SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Lunar shelter habitability requirements and design criteria are presented. The components of lunar shelter habitability studied are: (1) free volume, (2) compartmentalization, (3) area layout arrangement, (4) area use frequency/duration furnishings, (5) equipment operability, (6) decor, (7) lighting, (8) noise, (9) temperature, and (10) growth potential.
This paper will discuss the specific mission architectures associated with the NASA Exploration Vision and review the challenges and drivers associated with developing crew health care and habitability systems to manage human system risks. Crew health care systems must be provided to manage crew health within acceptable limits, as well as respond to medical contingencies that may occur during exploration missions. Habitability systems must enable crew performance for the tasks necessary to support the missions. During the summer of 2005, NASA defined its exploration architecture including blueprints for missions to the moon and to Mars. These mission architectures require research and technology development to focus on the operational risks associated with each mission, as well as the risks to long term astronaut health. This paper will review the highest priority risks associated with the various missions and discuss NASA s strategies and plans for performing the research and technology development necessary to manage the risks to acceptable levels.
Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.
Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.
Life Support and Habitation Systems (LSHS) is one of 10 Foundational Domains as part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s proposed Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration (ETDD) Program. LSHS will develop and mature technologies to sustain life on long duration human missions beyond Low Earth Orbit that are reliable, have minimal logistics supply and increase self-sufficiency. For long duration exploration missions, further closure of life support systems is paramount, including focus on key technologies for atmosphere revitalization, water recovery, waste management, thermal control and crew accommodation that recover additional consumable mass, reduce requirements for power, volume, heat rejection, crew involvement, and which have increased reliability and capability. Other areas of focus include technologies for radiation protection, environmental monitoring and fire protection. Beyond LEO, return to Earth will be constrained. The potability of recycled water and purity of regenerated air must be measured and certified aboard the spacecraft. Missions must be able to recover from fire events through early detection, use of non-toxic suppression agents, and operation of recovery systems that protect on-board Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) hardware. Without the protection of the Earth s geomagnetic field, missions beyond LEO must have improved radiation shielding and dosimetry, as well as warning systems to protect the crew against solar particle events. This paper will describe plans for the new LSHS Foundational Domain and mission factors that will shape its technology development portfolio.
This report outlines the efforts of UNT X-Hab Team on a project titled, Microgravity Gas/Liquid Separator for the CO2 Revitalization System. The project is executed as a senior design project during academic year 2019-2020. The X-Hab 2020 Academic Innovation Challenge has selected eleven senior design teams from colleges across the US to demonstrate working prototypes for exploration systems and habitation. UNT has been tasked with the creation of a gas-liquid separator for an air revitalization system. Air revitalization technology has been used to support spaceflight by removing CO2 from enclosed systems in order to maintain breathable air. Solid sorbents such as zeolites or lithium hydroxide have been used in the past for these systems but are difficult to handle in microgravity environments and require a large amount of energy. This challenge aims to demonstrate vortex phase separator (VPS) technology for removing H2O from a CO2 stream. However, VPS technology also has the capability of using liquid sorbents for removing CO2 from an air stream. Further research could be done on liquid sorbents, such as liquid amine, in use with VPS systems. This would potentially be an alternative technology in replacing use of solid sorbents in CO2 removal systems. In 2019, NASA proposed a design that uses a gas/liquid contactor to allow for efficient contact between the two fluid phase. This was integrated into an overall CO2 removal system. The subsystems for gas-liquid separation and storage in NASA’s previous models for CO2 removal system could be replaced with a VPS. Innovative vortex separator technology is expected to allow for high throughput flow and highly efficient CO2 removal compared to other gas-liquid separation technologies. VPS relies on centripetal driven buoyancy forces to form a gas-liquid vortex within a fixed, right circular cylinder. The gas stream enters the separator through a tangential nozzle and breaks into very small bubbles (<<1 mm) resulting in a very large contact surface area for interaction with the liquid stream via energy and mass exchange. VPS technology can handle mismatches in inlet and outlet flow rates and system volume changes through the range of liquid thickness held in the separator (i.e., buffering and accumulating capability), and requires low pressure differences (<5-10 in H2O in most cases) for operation. The X-Hab 2020 team leverages these characteristics to investigate VPS technology as an alternative CO2 removal technology.
The Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) can use early earth-based analogs to simulate many aspects of space flight missions and system operation. These analogs can thus provide information supporting future missions to the moon and to Mars. A study was performed to investigate the potential of terrestrial analogs in simulating human space exploration missions. The study resulted in preliminary requirements and concepts for analog habitation systems, and further study in this area is necessary for SEI terrestrial analog development.
Skylab life support, habitability and thermal comfort system, discussing ventilation, humidity, carbon dioxide and odor control and water, food and waste management
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has recently expanded its mission set for possible future human exploration missions. With multiple options there is interest in identifying technology needs across these missions to focus technology investments. In addition to the Moon and other destinations in cis-lunar space, other destinations including Near Earth Objects and Mars have been added for consideration. Recently, technology programs and projects have been re-organizing to better meet the Agency s strategic goals and address needs across these potential future missions. Life Support and Habitation Systems (LSHS) is one of 10 Foundational Domains as part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s Exploration Technology Development Program. The chief goal of LSHS is to develop and mature advanced technologies to sustain human life on missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to increase reliability, reduce dependency on resupply and increase vehicle self-sufficiency. For long duration exploration missions, further closure of life support systems is of interest. Focus includes key technologies for atmosphere revitalization, water recovery, waste management, thermal control and crew accommodations. Other areas of focus include technologies for radiation protection, environmental monitoring and fire protection. The aim is to recover additional consumable mass, reduce requirements for power, volume, heat rejection, crew involvement, and meet exploration vehicle requirements. This paper provides a brief description of the LSHS Foundational Domain as defined for fiscal year 2011.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Space station and base design considerations for crew stability and habitability
Habitat outfitting generally refers to the supplies and equipment (and installation thereof) which provide crew with a livable, safe environment during a mission and enable the performance of mission tasks. Outfitting will be needed on future missions for habitation to provide the crew with a livable and safe environment. Both softgoods inflatable habitats, which are packaged and deployed/inflated at the point of use, and constructed habitats, which may be manufactured using in situ resource-derived materials on a planetary surface, will require more outfitting than traditional habitation approaches using rigid metallic structures (such as the International Space Station), where many elements can launch pre-integrated. For softgoods inflatable habitats, it is anticipated that much of the outfitting would be performed by crew, while in constructed habitation scenarios outfitting may be done by robotic systems as part of precursor missions. This paper provides an overview of future planned habitats and outfitting needs, technology gaps related to outfitting, and current work under NASA’s habitat systems development, in-space manufacturing, and habitat construction portfolios related to this topic.
A small-diameter modular pressure vessel system is devised that can be applied to planetary surface and deep space human exploration missions. As one of the recommendations prepared for the NASA Human Spaceflight Architecture Team (HAT) Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC), a compact modular system can provide a Mars-forward approach to a variety of missions and environments. Small cabins derived from the system can fit into the Space Launch System (SLS) Orion "trunk", or can be mounted with mobility systems to function as pressurized rovers, in-space taxis, ascent stage cabins, or propellant tanks. Larger volumes can be created using inflatable elements for long-duration deep space missions and planetary surface outposts. This paper discusses how a small-diameter modular system can address functional requirements, mass and volume constraints, and operational scenarios.
Life support systems for future human missions beyond low Earth orbit may include a combination of existing hardware components and advanced technologies. Discipline areas for technology development include atmosphere revitalization, water recovery, solid waste management, crew accommodations, food production, thermal systems, environmental monitoring, fire protection and radiation protection. Life support systems will be influenced by in situ resource utilization (ISRU), crew mobility and the degree of extravehicular activity. Planetary protection represents an additional set of requirements that technology developers have generally not considered. Planetary protection guidelines will affect the kind of operations, processes, and functions that can take place during future exploration missions, including venting and discharge of liquids and solids, ejection of wastes, use of ISRU, requirements for cabin atmospheric trace contaminant concentrations, cabin leakage and restrictions on what materials, organisms, and technologies that may be brought on missions. Compliance with planetary protection requirements may drive development of new capabilities or processes (e.g. in situ sterilization, waste containment, contaminant measurement) and limit or prohibit certain kinds of operations or processes (e.g. unfiltered venting). Ultimately, there will be an effect on mission costs, including the mission trade space. Planetary protection requirements need to be considered early in technology development programs. It is expected that planetary protection will have a major impact on technology selection for future missions.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Architectural and environmental design tools for space system habitability, discussing work and living areas, hygienic facilities, etc