DOCSLIB.ORG

Apollo Gray Team Lunar Landing Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Apollo Gray Team Lunar Landing Design Apollo Gray Team Lunar Landing Design - Final Report - May 16, 2007 System Architecture Guidance, Navigation & Control Bryan Gardner Lucy Cohan Wilfried Hofstetter Swati Mohan Ryan McLinko Rebecca Myers Ben Renkoski Human Factors Operations Tatsuya Arai Phillip Cunio Melanie Chin Christine Edwards Elizabeth Deems Carl Engel Jaime Mateus Zahra Khan Apollo Gray Lunar Landing Design 1 5/16/2007 Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables................................................................................................................................. 5 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... 6 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 2. Systems Architecture .............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Review of Lunar Landing Concepts................................................................................ 7 2.2 Reference Lunar Lander Design................................................................................... 10 2.3 Systems Architecture Summary.................................................................................... 13 3. Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) ........................................................................ 14 3.1 Trajectory .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Hardware .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.1 Sensors ......................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Actuators...................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.3 Apollo Hardware Comparison ..................................................................................... 18 3.3 Control and Estimation ................................................................................................... 19 3.3.1 Control Architecture and Comparison to Apollo......................................................... 19 3.3.2 Control Architecture Flow ........................................................................................... 19 3.4 Simulation and Results................................................................................................... 20 3.4.1 Simulation Formulation ............................................................................................... 20 3.4.2 Simulation Control Architecture.................................................................................. 21 3.4.2 Simulation Results ....................................................................................................... 21 3.4.3 Monte Carlo Analysis and Results............................................................................... 22 3.5 GNC Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................. 23 4. Human Factors....................................................................................................................... 23 4.1. Lunar Lander Control..................................................................................................... 24 4.1.1 Design Requirements................................................................................................... 24 4.1.2 Number of Crew Members in the Control Loop.......................................................... 24 4.1.3 Supervisory Control..................................................................................................... 24 4.1.4 Task Areas and Crewmember Responsibilities ........................................................... 25 4.1.5. External Cameras........................................................................................................ 25 4.2. Display Design ................................................................................................................ 26 4.2.1 Landing Display........................................................................................................... 26 4.2.2 Situational Awareness Display .................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Systems Status Display................................................................................................ 28 4.2.4 Window........................................................................................................................ 28 4.3. Interior Design and Anthropometry.............................................................................. 28 4.3.1. Total Volume .............................................................................................................. 28 4.3.2. Cockpit Anthropometry .............................................................................................. 28 4.3.3 Input devices ................................................................................................................ 29 4.3.4. Life Support Systems.................................................................................................. 29 4.4. Crew Selection and Training ........................................................................................ 30 4.4.1 Crew Selection............................................................................................................. 30 Apollo Gray Lunar Landing Design 2 5/16/2007 4.4.2 Crew Training .............................................................................................................. 30 4.4.3 Workload and Situational Awareness Testing............................................................. 32 5. Operations............................................................................................................................... 33 5.1 Introduction to Operations.............................................................................................. 33 5.2 Nominal Landing Operations ......................................................................................... 