Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LTV”

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

LTV-xEVA Applied Injury Biomechanics

Beginning in Artemis V, Lunar Terrain Vehicles (LTV) will be utilized to enable astronauts to explore the lunar south pole and conduct science farther from the landing site than during the Apollo program. However, LTV operation has the potential to cause injury to the suited crew member during their Extravehicular Activity (EVA). Injury risk caused by LTV acceleration and jerk combined with blunt loading from rigid suit components needs to be better understood. An effort began to create requirements for, model, and address the injury risk caused by the LTV combined with Exploration EVA (xEVA) suits. Mitigation of crew injury is a shared responsibility between LTV and the suit since neither can accomplish this independently. The modeling completed in Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) helped to verify the fidelity of the requirements and parse out vendor responsibility (LTV, xEVAS, or NASA) for Artemis V and beyond. The scope of the modeling in FY23 used the LTV System Requirements Document (SRD) as worst-case inputs and modeled female 5th-, male 50th-, and male 95th-percentile subjects in hard-mounted seated and semi-standing postures. Soft-mounted (i.e., lap belt) and testing to validate the analysis was determined out of scope for FY23 work.

Spacesuit↗

LTV-xEVA Applied Injury Biomechanics

Beginning in Artemis V, Lunar Terrain Vehicles (LTV) will be utilized to enable astronauts to explore the lunar south pole and conduct science farther from the landing site than during the Apollo program. However, LTV operation has the potential to cause injury to the suited crew member during their Extravehicular Activity (EVA). Injury risk caused by LTV acceleration and jerk combined with blunt loading from rigid suit components needs to be better understood. An effort began to create requirements for, model, and address the injury risk caused by the LTV combined with Exploration EVA (xEVA) suits. Mitigation of crew injury is a shared responsibility between LTV and the suit since neither can accomplish this independently. The modeling completed in Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) helped to verify the fidelity of the requirements and parse out vendor responsibility (LTV, xEVAS, or NASA) for Artemis V and beyond. The scope of the modeling in FY23 used the LTV System Requirements Document (SRD) as worst-case inputs and modeled female 5th-, male 50th-, and male 95th-percentile subjects in hard-mounted seated and semi-standing postures. Soft-mounted (i.e., lap belt) and testing to validate the analysis was determined out of scope for FY23 work.

Spacesuit↗

NASA's Ground Test Unit (GTU) Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Conceptual Hand Controllers Studies

Over that past year, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been preparing and developing a set of standardized testing protocols for the commercial LTV vendor selection. Two studies have been conducted on two possible hand controller concepts specifically designed for the operation of NASA’s Ground Test Unit (GTU) Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) that can be applied to the heretofore unknown designs developed by future LTV vendors. The objective for the two studies were to determine which hand controller enable acceptable operation of the LTV in a simulated lunar traverse. In the first evaluation a total of nine subjects in shirtsleeves with ungloved hands performed two simulated lunar driving courses in an engineering simulator with each hand controller. Controller concept one was the T-handle fashioned after the Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle’s (LRV) T-Handle controller. The rational for using this design is it’s a proven design while in a pressurized suit. However, the LTV does have a driving mode the LRV did not consider. The mode of crabbing or strafing the vehicle at different angles; thus, the idea of a dual T-Handle controllers to accommodate this function without using a switch or display was introduced. The second concept controller is a new innovative controller call the Tri-Rotor [NASA patent review MSC-27385-1]. Inspired by Formula One race steering, the Tri-Rotor was designed to take advantage of the restricted movement and dexterity of a pressurized space suit. During testing, all subjects were able to successfully navigate through two test courses of varying lengths and complexity. Results indicated the dual Thandle had minimal recommendations for improvement while the Tri-Rotor had more extensive ones. It must be noted, the Tri-Rotor is a first-generation prototype and has some known mechanical concerns; thus, recommendations from this study will be incorporated into the second generation.

