Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission”

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 NTRS2021

Mission Concept Design for Autonomous Space Missions using Mission-Level Modeling and Simulation

NASA’s Europa Lander mission is to search for biosignatures on Europa based on in-situ science using a lander architecture. This mission presents a set of challenges that requires a high level of autonomy on the lander system, leading to the need for a new operational paradigm that supports better collaboration and coordination between the lander and the ground operations team. M\&S is used for both designing the onboard system-level autonomy and the ground operations paradigm that allows effective and efficient collaboration and coordination between the lander and the ground operations team. In this paper, M\&S as applied to the design of new mission and operational concepts will be discussed. At its current early stage of the mission development for Europa Lander, the M\&S is used to explore different mission concepts and gain insights for design (formative) rather than to verify and validate fully designed mission concepts quantitatively (summative). Organically, we established a new approach to mission and operational concept exploration using high-fidelity modeling and simulation. M\&S has been an integral part of the approach of defining constraints and assertions, designing mission concepts, assessing (i.e., simulating them), and discovering insights, which feeds back to the definition an design steps. This organically-established approach provided important benefits to the project at its early phase of the development by enabling the project team to be able to build shared understanding of impacts from design characteristics, constraints, and their interactions on the mission performance.

Ye, Sean↗
NASA NTRS1994

A mission planning concept and mission planning system for future manned space missions

The international character of future manned space missions will compel the involvement of several international space agencies in mission planning tasks. Additionally, the community of users requires a higher degree of freedom for experiment planning. Both of these problems can be solved by a decentralized mission planning concept using the so-called 'envelope method,' by which resources are allocated to users by distributing resource profiles ('envelopes') which define resource availabilities at specified times. The users are essentially free to plan their activities independently of each other, provided that they stay within their envelopes. The new developments were aimed at refining the existing vague envelope concept into a practical method for decentralized planning. Selected critical functions were exercised by planning an example, founded on experience acquired by the MSCC during the Spacelab missions D-1 and D-2. The main activity regarding future mission planning tasks was to improve the existing MSCC mission planning system, using new techniques. An electronic interface was developed to collect all formalized user inputs more effectively, along with an 'envelope generator' for generation and manipulation of the resource envelopes. The existing scheduler and its data base were successfully replaced by an artificial intelligence scheduler. This scheduler is not only capable of handling resource envelopes, but also uses a new technology based on neuronal networks. Therefore, it is very well suited to solve the future scheduling problems more efficiently. This prototype mission planning system was used to gain new practical experience with decentralized mission planning, using the envelope method. In future steps, software tools will be optimized, and all data management planning activities will be embedded into the scheduler.

Wickler, Martin↗
NASA NTRS2015

Conformal Ablative Thermal Protection System for Small and Large Scale Missions: Approaching TRL 6 for Planetary and Human Exploration Missions and TRL 9 for Small Probe Missions

In 2011, NASAs Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) funded an effort to develop an ablative thermal protection system (TPS) material that would have improved properties when compared to Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) and AVCOAT. Their goal was a conformal material, processed with a flexible reinforcement that would result in similar or better thermal characteristics and higher strain-to-failure characteristics that would allow for easier integration on flight aeroshells than then-current rigid ablative TPS materials. In 2012, NASAs Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) began funding the maturation of the best formulation of the game changing conformal ablator, C-PICA. Progress has been reported at IPPW over the past three years, describing C-PICA with a density and recession rates similar to PICA, but with a higher strain-to-failure which allows for direct bonding and no gap fillers, and even more important, with thermal characteristics resulting in half the temperature rise of PICA. Overall, C-PICA should be able to replace PICA with a thinner, lighter weight, less complicated design. These characteristics should be particularly attractive for use as backshell TPS on high energy planetary entry vehicles. At the end of this year, the material should be ready for missions to consider including in their design, in fact, NASAs Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is considering incentivizing the use of C-PICA in the next Discovery Proposal call. This year both scale up of the material to large (1-m) sized pieces and the design and build of small probe heatshields for flight tests will be completed. NASA, with an industry partner, will build a 1-m long manufacturing demonstration unit (MDU) with a shape based on a mid LD lifting body. In addition, in an effort to fly as you test and test as you fly, NASA, with a second industry partner, will build a small probe to test in the Interactive Heating Facility (IHF) arc jet and, using nearly the same design, build the aeroshell and TPS, with instrumentation, for a small probe flight test article, due to fly in 2017. At the end of the year, the C-PICA will be at TRL 5+, and with the flight data in 2017, it will be at TRL 9 for missions needs with C-PICA at a small scale (12 diameter). The scale-up and small probe efforts will be de-scribed in this presentation.