33 5.3 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis ............................................................................. 34 5.4 Flight Rules....................................................................................................................... 36 5.5 Abort Procedures............................................................................................................. 36 5.6 Impact of Technological Developments....................................................................... 37 5.7 Mission Control and Public Impact ............................................................................... 37 6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 38 7. Annotated References .......................................................................................................... 40 7.1 Systems Architecture References ................................................................................ 40 7.2 Guidance, Navigation & Control.................................................................................... 41 7.3 Human Factors................................................................................................................. 44 7.4 Operations ........................................................................................................................ 45 8. Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 48 8.1 System Architecture Appendices .................................................................................. 48 8.1.1 Lunar Lander Concepts................................................................................................ 48 8.1.2 Lunar Mission Modes .................................................................................................. 49 8.1.3 Lunar Landing Morphological Matrix......................................................................... 50 8.1.4 Lunar Lander Concept Comparisons ........................................................................... 52 8.2 GN&C Appendices .......................................................................................................... 53 8.2.1 Hardware Comparisons................................................................................................ 53 8.3 Human Factors Tables and Figures ............................................................................. 55 8.4 Operations Team Appendices....................................................................................... 62 8.4.1 Full Nominal Procedure............................................................................................... 62
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model For
    A QUANTITATIVE HUMAN SPACECRAFT DESIGN EVALUATION MODEL FOR ASSESSING CREW ACCOMMODATION AND UTILIZATION by CHRISTINE FANCHIANG B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007 M.S., University of Colorado Boulder, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences 2017 i This thesis entitled: A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization written by Christine Fanchiang has been approved for the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Dr. David M. Klaus Dr. Jessica J. Marquez Dr. Nisar R. Ahmed Dr. Daniel J. Szafir Dr. Jennifer A. Mindock Dr. James A. Nabity Date: 13 March 2017 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ii Fanchiang, Christine (Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering Sciences) A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization Thesis directed by Professor David M. Klaus Crew performance, including both accommodation and utilization factors, is an integral part of every human spaceflight mission from commercial space tourism, to the demanding journey to Mars and beyond. Spacecraft were historically built by engineers and technologists trying to adapt the vehicle into cutting edge rocketry with the assumption that the astronauts could be trained and will adapt to the design. By and large, that is still the current state of the art. It is recognized, however, that poor human-machine design integration can lead to catastrophic and deadly mishaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Domi Inter Astra
    Team members Alice Sueko Müller | Anshoo Mehra | Chaitnya Chopra | Ekaterina Seltikova Isabel Alonso Serrano | James Xie | Jay Kamdar | Julie Pradel | Kunal Kulkarni Matej Poliaček | Myles Harris | Nitya Jagadam | Richal Abhang | Ruvimbo Samanga | Sagarika Rao Valluri Sanket Kalambe | Sejal Budholiya | Selene Cannelli Space Generation Advisory Council Team 1 Contents Society and Culture 3 Tourist Attractions 3 Astronaut and Tourist Selection 3 Architecture 4 Module 1: Greenhouse, Guest Amenities, Medicine, and Environmental Control 5 Module 2: Social Space and Greenhouse 5 Module 3: Kitchen, Fitness, Hygiene, and Social 6 Module 3: Sky-view 6 Module 4: Crew Bedrooms and Private Social Space 6 Module 5: Workspace 6 Management and Politics 7 Governance, Ownership, and Intellectual Property 7 Crew Operations 7 Base Management System 8 Safety & Emergency Planning 8 Engineering 9 Landing & Settlement Site 9 Settlement Structure 10 Robotics and Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) 10 Construction Timeline 11 Communications System 12 Critical Life Support (Air & Water) Systems 12 Thermal System 13 Food & Human Waste Recycling 14 Other Waste 14 Technical Floor Plan 14 Power Generation & Storage 14 Economy 16 Capital & Operating Costs 16 Revenue Generation 17 Tourism & Outreach 17 Commercial Activities 18 Lunar Manufacturing 18 References 20 ntariksha, aptly meaning ‘the universe’ in to be a giant leap for all the young girls around the Sanskrit, is an avid stargazer fascinated world, and she knew something incredible is waiting by the blanket of splurging stars she saw to be known. from her village in North East India. To- day, her joy knew no bounds upon learn- “Each civilization must become space-faring or ex- ingA that she would get a chance to visit Domi Inter tinct”.
