Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Base Camp”

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 NTRS2012

Cis-Lunar Base Camp

Historically, when mounting expeditions into uncharted territories, explorers have established strategically positioned base camps to pre-position required equipment and consumables. These base camps are secure, safe positions from which expeditions can depart when conditions are favorable, at which technology and operations can be tested and validated, and facilitate timely access to more robust facilities in the event of an emergency. For human exploration missions into deep space, cis-lunar space is well suited to serve as such a base camp. The outer regions of cis-lunar space, such as the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, lie near the edge of Earth s gravity well, allowing equipment and consumables to be aggregated with easy access to deep space and to the lunar surface, as well as more distant destinations, such as near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs) and Mars and its moons. Several approaches to utilizing a cis-lunar base camp for sustainable human exploration, as well as some possible future applications are identified. The primary objective of the analysis presented in this paper is to identify options, show the macro trends, and provide information that can be used as a basis for more detailed mission development. Compared within are the high-level performance and cost of 15 preliminary cis-lunar exploration campaigns that establish the capability to conduct crewed missions of up to one year in duration, and then aggregate mass in cis-lunar space to facilitate an expedition from Cis-Lunar Base Camp. Launch vehicles, chemical propulsion stages, and electric propulsion stages are discussed and parametric sizing values are used to create architectures of in-space transportation elements that extend the existing in-space supply chain to cis-lunar space. The transportation options to cis-lunar space assessed vary in efficiency by almost 50%; from 0.16 to 0.68 kg of cargo in cis-lunar space for every kilogram of mass in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). For the 15 cases, 5-year campaign costs vary by only 15% from 0.36 to 0.51 on a normalized scale across all campaigns. Thus the development and first flight costs of assessed transportation options are similar. However, the cost of those options per flight beyond the initial operational capability varies by 70% from 0.3 to 1.0 on a normalized scale. The 10-year campaigns assessed begin to show the effect of this large range of cost beyond initial operational capability as they vary approximately 25% with values from 0.75 to 1.0 on the normalized campaign scale. Therefore, it is important to understand both the cost of implementation and first use as well as long term utilization. Finally, minimizing long term recurring costs is critical to the affordability of future human space exploration missions. Finally minimizing long term recurring costs is critical to the affordability of future human space exploration missions.

Merrill, Raymond G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Common Habitat Base Camp for Moon and Mars Surface Operations

The Common Habitat uses the SLS Core Stage Liquid Oxygen tank as the primary structure (similar to Skylab) and has an internal architecture compatible with microgravity, lunar gravity, and Mars gravity, such that identical versions of the same design can be used in all three environments. Applying the large dimensions and eight-person crew size of the Common Habitat to a surface architecture leads to a unique base camp configuration. A notional such base camp is described in this analysis. The base camp includes four distributed zones – habitation, landing, power, and resource production. The base camp is deployed and assembled in three phases: site preparation, element staging, and habitat delivery, each of which are briefly discussed. Crew arrival and departure is discussed, including variations caused by orbital mechanics-induced differences between the Moon and Mars base camps. Trash and logistics operations are described. Finally, crew operations within the base camp are described.

Lunar Outpost↗
NASA NTRS2020

Small Lunar Base Camp and in Situ Resource Utilization Oxygen Production Facility Power System Comparison