Conformal Ablative↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enterprise Mission Integration for Artemis Lunar Missions

Mission integration is an iterative process by which a specific mission is formulated, refined, planned, and executed within the established vehicle(s), architecture, and ground systems design. Mission integration includes the people, vehicle(s) and ground hardware/software, products, processes, analyses, schedules, facilities, Certification of Flight Readiness, etc. The Artemis Mission Integration Task Team (MITT) developed a series of products and processes to support the complex mission integration across various Programs within the Artemis Mission Campaign (Orion, Space Launch Systems, Exploration Ground Systems, Gateway, Human Landing System, and Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility). The Moon to Mars (M2M) Program is referred to as ‘the enterprise’ as it includes both the M2M organization and the Programs supporting the Artemis Mission Campaign. Artemis Mission Integration has five phases: mission capability, mission definition, mission preparation, mission execution, and post-mission assessment. This paper focuses on one of the enterprise-level mission checkpoints as a kick-off to the Mission Preparation phase, the Mission Integration Review (MIR), which occurs 18-24 months prior to launch. The MIR helps to confirm the defined mission technical baseline is within the existing analyzed design envelope. Details are provided on the identification of dependencies, issues, or gaps for mission-specific objectives and requirements, as well as the definition of the analysis, training, mission execution products, facilities, and detailed supporting operations requirements. The MIR was held for both Artemis I and II and this paper aims to share with the aerospace community its value as we prepare for upcoming Artemis Missions.

Mary Anne Plaza↗
NASA NTRS2020

Risk and Performance Assessment of Generic Mission Architectures: Showcasing the Artemis Mission

A has initiated a strong push to return face. In this work, we astronaut assess performance and risk for proposed mission architectures using a new Mission Architecture Risk Assessment (MARA) tool. The MARA tool can produce statistics about the availability of components and overall performance of the mission considering potential failures of any of its components. In a Monte Carlo approach, the tool repeats the mission simulation multiple times while a random generator lets modules fail according to their failure rates. The results provide statistically meaningful insights into the overall performance of the chosen architecture. A given mission architecture can be freely replicated in the tool, with the mission timeline and basic characteristics of employed mission modules (habitats, rovers, power generation units, etc.) specified in a configuration file. Crucially, failure rates for each module need to be known or estimated. The tool performs an event-driven simulation of the mission and accounts for random failure events. Failed modules can be repaired, which takes crew time but restores operations. In addition to tracking individual modules, MARA can assess the availability of predefined functions throughout the mission. For instance, the function of resource collection would require a rover to collect the resources, a power generation unit to charge the rover, and a resource processing module. Together, the modules that are required for a given function are called a functional group. Similarly, we can assess how much crew time is available to achieve a mission benefit (e.g. research, building a base, etc) as opposed to spending crew time on repairs. Here we employ the method on the proposed NASA Artemis mission. Artemis aims to return United States astronauts to the lunar surface by 2024. Results provide insights into mission failure probabilities, up- and downtime for individual modules and crew-time resources spent on the repair of failed modules. The tool also allows us to tweak the mission architecture in order to find setups that produce more favorable mission performance. As such, the tool can be an aid in improving the mission architect abling cost-benefit analysis for mission improvement.

Rumpf, Clemens M.↗
NASA NTRS1999

The Lunar Prospector Mission: Final Results of Trajectory Design, Quasi-Frozen Orbits, Extended Mission Targeting, and Lunar Topography and Potential Models