    [Show full text]
  • Return to the Moon Mission Overview
    Return to the Moon Mission Overview The new millennium is still young, but humans using the lastest in transport technology to are preparing to Return to the Moon, reduce the travel time. In addition to verifying spurred on by the verification of ice water on the best site for the establishment of the the lunar surface by Lunar Prospector in lunar base, during the course of the mission, 1998. Composed of hydrogen and oxygen – the crew will recover a probe that is the elements that make up water – the lunar stranded in space and access the damage to ice provides a core resource for long-term the probe, and then build and launch an human presence on the lunar surface. equipment module to the lunar surface. Lunar Prospector was followed by a series of Some information has been previously successful robotic missions designed to obtained from the potential lunar base sites. probe the concept that the ice water could A detailed study has determined that the be harvested. Once collected, the ice water base site must contain solid, metals, and can be turned into drinking water, oxygen for potentially useful resources such as helium-3. life support of a lunar base, nutrients as the Rock and soil samples, soil composition, and basis for agriculture, components needed for seismic information have been gathered by rocket fuel, or when combined with lunar soil, previous missions from a portion of the the basics for construction materials. Not potential sites. Experiments on soil and rock only did those robotic missions successfully samples from other possible sites must be prove that concept, but since then, additional performed in order to determine the best robotic staging missions have landed and site for the lunar base.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Human-System Interface Design for a Lunar Access Vehicle
    Conceptual Human-System Interface Design for a Lunar Access Vehicle Mary Cummings Enlie Wang Cristin Smith Jessica Marquez Mark Duppen Stephane Essama Massachusetts Institute of Technology* Prepared For Draper Labs Award #: SC001-018 PI: Dava Newman HAL2005-04 September, 2005 http://halab.mit.edu e-mail: [email protected] *MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Cambridge, MA 02139 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK................................................................................ 1 1.2 ORGANIZATION.................................................................................................... 2 2 H-SI BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION ........................................................ 3 2.1 APOLLO VS. LAV H-SI........................................................................................ 3 2.2 APOLLO VS. LUNAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ...................................................... 4 3 THE LAV CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE............................................................ 5 3.1 HS-I DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................ 5 3.2 THE CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE ............................................................................ 6 3.3 LANDING ZONE (LZ) DISPLAY............................................................................. 8 3.3.1 LZ Display Introduction.................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Project Horizon Report
    Volume I · SUMMARY AND SUPPORTING CONSIDERATIONS UNITED STATES · ARMY CRD/I ( S) Proposal t c• Establish a Lunar Outpost (C) Chief of Ordnance ·cRD 20 Mar 1 95 9 1. (U) Reference letter to Chief of Ordnance from Chief of Research and Devel opment, subject as above. 2. (C) Subsequent t o approval by t he Chief of Staff of reference, repre­ sentatives of the Army Ballistic ~tissiles Agency indicat e d that supplementar y guidance would· be r equired concerning the scope of the preliminary investigation s pecified in the reference. In particular these r epresentatives requested guidance concerning the source of funds required to conduct the investigation. 3. (S) I envision expeditious development o! the proposal to establish a lunar outpost to be of critical innportance t o the p. S . Army of the future. This eva luation i s appar ently shar ed by the Chief of Staff in view of his expeditious a pproval and enthusiastic endorsement of initiation of the study. Therefore, the detail to be covered by the investigation and the subs equent plan should be as com­ plete a s is feas ible in the tin1e limits a llowed and within the funds currently a vailable within t he office of t he Chief of Ordnance. I n this time of limited budget , additional monies are unavailable. Current. programs have been scrutinized r igidly and identifiable "fat'' trimmed awa y. Thus high study costs are prohibitive at this time , 4. (C) I leave it to your discretion t o determine the source and the amount of money to be devoted to this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Collision Avoidance Operations in a Multi-Mission Environment