This report examines the power requirements for operating an in situ resource utilization (ISRU) oxygen production system on the lunar surface and a small six-person base camp. The baseline ISRU system produced 1.63 kg/h for a total day and night production rate of 1,154 kg. It was estimated that this plant would require 25.83 kW of power to operate. The base camp power includes auxiliary equipment as well as a communications system. The required power estimate for the base camp was 28.05 kW. This estimation was used to size a power system and determine its mass for meeting these requirements. Three types of power systems were considered: a solar photovoltaic (PV) array system using batteries for energy storage, a PV array system using a regenerative fuel cell (RFC) for energy storage, and a modular 10-kW electrical output power Kilopower reactor system. Three separate cases were examined: a stand-alone ISRU oxygen production system, a base camp, and a combined ISRU oxygen production system and base camp. For the PV array-based system, the RFC energy storage method had a mass advantage over a battery- based energy storage system. For higher power nighttime power operation for all three cases, the RFC system’s specific energy was just over 830 Wh/kg. For the lower power nighttime “keep-alive” level used as part of the Case 1 analysis, the specific energy for the RFC was 456 Wh/kg. Both of these levels are significantly above the specific energy of 200 Wh/kg for the battery. Because of this higher specific energy, the RFC-based system provided significant mass advantages over the battery-based energy storage system. The baseline reactor system utilized shielding and separation distance to meet the desired maximum radiation dose level of 5 rem/yr for personnel operating within the vicinity of the power loads, base camp, and oxygen production facility. There are methods that could potentially be utilized to reduce the shielding requirements and separation distance. Implementing these would reduce the overall system mass for the reactor. Also, optimizing the reactor output to a specific mission would provide benefits in mass at the expense of modularity. The results of the power system comparison between a solar PV array-based system and a Kilopower reactor-based system has shown that for missions required to operate throughout the lunar night at power levels comparable to those used during the day, the reactor-based system provides a significant mass advantage. However, for applications that can meet their mission requirements while only having to operate during the daytime with minimal power required to survive the nighttime, the PV array-based system provides a mass advantage.

Colozza, Anthony J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Open Standards and NASA Open Source Simulation Tools to Model Artemis Base Camp Mission Timelines

The United States’ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has announced that the Artemis Program will return humans to the Moon, establishing a persistent presence with the Artemis Base Camp (ABC), and extend human exploration to Mars. The NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center is using internationally developed simulation interoperability standards and NASA open source simulation tools to support Artemis concept, analysis, designs, development, training, and ultimately operations. The NExSyS team has been tasked to support early ABC architecture and mission analysis using mission time lines developed by the crew operations mission planning team. The NExSyS team is developing a distributed simulation framework with initial Artemis element implementations to model the ABC mission timelines using the international simulation interoperability standard High Level Architecture (HLA), the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization’s Space Reference Federation Object Model (SpaceFOM), the NASA open source Trick Simulation Environment, and another NASA open source interface package called TrickHLA. The ABC architecture is composed of a number of key surface elements and resources. Some examples of modeled elements (also known as entities) are landers, habitats, rovers, logistics carriers, and astronauts. Some examples of modeled transferable and consumable resources are power, water, oxygen, nitrogen, scientific samples, and food. These entities and resources are modeled in a collection of individual simulations called Federates. A coordinated collection of interoperable federates is called a Federation and when these federates are tied together in a coordinated simulation run, it is referred to as a Federation Execution. The federates communicate through HLA using data exchange formats defined by a collection of machine readable files called Federation Object Models (FOMs). These FOM files are based on extensions to the SpaceFOM. This enables the instantiation and sharing of objects and interactions between federates in the federation. These provide for entity and resource tracking, object transfer, and data collection. Federate interactions are used to trigger events and notify federates of entity or resource transfers. For the initial implementation, the constituent federates are Trick-based simulations that use TrickHLA to provide the required HLA-base interoperability. These Trick-based simulations provide the required modeling for the individual Artemis elements along with the associated element resources. These federates provide a means to explore traverses between surface elements and exploration sites as scheduled in a mission timeline and explore the affects traverse times have on the overall mission timeline. The mission time lines are modeled using a Trick input file event handling capabilities. Each timeline operation is handled as individual simulation events, and triggered based on previous event status, time of operation, and simulated task completions. In addition, the ABC Federation can be used to perform Monte Carlo analysis. The Monte Carlo tool can vary the inputs, timings, and malfunctions to show how various contingencies in the mission can affect the mission timeline.