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected Lunar Prospector (LP) as one of the discovery missions to conduct solar system exploration science investigations. The mission was NASA's first lunar voyage to investigate key science objectives since Apollo and was launched in January 1998. In keeping with discovery program requirements to reduce total mission cost and utilize new technology, Lunar Prospector's mission design and control will focus on the use of innovative and proven trajectory analysis programs. As part of this effort, the Goddard Space Flight Center and the Ames Research Center became partners in the Lunar Prospector trajectory team to provide the trajectory analysis and orbit determination support. At the end of 1998, Lunar Prospector completed its one-year primary mission at 100-km altitude above the lunar surface. On December 19, 1998, Lunar Prospector entered its extended mission phase. The mission orbit was lowered from 100 km to a mean altitude of 40 km. Due to lunar potential effects, the altitude of Lunar Prospector varied from 25 to 55 km above the mean lunar geoid. After one month at 40 km, the lunar potential model was updated based upon the new tracking data at 40 km. On January 15, 1999, the altitude was lowered again to a mean altitude of 30 km. The spherical altitude varied between 15 km and 45 km above the mean lunar geoid while the topographical altitude varied between 10 km and 50 km. Various means were employed to get accurate lunar surface elevation including Clementine altimetry and LOS analysis. Based upon the best available terrain maps, Lunar Prospector reached actual altitudes of 8 km above lunar mountains in the southern polar region. This extended mission phase of six months will enable LP to obtain science data up to 3 orders of magnitude better than at the mission orbit. At the end of the operations mission, LP was targeted for impact at a chosen location that allowed optical observation of the lunar ejecta as LP ended its mission at 1.6 km/sec. This paper details the trajectory design and orbit determination planning and actual results of the Lunar Prospector nominal and extended mission including maneuver design, eccentricity vs. argument of perigee evolution, topographical altitude estimation, and lunar potential modeling. This paper provides understanding of the quasi-frozen orbit design of the LP mission, the optimization process of lunar orbit targets, the impacts that the selected lunar potential models play, and discusses the feasibility of meeting the mission goals. Observed evolution of the Keplerian orbit elements are compared to the theoretical predictions using the latest lunar potential model available which incorporates the Lunar Prospector Doppler data. Mapping orbit maintenance maneuver design along with results of the actual maneuvers to maintain the orbital requirements are also presented.

Folta, David↗
NASA NTRS2010

The Mission Assessment Post Processor (MAPP): A New Tool for Performance Evaluation of Human Lunar Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Constellation Program paves the way for a series of lunar missions leading to a sustained human presence on the Moon. The proposed mission design includes an Earth Departure Stage (EDS), a Crew Exploration Vehicle (Orion) and a lunar lander (Altair) which support the transfer to and from the lunar surface. This report addresses the design, development and implementation of a new mission scan tool called the Mission Assessment Post Processor (MAPP) and its use to provide insight into the integrated (i.e., EDS, Orion, and Altair based) mission cost as a function of various mission parameters and constraints. The Constellation architecture calls for semiannual launches to the Moon and will support a number of missions, beginning with 7-day sortie missions, culminating in a lunar outpost at a specified location. The operational lifetime of the Constellation Program can cover a period of decades over which the Earth-Moon geometry (particularly, the lunar inclination) will go through a complete cycle (i.e., the lunar nodal cycle lasting 18.6 years). This geometry variation, along with other parameters such as flight time, landing site location, and mission related constraints, affect the outbound (Earth to Moon) and inbound (Moon to Earth) translational performance cost. The mission designer must determine the ability of the vehicles to perform lunar missions as a function of this complex set of interdependent parameters. Trade-offs among these parameters provide essential insights for properly assessing the ability of a mission architecture to meet desired goals and objectives. These trades also aid in determining the overall usable propellant required for supporting nominal and off-nominal missions over the entire operational lifetime of the program, thus they support vehicle sizing.

Williams, Jacob↗
NASA NTRS2017

Synergies Between the Kepler, K2 and TESS Missions with the PLATO Mission (Revised)

Two transit survey missions will have been flown by NASA prior to the launch of ESA's PLATO Mission in 2026, laying the groundwork for exoplanet discovery via the transit method. The Kepler Mission, which launched in 2009, collected data on its 100+ square degree field of view for four years before failure of a reaction wheel ended its primary mission. The results from Kepler include 2300+ confirmed or validated exoplanets, 2200+ planetary candidates, 2100+ eclipsing binaries. Kepler also revolutionized the field of asteroseismology by measuring the pressure mode oscillations of over 15000 solar-like stars spanning the lifecycle of such stars from hydrogen-burning dwarfs to helium-burning red giants. The re-purposed Kepler Mission, dubbed K2, continues to observe fields of view in and near the ecliptic plane for 80 days each, significantly broadening the scope of the astrophysical investigations as well as discovering an additional 156 exoplanets to date. The TESS mission will launch in 2017 to conduct an all-sky survey for small exoplanets orbiting stars 10X closer and 100X brighter than Kepler exoplanet host stars, allowing for far greater follow-up and characterization of their masses as well as their sizes for at least 50 small planets. Future assets such as James Webb Space Telescope, and ground-based assets such as ESOs Very Large Telescope (VLT) array, the Exremely Large Telescope (ELT), and the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) will be able to characterize the atmospheric composition and properties of these small planets. TESS will observe each 24 X 96 field of view for 30 days and thereby cover first the southern and then the northern hemisphere over 13 pointings during each year of the primary mission. The pole-most camera will observe the James Webb continuous viewing zone for one year in each hemisphere, permitting much longer period planets to be detected in this region. The PLATO mission will seek to detect habitable Earth-like planets with an instrument composed of 26 small telescopes in several 2232 square deg FOVs with a range of observation durations over a mission lifetime of up to eight years. This paper summarizes the findings of the KeplerK2 missions, previews the likely results from the TESS mission, and explores the lessons learned and to be learned from these prior missions that can be incorporated into the observation and data reduction strategy for the PLATO Mission so as to maximize the science return.

