DOCSLIB.ORG

SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION of NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS VIA the CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE. PA Abell1,* , DJ Korsmeyer2, RR Landis3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION of NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS VIA the CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE. PA Abell1,* , DJ Korsmeyer2, RR Landis3 Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVIII (2007) 2292.pdf SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION OF NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS VIA THE CREW EXPLORATION 1,* 2 3 4 5 6 7 VEHICLE. P. A. Abell , D. J. Korsmeyer , R. R. Landis , E. Lu , D. Adamo , T. Jones , L. Lemke , A. Gonza- les7, B. Gershman8, D. Morrison7, T. Sweetser8 and L. Johnson9, 1Planetary Astronomy Group, Astromaterials Re- search and Exploration Science, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058, [email protected]. 2Intelligent Systems Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035. 3Mission Operations, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058. 4Astronaut Office, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058. 5Houston, TX 77058. 6Oakton, VA 20153. 7NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035. 8Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109. 9NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.*NASA Postdoctoral Fellow. Introduction: The concept of a crewed mission to etc. Such missions to NEOs are vital from a scientific a Near-Earth Object (NEO) has been analyzed in depth perspective for understanding the evolution and ther- in 1989 as part of the Space Exploration Initiative [1]. mal histories of these bodies during the formation of Since that time two other studies have investigated the the early solar system, and to identify potential source possibility of sending similar missions to NEOs [2,3]. regions from which these NEOs originated. A more recent study has been sponsored by the Ad- NEO exploration missions will also have practical vanced Programs Office within NASA’s Constellation applications such as resource utilization and planetary Program. This study team has representatives from defense; two issues that will be relevant in the not-too- across NASA and is currently examining the feasibility distant future as humanity begins to explore, under- of sending a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to a stand, and utilize the solar system. A significant por- near-Earth object (NEO). The ideal mission profile tion of the NEO population may contain water, an at- would involve a crew of 2 or 3 astronauts on a 90 to tractive source of life support and fuel for future deep 120 day flight, which would include a 7 to 14 day stay space missions. The subject of planetary defense from for proximity operations at the target NEO. impacting asteroids has garnered much public and One of the significant advantages of this type of Congressional interest recently because of the increas- mission is that it strengthens and validates the founda- ing discovery rate of asteroids with a small, but non- tional infrastructure for the Vision for Space Explora- zero probability of striking Earth. NASA has already tion (VSE) and Exploration Systems Architecture been directed by Congress in the 2005 Authorization Study (ESAS) in the run up to the lunar sorties at the Bill to report on options for deflecting a threatening end of the next decade (~2020). Sending a human ex- asteroid should one be found. Many proposed deflec- pedition to a NEO, within the context of the VSE and tion schemes depend critically on asteroid characteris- ESAS, demonstrates the broad utility of the Constella- tics such as density, internal structure, and material tion Program’s Orion (CEV) crew capsule and Ares (CLV) launch systems. This mission would be the first properties – precisely the parameters that a crewed human expedition to an interplanetary body outside of mission to a NEO could measure. the cislunar system. Also, it will help NASA regain Precursor Missions: A robotic mission would be crucial operational experience conducting human ex- required in order to maximize crew safety and effi- ploration missions outside of low Earth orbit – which ciency of mission operations at any candidate NEO. humanity has not attempted in nearly 40 years. Such an in depth reconnaissance by small robotic Scientific and Practical Rationale: Piloted mis- spacecraft would help to identify the general character- sions using the CEV to NEOs will not only provide a istics of potential NEOs selected for study, and pro- great deal of technical and engineering data on space- vide an important synergy between the robotic scien- craft operations for future human space exploration, tific programs of the Science Mission Directorate but have the capability to conduct an in-depth scien- (SMD) and the human exploration program of the Ex- tific investigation of these objects. Essential physical ploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). and geochemical properties of NEOs can best be de- Knowledge of such things as the gravitational field, termined from dedicated spacecraft missions. Al- shape, surface topography, and general composition though ground-based observations can provide general would aid in planning for later CEV proximity opera- information about the physical properties (rotation tions. Precursor missions would also be useful to iden- rates, taxonomic class, size estimates, general compo- tify potential hazards to the CEV (and any of its de- sition, etc.) of NEOs, spacecraft missions to NEOs are ployable assets) such as the presence of satellites, or needed to obtain detailed characterizations of surface non-benign surface morphologies, which may not be morphology, internal structure, mineral composition, detectable from ground-based observations. The pre- topography, collisional history, density, particle size, cursor spacecraft should ideally have a visible camera for surface feature characterization, and a spectrometer Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVIII (2007) 2292.pdf capable of obtaining surface spectra in both visible and packages that may be deployed could be in-situ ex- infrared wavelengths for compositional investigation. periments designed to test such technologies as surface Other instruments such as a laser altimeter for surface anchors/tethers, drills/excavation equipment, or mate- topography may also be useful for constraining addi- rial extraction equipment. The CEV could also deploy tional characteristics of the NEO. It should be noted a transponder to the surface