Keaton Craig Dodd↗
DOE OSTI2020

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune Climate Forecasts

Critical military training and testing on lands along the nation’s coastal and estuarine shorelines are increasingly placed at risk because of encroachment pressures in surrounding areas, impairments due to other anthropogenic disturbances, and changes in climate and sea level. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) intends to enhance and sustain its training and testing assets and also optimize its stewardship of natural resources through the development and application of an ecosystem-based management approach on DoD installations. To accomplish this goal, particularly for installations in estuarine/coastal environments, the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) launched the Defense Coastal/Estuarine Research Program (DCERP) as a 10-year effort at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL) in North Carolina. The results of the second 5 years of the program (DCERP2) are presented in the DCERP2 Final Report.There were four overarching objectives of DCERP2. The first objective was to understand the effects of climate change impacts, including warming temperatures, variability in the hydrological cycle, storm events, and sea level rise on the coastal ecosystems at MCBCL from observations and measurements made over the 10-year program. The second objective was to understand the carbon cycle of the coastal and terrestrial ecosystems at MCBCL through a highly integrated sampling program. The third objective was to develop models, tools, and indicators to evaluate current and projected future ecosystem state changes and translate scientific findings into actionable information for installation managers. The last objective was to recommend adaptive management strategies to sustain ecosystem natural resources within the context of an active military installation.There are 252 mean change files represented in this dataset (12 months * 3 future time periods * 7 variables ). The mean change is calculated by taking the mean of the differences between the future projected average (e.g., 2046-2065) and the climate model baseline (e.g., 1979-1999). The differences were calculated for each downscaled GCM and then averaged across all models to obtain the mean change. This mean of the differences was calculated for each month, each future time period, and each variable.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2011

International Space Station as a Base Camp for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit

The idea for using the International Space Station (ISS) as platform for exploration has matured in the past year and the concept continues to gain momentum. ISS provides a robust infrastructure which can be used to test systems and capabilities needed for missions to the Moon, Mars, asteroids and other potential destinations. International cooperation is a critical enabler and ISS has already demonstrated successful management of a large multi-national technical endeavor. Systems and resources needed for expeditions can be aggregated and thoroughly tested at ISS before departure thus providing wide operational flexibility and the best assurance of mission success. A small part of ISS called an Exploration Platform (ISS-EP) can be placed at Earth-Moon Libration point 1 (EML1) providing immediate benefits and flexibility for future exploration missions. We will show how ISS and the ISS-EP can be used to reduce risk and improve the operational flexibility for missions beyond low earth orbit. Life support systems and other technology developed for ISS can be evolved and adapted to the ISS-EP and other exploration spacecraft. New technology, such as electric propulsion and advanced life support systems can be tested and proven at ISS as part of an incremental development program. Commercial companies who are introducing transportation and other services will benefit with opportunities to contribute to the mission since ISS will serve as a focal point for the commercialization of low earth orbit services. Finally, we will show how use of ISS provides immediate benefits to the scientific community because its capabilities are available today and certain critical aspects of exploration missions can be simulated.

Raftery, Michael↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Internal Architecture of the Common Habitat

The core stage liquid oxygen tank of the Space Launch System can be manufactured as a habitat instead of as a propellant tank, with a common design such that it is equally suitable for use in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, 1g, or variable artificial gravity. It is capable of sustaining a crew size of eight for missions up to 1200 days in duration. This Common Habitat can be the central element of a human spaceflight architecture that encompasses the Moon, Mars, and other destinations within the inner solar system. Within this archtiecture, the Common Habitat is specifically used as the core habitation element within a Lunar Base Camp, Mars Base Camp, and the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle. The Common Habitat internal architecture applies a design philosophy to separate crew functions according to deck. The lower deck is reserved for private functions. It includes eight private crew quarters and four waste and hygiene clusters – each with a private waste management compartment, private full body hygiene compartment, and private foyer/clothes changing area. The mid deck is primarily allocated to mission-related functions. It includes an exercise facility, fabrication / maintenance / repair facility, physical science laboratory (physics, geology, and remote sensing: astronomy, heliophysics, planetary science, and Earth science), and life science laboratory (biology and human research). The mid deck also has four external hatches, clocked one every 90 degrees, centered on the vehicle vertical centerline. Each hatch has a 60-inch tall by 40-inch wide opening with the mid deck floor 16 inches below the bottom lip of the hatch opening. The upper deck also includes some mission functions, but is primarily allocated to social functions. It includes a large galley, wardroom with projector and display screen, plant growth chambers, bulk stowage, command and control station, medical facility, hygiene compartment, and vehicle subsystems.