    AIAA 2014-1745 SpaceOps Conferences 5-9 May 2014, Pasadena, CA Proceedings of the 2014 SpaceOps Conference, SpaceOps 2014 Conference Pasadena, CA, USA, May 5-9, 2014, Paper DRAFT ONLY AIAA 2014-1745. Collision Avoidance Operations in a Multi-Mission Environment Manfred Bester,1 Bryce Roberts,2 Mark Lewis,3 Jeremy Thorsness,4 Gregory Picard,5 Sabine Frey,6 Daniel Cosgrove,7 Jeffrey Marchese,8 Aaron Burgart,9 and William Craig10 Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7450 With the increasing number of manmade object orbiting Earth, the probability for close encounters or on-orbit collisions is of great concern to spacecraft operators. The presence of debris clouds from various disintegration events amplifies these concerns, especially in low- Earth orbits. The University of California, Berkeley currently operates seven NASA spacecraft in various orbit regimes around the Earth and the Moon, and actively participates in collision avoidance operations. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory provide conjunction analyses. In two cases, collision avoidance operations were executed to reduce the risks of on-orbit collisions. With one of the Earth orbiting THEMIS spacecraft, a small thrust maneuver was executed to increase the miss distance for a predicted close conjunction. For the NuSTAR observatory, an attitude maneuver was executed to minimize the cross section with respect to a particular conjunction geometry. Operations for these two events are presented as case studies. A number of experiences and lessons learned are included. Nomenclature dLong = geographic longitude increment ΔV = change in velocity dZgeo = geostationary orbit crossing distance increment i = inclination Pc = probability of collision R = geostationary radius RE = Earth radius σ = standard deviation Zgeo = geostationary orbit crossing distance I.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobile Lunar and Planetary Base Architectures
    Space 2003 AIAA 2003-6280 23 - 25 September 2003, Long Beach, California Mobile Lunar and Planetary Bases Marc M. Cohen, Arch.D. Advanced Projects Branch, Mail Stop 244-14, NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 TEL 650 604-0068 FAX 650 604-0673 [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper presents a review of design concepts over three decades for developing mobile lunar and planetary bases. The idea of the mobile base addresses several key challenges for extraterrestrial surface bases. These challenges include moving the landed assets a safe distance away from the landing zone; deploying and assembling the base remotely by automation and robotics; moving the base from one location of scientific or technical interest to another; and providing sufficient redundancy, reliability and safety for crew roving expeditions. The objective of the mobile base is to make the best use of the landed resources by moving them to where they will be most useful to support the crew, carry out exploration and conduct research. This review covers a range of surface mobility concepts that address the mobility issue in a variety of ways. These concepts include the Rockwell Lunar Sortie Vehicle (1971), Cintala’s Lunar Traverse caravan, 1984, First Lunar Outpost (1992), Frassanito’s Lunar Rover Base (1993), Thangavelu’s Nomad Explorer (1993), Kozlov and Shevchenko’s Mobile Lunar Base (1995), and the most recent evolution, John Mankins’ “Habot” (2000-present). The review compares the several mobile base approaches, then focuses on the Habot approach as the most germane to current and future exploration plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Reviewing the Contribution of GRAIL to Lunar Science and Planetary Missions Maria T
    EPSC Abstracts Vol. 12, EPSC2018-575, 2018 European Planetary Science Congress 2018 EEuropeaPn PlanetarSy Science CCongress c Author(s) 2018 Reviewing the contribution of GRAIL to lunar science and planetary missions Maria T. Zuber and David E. Smith Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139- 4307, USA. ([email protected], [email protected]) Abstract Q of the Moon determined to be 41±4 at the monthly frequency. The GRAIL Discovery mission to the Moon in 2011 provided an unprecedentedly accurate gravity field model for the Moon. The goal of the mission was to provide insight into the structure of the Moon from its interior to the surface but it also made significant contributions to lunar spacecraft operations for all future lunar missions to the Moon. We discuss the science and the broader contributions from this mission that completed its objectives in December 2012 when the spacecraft impacted the lunar surface. 1. Introduction Figure 1: Free-air gravity of the Moon from GRAIL. GRAIL was a mission designed to measure the Full uniform resolution spherical harmonic models gravity field of the Moon with both high accuracy were obtained out to degree & order 1200 with and high resolution. The measurement goal was to special fields with higher resolutions over certain obtain the gravity at resolutions that would enable areas to degree and order 1800. interpretation of the crust at fractions of its thickness, estimated at the time of launch to be about 45 km. To 3. Mission Operations obtain a surface resolution of less than 10 km required the spacecraft to orbit the Moon at less than The significant improvement in our knowledge of the 20 km, an altitude that was considered dangerous at gravity field of the Moon by GRAIL enabled the re- that time without an accurate gravity field model.
    [Show full text]
  • Template for Two-Page Abstracts in Word 97 (PC)
    SAMPLE CURATION AT A LUNAR OUTPOST. C. C. Allen 1, G. E. Lofgren1, A. H. Treiman2, and M. L. Lindstrom3 1NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 USA [email protected] [email protected] 2Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX 77058 USA [email protected] 3NASA Headquarters, Washing- ton, DC 20546 USA [email protected] Introduction: The six Apollo surface missions re- particularly iron-rich pyroclastic glass and ilmenite- turned 2,196 individual rock and soil samples, with a bearing material. Ice-rich deposits have been pre- total mass of 381.6 kg [1]. Samples were collected dicted in permanently-shadowed locations, and the based on visual examination by the astronauts and con- verification of such deposits is an import goal for lunar sultation with geologists in the science “back room” in exploration. Other volatiles, derived from volcanic Houston. The samples were photographed during col- emissions or implanted by the solar wind, may also lection, packaged in uniquely-identified containers, prove valuable resources. and transported to the Lunar Module. All samples Lunar Outpost Curation Studies: Concepts for collected on the Moon were returned to Earth. the collection of samples at lunar outposts were stud- NASA’s upcoming return to the Moon will be dif- ied intensively in the years following Apollo. The ferent. Astronauts will have extended stays at an out- 1988 “Geoscience at a Lunar Base” workshop [2] care- post and will collect more samples than they will re- fully considered the curation and analysis of samples turn. They will need curation and analysis facilities on on the Moon’s surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Robotic Asteroid Prospector