exoplanet detection↗
NASA NTRS2018

A New Approach to Mission Classification and Risk Management for NASA Space Flight Missions

The NASA risk classification system is meant to uide space mission development from formulation through completion of implementation. It is also meant to be the basis on which program and project managers develop and implement appropriate mission assurance and risk management strategies for the mission. In order to be useful, the risk classification system needs to provide consistent and reproducible classification results so that missions may be designed with the appropriate components, subsystems, and testing philosophy, all of which impacts mission schedule and cost. In a cost-constrained environment, a clear, robust, and reproducible approach to mission implementation becomes more critical than ever before. Once a project's risk classification level is established, the managers can define the appropriate management controls, systems engineering processes, mission assurance requirements, safety, and testing for that mission. The current NASA mission classification system will be reviewed before a new system is proposed.NASA manages space flight missions according to a four-tiered classification which assumes increasing levels of risk. We argue that risk does not change between classes. What changes are the means available to reduce risk. In performance-driven missions, the project will spend money in order to maintain performance without reducing margins. In cost-constrained missions, performance will be reduced in order to stay within budget or to maintain schedule: measurement requirements may be traded, design life may be reduced, or both. We then propose a new approach to the classification of NASA space flight missions, based on an assessment of how flexible the requirements, how exquisite the measurements, how long the lifetime, and how rigid the budget.Our proposed approach makes possible a clearer differentiation between classification levels and more effective guidance to program and project managers.

Bordi, Francesco↗
NASA NTRS1998

Reference Mission Version 3.0 Addendum to the Human Exploration of Mars: The Reference Mission of the NASA Mars Exploration Study Team

This Addendum to the Mars Reference Mission was developed as a companion document to NASA Special Publication 6107, “Human Exploration of Mars: The Reference Mission of the NASA Exploration Study Team.” The Addendum summarizes changes and updates to the Mars Reference Mission the Exploration Office developed since the final draft of SP 6107 was printed in early 1998. The Reference Mission is a tool used by the Exploration Team and the exploration community to compare and evaluate approaches to mission and system concepts that could be used for human exploration missions. It is intended to identify and clarify system “drivers,” or significant sources of cost, performance, risk, and schedule variation. It does not represent a final or recommended approach to human Mars missions. Several alternative scenarios, including human exploration missions to the Moon, asteroids, or other targets beyond Earth orbit as well as employing different technical approaches to solving mission and technology challenges, are currently under study by the Exploration Team. Comparing alternative approaches provides the basis for continual improvement to technology investment plans and general understanding of future human exploration missions. The Addendum represents a “snapshot” of work in progress in support of planning for future human exploration missions through May 1998. Annual publications of revisions to the Reference Mission are planned beginning in late 1998.