Habitability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Science Capabilities of the Common Habitat

The Common Habitat is the primary habitable element in a conceptual architecture feasibility study for long-duration space exploration with an eight-person crew size. On lunar or planetary surfaces, the Common Habitat forms the core of a Surface Base Camp. In microgravity, the Common Habitat is the core of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle (DSEV), an in-space transportation spacecraft. The Common Habitat employs a horizontal orientation that is divided internally into a lower deck, mid deck, and upper deck, roughly separating outfitting into individual, work, and group functions. On a planetary surface, the habitat is incorporated into a base camp, located near the south pole in the case of the Moon. The Mars base camp is currently location agnostic. Each base camp is divided into habitation, landing, resource production, and power zones. In microgravity, the habitat is incorporated into the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle, a vessel capable of transporting the crew within the inner solar system. In addition to crew and teleoperated control of external science assets, the Common Habitat employs a suite of life and physical science laboratory systems to enable it to support science investigations across a variety of destination environments, primarily featuring the Moon and Mars, along with the intervening interplanetary space. Other potential destinations include Near Earth Asteroids and Venus and Earth orbits. Located in the aft starboard section of the Common Habitat mid deck, the life science laboratory supports primarily biology and human research. In its baseline configuration, the laboratory includes horizontal work surfaces, freezers, multiple gloveboxes, sample transfer/exposure capability, large instruments, and reconfigurable ISPR-compatible payload bays. The Medical Care Facility and exercise facility can also support life science research. In the aft port section of the mid deck, the physical science laboratory supports physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, and remote sensing (including astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science, planetary science, and meteorology). It provides a baseline of similar ISPR-compatible payload bays and adds additional freezers, including those for cryogenic sample storage, a remote sensing workstation, more gloveboxes, also with sample transfer/exposure, combustion chambers, fluid mechanics chambers, and a gas chromatograph. It leverages the Command & Control Center for teleoperations of mobile science assets. Both laboratories are highly modular, with the ability to swap out both payloads and instruments on an as-needed basis. The integrated science outfitting of the Common Habitat positions its crew to contribute to all of NASA’s Moon to Mars science objectives and extend human understanding into the inner solar system.

Lunar Suface↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Long -Term Architecture Development For The Moon And M

Developing an enterprise-level architecture encompassing future human-robotic science and exploration at the Moon and Mars requires a visionary approach that ensures NASA is responsive to national priorities and global science and technology advancement objectives. While the initial capabilities needed to return humans to the Moon may be well understood, NASA is still formulating a long-term infrastructure at the Moon and working to narrow the trade space for the first human missions to Mars. This paper will focus on the formulation and current status of engineering and design applications for a long-term and robust lunar architecture that will implement the Artemis Base Camp concept, including pre-formulation activities and elements currently in formulation. Authors will demonstrate how the Moon-to-Mars campaign approach fosters commonality of requirements and standards across individual mission elements, as well as multi-destination systems and operations, to reduce risk and encourage healthy competition in the growing space market. Among the Artemis Base Camp elements discussed will be multiple surface mobility elements, a fixed, anchoring surface habitat, fission surface power, and an in-situ resource development pilot plant. The narrative will clearly illustrate the direct evolution of the base camp elements to a minimal Mars architecture concept, and also outline unique development efforts that will be required in the next decade to make it possible to send humans to the Red Planet as early as the 2030s.

