engagement with SLS and NASA’s Artemis program. As the initial vehicle to fly, the SLS Block 1 vehicle will lay the foundation for a generation of human and robotic deep space exploration missions. The Block 1 core stage is undergoing final testing at Stennis Space Center in 2020 before transportation to KSC for integration and launch in 2021. Following the Block 1 vehicle, the Block 1B and Block 2 vehicles will incorporate propulsion system upgrades and other changes to increase lift capability. In addition to sending the Orion vehicle to TLI, SLS can also be outfitted with large-diameter fairings to send robotic probes to deep space. With unparalleled lift, volume and departure energy, SLS is poised to usher in a new generation of spaceflight. In addition to launching Orion and large-volume missions, CubeSats may also be a part of Artemis missions to deep space.

Kimberly Robinson↗