Mars↗
NASA NTRS2003

The Effect of Mission Location on Mission Costs and Equivalent System Mass

Equivalent System Mass (ESM) is used by the Advanced Life Support (ALS) community to quantify mission costs of technologies for space applications (Drysdale et al, 1999, Levri et al, 2000). Mass is used as a cost measure because the mass of an object determines propulsion (acceleration) cost (i.e. amount of fuel needed), and costs relating to propulsion dominate mission cost. Mission location drives mission cost because acceleration is typically required to initiate and complete a change in location. Total mission costs may be reduced by minimizing the mass of materials that must be propelled to each distinct location. In order to minimize fuel requirements for missions beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), the hardware and astronauts may not all go to the same location. For example, on a Lunar or Mars mission, some of the hardware or astronauts may stay in orbit while the rest of the hardware and astronauts descend to the planetary surface. In addition, there may be disposal of waste or used hardware at various mission locations to avoid propulsion of mass that is no longer needed in the mission. This paper demonstrates how using location factors in the calculation of ESM can account for the effects of various acceleration events and can improve the accuracy and value of the ESM metric to mission planners. Even a mission with one location can benefit from location factor analysis if the alternative technologies under consideration consume resources at different rates. For example, a mission that regenerates resources will have a relatively constant mass compared to one that uses consumables and vents/discards mass along the way. This paper shows examples of how location factors can affect ESM calculations and how the inclusion of location factors can change the relative value of technologies being considered for development.

Fisher, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Full Mission Astronaut Radiation Exposure Assessments for Long Duration Lunar Surface Missions

Risk to astronauts due to ionizing radiation exposure is a primary concern for missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and will drive mission architecture requirements, mission timelines, and operational practices. Both galactic cosmic ray (GCR) and solar particle event (SPE) environments pose a risk to astronauts for missions beyond LEO. The GCR environment, which is made up of protons and heavier ions covering a broad energy spectrum, is ever present but varies in intensity with the solar cycle, while SPEs are sporadic events, consisting primarily of protons moving outward through the solar system from the sun. The GCR environment is more penetrating and is more difficult to shield than SPE environments, but lacks the intensity to induce acute effects. Large SPEs are rare, but they could result in a lethal dose, if adequate shielding is not provided. For short missions, radiation risk is dominated by the possibility of a large SPE. Longer missions also require planning for large SPEs; adequate shielding must be provided and operational constraints must allow astronauts to move quickly to shielded locations. The dominant risk for longer missions, however, is GCR exposure, which accumulates over time and can lead to late effects such as cancer. SPE exposure, even low level SPE exposure received in heavily shielded locations, will increase this risk. In addition to GCR and SPE environments, the lunar neutron albedo resulting mainly from the interaction of GCRs with regolith will also contribute to astronaut risk. Full mission exposure assessments were performed for proposed long duration lunar surface mission scenarios. In order to accomplish these assessments, radiation shielding models were developed for a proposed lunar habitat and rover. End-to-End mission exposure assessments were performed by first calculating exposure rates for locations in the habitat, rover, and during extra-vehicular activities (EVA). Subsequently, total mission exposures were evaluated for proposed timelines. A number of computational tools and mathematical models, which have been incorporated into NASA's On-Line Tool for the Assessment of Radiation In Space (OLTARIS), were used for this study. These tools include GCR and SPE environment models, human body models, and the HZETRN space radiation transport code, which is used to calculate the transport of the charged particles and neutrons through shielding materials and human tissue. Mission exposure results, assessed in terms of effective dose, are presented for proposed timelines and recommendations are made for improved astronaut shielding and safer operational practice.

Adamczyk, Anne M.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Evolution of Orion Mission Design for Exploration Mission 1 and 2

The evolving mission design and concepts of NASA's next steps have shaped Orion into the spacecraft that it is today. Since the initial inception of Orion, through the Constellation Program, and now in the Exploration Mission frame-work with the Space Launch System (SLS), each mission design concept and program goal have left Orion with a set of capabilities that can be utilized in many different mission types. Exploration Missions 1 and 2 (EM-1 and EM-2) have now been at the forefront of the mission design focus for the last several years. During that time, different Design Reference Missions (DRMs) were built, analyzed, and modified to solve or mitigate enterprise level design trades to ensure a viable mission from launch to landing. The resulting DRMs for EM-1 and EM-2 were then expanded into multi-year trajectory scans to characterize vehicle performance and Earth-Moon geometry trends. This provides Orion's subsystems with stressing reference trajectories to help design their system. Now that Orion has progressed through the Preliminary and Critical Design Re-views (PDR and CDR) there is a general shift in the focus of mission design from aiding the vehicle design to providing mission specific products needed for pre-flight and real time operations. Some of the mission specific products need-ed include analysis of steering law performance, inputs into navigational accura-cy assessments, abort options at any point in the mission for each valid trajecto-ry in the launch window, recontact avoidance between the upper stage and Orion post nominal separation, etc.