Human Factors↗

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. NASA conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km (distances relevant to LTV-SYS071 and -029 requirements). Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 11.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “first-look” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗

Design Considerations for LTV HITL Testing of Pressurized Suited Crew on a Motion-Based Platform

The upcoming NASA Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) will succeed the Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle, performing both surface exploration and logistics transfer in NASA’s return to the Moon. Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) testing will play a key role in refining the design of the LTV, ensuring its usability and ability to accommodate the astronaut population. A motion-based platform and a lunar terrain and lighting model can simulate the conditions of the lunar south pole region. It can be used by NASA to conduct HITL testing in concert with HITL testing of the drivable Ground Reference Unit (GTU) concept vehicle. The dynamic motion of the platform combined with the mobility restrictions of pressurized suits could help improve NASA understanding of vehicle-suit-astronaut interfaces. NASA human factors practitioners have proposed multiple HITL test series to use the motion-based platform in conjunction with testing of the GTU in hopes that lessons learned can be applied to help select a commercial partner to develop the Artemis LTV.

LTV↗

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km. Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 1–1.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “firstlook” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗

A Spectral Lyapunov Function for Exponentially Stable LTV Systems

This paper presents the formulation of a Lyapunov function for an exponentially stable linear timevarying (LTV) system using a well-defined PD-spectrum and the associated PD-eigenvectors. It provides a bridge between the first and second methods of Lyapunov for stability assessment, and will find significant applications in the analysis and control law design for LTV systems and linearizable nonlinear time-varying systems.

Zhu, J. Jim↗

NASA White Paper - Terramechanics for LTV Modeling and Simulation

Simulating the interaction between wheel and soil is critical to the overall rover dynamics. This paper presented simple models for wheel soil interaction including the rolling resistances on the wheel due to soil compression and bull- dozing and the maximum tractive force between wheel and soil. Summary of typical lunar soil properties were presented in this paper and the wheel resis- tance model implementation and integration were also discussed. Integrating the wheel resistance model with the rover simulation will improve its dynamics and wheel slip models and enable the capability simulate the situation where wheel got stuck in the soil.

Terramechanics↗

Results of investigations on an 0.015 scale 140A/B configuration space shuttle vehicle orbiter model (49-0) in the LTV 4 by 4-foot high speed wind tunnel (0A84)

Data obtained from a wind tunnel test of an 0.015-scale 140 A/B configuration space shuttle vehicle orbiter model (49-0) are presented. Runs were conducted at Mach numbers 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.6, and 2.0 and Reynolds numbers of 8.4, 9.0, 9.0, 10.9, and 13.6 million per foot respectively. Various control surface settings were investigated from angles of attack of minus 4 degrees to plus 30 degrees at fixed angles of sideslip of zero and minus 5 degrees and through angles of sideslip from minus 2 to plus 8 degrees at fixed angles of attack of zero, plus 10, plus 15, and plus 20 degrees. The purpose of the test was to define the longitudinal and lateral-directional stability and control characteristics for the updated SSV configuration.

Esparza, V.↗

Upper wing surface boundary layer measurements and static aerodynamic data obtained on a 0.015-scale model (42-0) or the SSV orbiter configuration 140A/B in the LTV HSWT at a Mach number of 4.6 (LA58)

The purpose of the test was to investigate the nature of the Orbiter boundary layer characteristics at angles of attack from -4 to 32 degrees at a Mach number of 4.6. The effect of large grit, employed as transition strips, on both the nature of the boundary layer and the force and moment characteristics were investigated along with the effects of large negative elevon deflection on lee side separation. In addition, laminar and turbulent boundary layer separation phenomena which could cause asymmetric flow separation were investigated.

Ball, J. W.↗

Results of an aerodynamic investigation of a space shuttle orbiter/747 carrier flight test configuration to determine separation characteristics utilizing 0.0125-scale models (48-0/AX1318I-1) in the LTV 4 x 4 foot high speed wind tunnel (CA26), volume 1

Results of tests conducted on a 0.0125-scale model of the Space Shuttle Orbiter and a 0.0125-scale model of the 747 CAM configuration in a 4 x 4-foot High Speed Wind Tunnel were presented. Force and moment data were obtained for each vehicle separately at a Mach number of 0.6 and for each vehicle in proximity to the other at Mach numbers of 0.3, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7. The proximity effects of each vehicle on the other at separation distances (from the mated configuration) ranging from 1.5 feet to 75 feet were presented; 747 Carrier angles of attack from 0 deg to 6 deg and angles of sideslip of 0 deg and -5 deg were tested. Model variables included orbiter elevon, aileron and body flap deflections, orbiter tailcone on and off, and 747 stabilizer and rudder deflections.

Gillins, R. L.↗