Greg Chavers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probabilistic Risk Assessment of a Sustained Lunar Presence

The Artemis Base Camp will be our first sustainable foothold on the lunar frontier. The base camp includes a lunar surface habitat, power systems, and infrastructure needed to develop capabilities on future missions to Mars. NASA Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) methodologies tend to focus on in-flight Loss of Crew (LOC) or Loss of Vehicle (LOV) risk estimates for short mission durations. However, lunar habit support systems and power generation systems will need to continuously operate. Existing risk methodologies will need to adapt to understand risk drivers in new environments under different operating conditions, such as lunar dust and increased micro-meteoroid exposure. Insights from the nuclear and oil industries can provide guidance to NASA risk practitioners to tackle this new challenge.

risk assessment↗
NASA NTRS2016

The Abandoned Ice Sheet Base at Camp Century, Greenland, in a Warming Climate

In 1959 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built Camp Century beneath the surface of the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet. There they studied the feasibility of deploying ballistic missiles within the ice sheet. The base and its wastes were abandoned with minimal decommissioning in 1967, under the assumption they would be preserved for eternity by perpetually accumulating snowfall. Here we show that a transition in ice sheet surface mass balance at Camp Century from net accumulation to net ablation is plausible within the next 75years, under a business-as-usual anthropogenic emissions scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5). Net ablation would guarantee the eventual remobilization of physical, chemical, biological, and radiological wastes abandoned at the site. While Camp Century and four other contemporaneous ice sheet bases were legally established under a Danish-U.S. treaty, the potential remobilization of their abandoned wastes, previously regarded as sequestered, represents an entirely new pathway of political dispute resulting from climate change.

ice sheet↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Logistics Transfer Methods – Offloading SPLCs from CLPS

Presentation is accompanied by "Lunar Logistics Frequently Asked Questions" document. This document contains an evolving set of assumptions and ideas pertaining to the provision, delivery, transportation and accommodation of logistics for the lunar surface operations at Artemis Base Camp. It does not represent requirements, but a starting point from which partners can iterate. Given that the systems and the location for Artemis Base Camp are still being determined, the attached document represents a snapshot in time of ideas and some bounding constraints with respect to logistics operations. Partners are free to challenge operational constructs and assumptions to achieve better solutions. The concepts and assumptions in this document serve as a starting point for innovation to help identify factors that need to be considered for logistics operations and system design. It will be updated periodically as more information is developed and refined, and eventually serve as a basis for documenting ground rules and assumptions, leading eventually to requirements in the future.

Douglas A Craig↗
NASA NTRS2007

Crew/Robot Coordinated Planetary EVA Operations at a Lunar Base Analog Site

Under the direction of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program, robots and space suited subjects from several NASA centers recently completed a very successful demonstration of coordinated activities indicative of base camp operations on the lunar surface. For these activities, NASA chose a site near Meteor Crater, Arizona close to where Apollo Astronauts previously trained. The main scenario demonstrated crew returning from a planetary EVA (extra-vehicular activity) to a temporary base camp and entering a pressurized rover compartment while robots performed tasks in preparation for the next EVA. Scenario tasks included: rover operations under direct human control and autonomous modes, crew ingress and egress activities, autonomous robotic payload removal and stowage operations under both local control and remote control from Houston, and autonomous robotic navigation and inspection. In addition to the main scenario, participants had an opportunity to explore additional robotic operations: hill climbing, maneuvering heaving loads, gathering geo-logical samples, drilling, and tether operations. In this analog environment, the suited subjects and robots experienced high levels of dust, rough terrain, and harsh lighting.

Diftler, M. A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Logistics and Supportability Challenges of Sustained Human Lunar Exploration