Gutkowski, Jeffrey P.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Evolution of Orion Mission Design for Exploration Mission 1 and 2

The evolving mission design and concepts of NASA’s next steps have shaped Orion into the spacecraft that it is today. Since the initial inception of Orion, through the Constellation Program, and now in the Exploration Mission frame-work with the Space Launch System (SLS), each mission design concept and pro-gram goal have left Orion with a set of capabilities that can be utilized in many different mission types. Exploration Missions 1 and 2 (EM-1 and EM-2) have now been at the forefront of the mission design focus for the last several years. During that time, different Design Reference Missions (DRMs) were built, analyzed, and modified to solve or mitigate enterprise level design trades to ensure a viable mission from launch to landing. The resulting DRMs for EM-1 and EM-2 were then expanded into multi-year trajectory scans to characterize vehicle performance as affected by variations in Earth-Moon geometry. This provides Orion’s subsystems with stressing reference trajectories to help design their system. Now that Orion has progressed through the Preliminary and Critical Design Reviews (PDR and CDR), there is a general shift in the focus of mission design from aiding the vehicle design to providing mission specific products needed for pre-flight and real time operations. Some of the mission specific products needed include, large quantities of nominal trajectories for multiple monthly launch periods and abort options at any point in the mission for each valid trajectory in the launch window.

Gutkowski, Jeffrey P.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Possible Space Missions for Solar Research After Solar Maximum Mission

This ad hoc panel met in February 1977 to consider the needs of solar physics for space missions after the scheduled flight of Solar Maximum Mission in 1979. We were concerned only with scientific needs and opportunities. Neither budgetary implications nor payload feasibility were considered. This report on the panel deliberations therefore makes suggestions only. We hope it will be a useful input to the more extensive and careful analysis of the appropriate committees, such as the Solar Physics Working Group. We have made no attempt to prioritize our proposed mission. The following possible missions are describes briefly: A Solar Terrestrial Environment Mission; two versions of a Stereo Mission; a Large Scale Solar Structure Mission; a Solar Atmosphere Mission; a Solar Particle Acceleration Mission; and a Solar Pinhole Mission. We also append a brief account of the proposed Solar Probe Mission.

Sturrock, P. A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Full Mission Astronaut Radiation Exposure Assessments for Long Duration Lunar Surface Missions

Risk to astronauts due to ionizing radiation exposure is a primary concern for missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and will drive mission architecture requirements, mission timelines, and operational practices. For short missions, radiation risk is dominated by the possibility of a large Solar Particle Event (SPE). Longer duration missions have both SPE and Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) risks. SPE exposure can contribute significantly toward cancer induction in combination with GCR. As mission duration increases, mitigation strategies must address the combined risks from SPE and GCR exposure. In this paper, full mission exposure assessments were performed for the proposed long duration lunar surface mission scenarios. In order to accomplish these assessments, previously developed radiation shielding models for a proposed lunar habitat and rover were utilized. End-to-End mission exposure assessments were performed by first calculating exposure rates for locations in the habitat, rover, and during Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVA). Subsequently, total mission exposures were evaluated for the proposed timelines. Mission exposure results, assessed in terms of effective dose, are presented for the proposed timelines and recommendations are made for improved astronaut shielding and safer operational practices.

Adamczyk, Anne↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Mission Assurance (AMA) – A Conceptual Guide for NASA Missions

NASA is well acquainted with and skilled in conducting Risk Class A Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA). Class A missions are characterized as having highly specific performance with an ultra-low risk tolerance for risk and mission failure. But space is rapidly changing, and the space enterprise is challenged to pursue faster more agile mission developments with fewer resources and directed schedules. To meet this demand mission development teams face accepting more risk and trading performance within strict cost and schedule constraints. In responding to this challenge, The Aerospace Corporation has evolved the Adaptive Mission Assurance (AMA) approach. The benefit of an “adaptive” approach is most realized for smaller Research and Development (R&D), or Science and Technology (S&T) demonstration missions constrained by significantly smaller budgets and directed schedules. The challenge for these “risk tolerant, constraints-driven” missions is how to identify the most valuable mission assurance tasks that will fit within strict budgetary and schedule constraints for “gracefully” accepting risk that still achieves an agreeable expectation of mission success. AMA can respond to this challenge with little to no impact to team staffing or existing workload. This conceptual guide introduces AMA as a potential implementation for NASA Risk Class D and Sub-Class D missions.

Douglas A. Harris↗