    Robotic Asteroid Prospector Marc M. Cohen1 Marc M. Cohen Architect P.C. – Astrotecture™, Palo Alto, CA, USA 94306-3864 Warren W. James2 V Infinity Research LLC. – Altadena, CA, USA Kris Zacny,3 Philip Chu, Jack Craft Honeybee Robotics Spacecraft Mechanisms Corporation – Pasadena, CA, USA This paper presents the results from the nine-month, Phase 1 investigation for the Robotic Asteroid Prospector (RAP). This project investigated several aspects of developing an asteroid mining mission. It conceived a Space Infrastructure Framework that would create a demand for in space-produced resources. The resources identified as potentially feasible in the near-term were water and platinum group metals. The project’s mission design stages spacecraft from an Earth Moon Lagrange (EML) point and returns them to an EML. The spacecraft’s distinguishing design feature is its solar thermal propulsion system (STP) that provides two functions: propulsive thrust and process heat for mining and mineral processing. The preferred propellant is water since this would allow the spacecraft to refuel at an asteroid for its return voyage to Cis- Lunar space thus reducing the mass that must be launched from the EML point. The spacecraft will rendezvous with an asteroid at its pole, match rotation rate, and attach to begin mining operations. The team conducted an experiment in extracting and distilling water from frozen regolith simulant. Nomenclature C-Type = Carbonaceous Asteroid EML = Earth-Moon Lagrange Point ESL = Earth-Sun Lagrange Point IPV = Interplanetary Vehicle M-Type = Metallic Asteroid NEA = Near Earth Asteroid NEO = Near Earth Object PGM = Platinum Group Metal STP = Solar Thermal Propulsion S-Type = Stony Asteroid I.
    [Show full text]
  • Dsc Pub Edited
    1968 93) few craters, much like the mare sites, Surveyor 7 although the general area was rougher. About Nation: U.S. (43) 21 hours after landing, ground controllers Objective(s): lunar soft-landing fired a pyrotechnic charge to drop the alpha- Spacecraft: Surveyor-G scattering instrument on the lunar surface. Spacecraft Mass: 1,040.1 kg When the instrument failed to move, con- Mission Design and Management: NASA JPL trollers used the robot arm to force it down. Launch Vehicle: Atlas-Centaur (AC-15 / Atlas The scoop on the arm was used numerous 3C no. 5903C / Centaur D-1A) times for picking up soil, digging trenches, Launch Date and Time: 7 January 1968 / and conducting at least sixteen surface- 06:30:00 UT bearing tests. Apart from taking 21,274 pho- Launch Site: ETR / launch complex 36A tographs (many of them in stereo), Surveyor Scientific Instruments: 7 also served as a target for Earth-based 1) imaging system lasers (of 1-watt power) to accurately 2) alpha-scattering instrument measure the distance between Earth and the 3) surface sampler Moon. Although it was successfully reacti- 4) footpad magnet vated after the lunar night, Surveyor 7 Results: Since Surveyors 1, 3, 5, and 6 success- finally shut down on 21 February 1968. In fully fulfilled requirements in support of total, the five successful Surveyors returned Apollo, NASA opted to use the last remaining more than 87,000 photos of the lunar surface Surveyor for a purely scientific mission out- and demonstrated the feasibility of soft- side of exploring a potential landing site for landing a spacecraft on the lunar surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending NASA™S Exploration Systems Architecture Towards Long
    SpaceOps 2006 Conference AIAA 2006-5746 Extending NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture towards Long - term Crewed Moon and Mars Operations Wilfried K. Hofstetter *, Paul D. Wooster †, Edward F. Crawley ‡ Massac husetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue , Cambridge, MA, 02139 This pape r presents a baseline strategy for extending lunar crew transportation system operations as outlined in NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) report towards longer -stay lunar surface operations and conjunction class Mars missions. The analys is of options for commonality between initial lunar sortie operations and later Moon and Mars exploration missions is essential for reducing life -cycle cost and pr oviding low - investment / high -return options for extending exploration capabilities soon afte r the 7 th human lunar landing . The analysis is also intended to inform the development of the human lunar lander and other exploration system elements by identifying enabling requirements for extension of the lunar crew tr ansportation system. The baseline strategy outlined in this paper was generated using a three -step process : the analysis of exploration objectives and scenarios, identification of functional and operational extension options , and the conceptual design of a set of preferred extension option s. Extension options include (but are not limited to) the use of the human lunar lander as outpost for extended stays, and Mars crew transportation using evolved Crew Exploration Vehicle ( CEV ) and human lander crew compartments. Although t he results presen ted in this paper are based on the ES AS elements , the conclusions drawn in this paper are generally applicable provided the same l unar transportation mode (lunar orbit rendezvous) is used .
    [Show full text]