NASA’s Artemis program plans to establish a sustained human presence on the lunar surface. The International Space Station other space station programs have demonstrated long-duration human spaceflight operations that reuse infrastructure in Low Earth Orbit, sometimes including long uncrewed “dormant” periods. In contrast, human lunar exploration to date has consisted solely of relatively short sortie missions, rather than a sustained presence. A sustained human outpost on the Moon that can support month-long crewed exploration missions and be reused by multiple crews will be more challenging than past operations, particularly from the perspective of logistics, supportability, and risk. This paper examines the integrated logistics and supportability challenges of sustained human lunar exploration and provides a review of historical spaceflight experience in terms of crewed mission endurance, uncrewed duration, transportation overhead, and access to abort. Planned Artemis Base Camp crewed mission endurance is approximately 2.5 times longer than past lunar surface crewed mission endurance, but similar to average time between resupply for the International Space Station. Sustained human spacecraft have only twice experienced uncrewed durations longer than the planned interval between Artemis Base Camp missions, and Artemis surface assets will face long uncrewed periods more regularly than any past sustained human spacecraft. Transportation of crew and cargo to and from the Moon will be more difficult and time-consuming than transportation to and from Low Earth Orbit, and crew access to abort will be more limited. The implications of Artemis lunar operations for crewed Mars mission planning are also discussed. Historical approaches to risk management—including logistics, supportability, and abort strategies—should be reexamined and re-optimized for this new mission context. Sustained lunar operations will provide a valuable proving ground for testing new approaches to crewed space exploration.

logistics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Logistics and Supportability Challenges of Sustained Human Lunar Exploration

NASA’s Artemis program plans to establish a sustained human presence on the lunar surface. The International Space Station and other space station programs have demonstrated long-duration human spaceflight operations that reuse infrastructure in Low Earth Orbit, sometimes including long uncrewed “dormant” periods. In contrast, all human exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit to date has consisted solely of relatively short sortie missions, rather than a sustained presence. A sustained human outpost on the Moon that can support month-long crewed exploration missions and be reused by multiple crews will be more challenging than past operations, particularly from the perspective of logistics, supportability, and risk. This paper examines the integrated logistics and supportability challenges of sustained human lunar exploration and provides a review of historical spaceflight experience in terms of crewed mission endurance, uncrewed duration, transportation overhead, and access to abort. Planned Artemis Base Camp crewed mission endurance is approximately 2.5 times longer than past lunar surface crewed mission endurance, but similar to the average time between resupply for the International Space Station. Sustained human spacecraft have only twice experienced uncrewed durations longer than the planned interval between Artemis Base Camp missions, and Artemis surface assets will face long uncrewed periods more regularly than any past sustained human spacecraft. Transportation of crew and cargo to and from the Moon will be more difficult and time-consuming than transportation to and from Low Earth Orbit, and crew access to abort will be more limited. The implications of Artemis lunar operations for crewed Mars mission planning are also discussed. Historical approaches to risk management—including logistics, supportability, and abort strategies—should be reexamined and re-optimized for this new mission context. Sustained lunar operations will provide a valuable proving ground for testing new approaches to crewed space exploration.

logistics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

On The Incorporation of Both Function-Driven Requirements and Topology Optimization in The Development of Lunar Launch & Landing Pads

In the design of additively manufactured structures, there can be a constant battle between focusing on function-driven design and topology optimization in an attempt to improve a products ability to meet all requirements. Function-driven optimization is defined as the process of identifying the best design parameters that satisfy project functionality requirements. Function-driven optimization is typically implemented by a designer(s) who, instead of computational limitations, has human bias for the input or inputs determined. On the other hand, topology optimization is defined as a mathematical method that optimizes material layout within a given design space, for a given set of loads, boundary conditions, and constraints with the goal of maximizing the performance of the system. In topology optimization, the work is defined by the limited mathematical inputs and computationally available goals/restraints. If not evaluated simultaneously, these two approaches can result in fundamentally different design concepts meant to address the same requirements. NASA’s Artemis program includes the development of a base camp near the lunar South Pole. After site selection is made, one of the first infrastructure elements needed will be a launch and landing pad (LLP). The construction of such a pad will prevent damage to nearby structures from plume-surface interaction (PSI) while also providing a stable platform for the lander. These benefits reduce the required distance between the established landing zones and other settlement infrastructure. In this paper, the authors evaluate the requirements associated with lunar LLP development, application of both functional and topological optimization techniques, methodologies to combine the two techniques, and potential impacts on final design of such a pad.

In-situ↗