of the object for a long- that the data from all of the instruments on the precur- term study of the NEO’s orbital motion. This could be sor spacecraft would add to the current body of knowl- particularly useful for monitoring such objects that edge of NEOs in addition to characterizing potential have the potential for a possible future Earth impact. mission targets for the CEV. The crew has the added advantage of EVA for sam- CEV Science Capabilities: A CEV-type mission ple collection during close proximity operations. The will have a much greater capability for science and ability for the crew to traverse and collect one or more exploration of NEOs than robotic spacecraft. The main macroscopic samples from specific terrains on the sur- advantage of having piloted missions to a NEO is the face of an NEO is the most important scientific aspect flexibility of the crew to perform tasks and to adapt to of this type of mission. Having a human being interact- situations in real time. Robotic spacecraft have only ing in real-time with the NEO surface material and limited capability for scientific exploration, and may sampling various locales in context would bring a wealth of scientific information on such things as par- not be able to adapt as readily to certain conditions ticle size, potential space weathering effects, impact encountered at a particular NEO. The Hayabusa history, material properties, and near-surface densities spacecraft encountered certain situations that were a of the NEO. challenge for both it and its ground controllers during Conclusions: To date, the planetary science com- close proximity operations at Itokawa. A human crew munity has based much of its interpretation of the for- is able to perform tasks and react quickly in a micro- mation of asteroids and comets (i.e., parent bodies of gravity environment, faster than any robotic spacecraft the NEO population) on data from meteorite and inter- could (rapid yet delicate maneuvering has been a hall- planetary dust particles recovered on Earth. These ma- mark of Apollo, Skylab, and shuttle operations). In terials are known to come from such objects, but the addition, a crewed vehicle is able to test several differ- exact location of the specific parent bodies within the ent sample collection techniques, and to target specific solar system is not generally known. Unfortunately areas of interest via extra-vehicular activities (EVAs) direct connections of these samples to specific objects much more capably than a robotic spacecraft. Such cannot be made with any degree of certainty, which capabilities greatly enhance any scientific return from limits the ability of scientists to put their findings in a these types of missions to NEOs. larger context. However, with pristine samples from In terms of remote sensing capability, the CEV known locations within the solar system, scientists can should have a high-resolution camera for detailed sur- start to “map outcrops” and glean new insights into the face characterization and optical navigation. A light compositions and formation history of these NEOs. detection and ranging (LIDAR) system would be es- While such knowledge will aid in a better understand- sential for hazard avoidance (during close proximity ing of our solar system, it also has the potential for operations) and detailed topography measurements. In more practical applications such as resource utilization addition, the CEV should be outfitted with a radar (water, precious metals, oxygen, etc.) and NEO hazard transmitter to perform tomography, enabling a detailed mitigation (material properties, internal structures, look at the interior structure of the NEO. Given that macro-porosities, etc.). These scientific, commercial, several NEOs appear to have a high degree of porosity and hazard mitigation benefits, along with the pro- (e.g., Itokawa is estimated to be 40% void space by grammatic and operational benefits of a human venture volume), it is important to measure this characteristic into deep space, make a mission to a NEO using Con- of the target NEO.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle
    Order Code RL33568 The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle Updated November 9, 2007 Carl E. Behrens Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle Summary The International Space Station (ISS) program began in 1993, with Russia joining the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada. Crews have occupied ISS on a 4-6 month rotating basis since November 2000. The U.S. Space Shuttle, which first flew in April 1981, has been the major vehicle taking crews and cargo back and forth to ISS, but the shuttle system has encountered difficulties since the Columbia disaster in 2003. Russian Soyuz spacecraft are also used to take crews to and from ISS, and Russian Progress spacecraft deliver cargo, but cannot return anything to Earth, since they are not designed to survive reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere. A Soyuz is always attached to the station as a lifeboat in case of an emergency. President Bush, prompted in part by the Columbia tragedy, made a major space policy address on January 14, 2004, directing NASA to focus its activities on returning humans to the Moon and someday sending them to Mars. Included in this “Vision for Space Exploration” is a plan to retire the space shuttle in 2010. The President said the United States would fulfill its commitments to its space station partners, but the details of how to accomplish that without the shuttle were not announced. The shuttle Discovery was launched on July 4, 2006, and returned safely to Earth on July 17.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Vision for Space Exploration
    Constellation The New Vision for Space Exploration Dale Thomas NASA Constellation Program October 2008 The Constellation Program was born from the Constellation’sNASA Authorization Beginnings Act of 2005 which stated…. The Administrator shall establish a program to develop a sustained human presence on the moon, including a robust precursor program to promote exploration, science, commerce and U.S. preeminence in space, and as a stepping stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations. CONSTELLATION PROJECTS Initial Capability Lunar Capability Orion Altair Ares I Ares V Mission Operations EVA Ground Operations Lunar Surface EVA EXPLORATION ROADMAP 0506 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LunarLunar OutpostOutpost BuildupBuildup ExplorationExploration andand ScienceScience LunarLunar RoboticsRobotics MissionsMissions CommercialCommercial OrbitalOrbital Transportation ServicesServices forfor ISSISS AresAres II andand OrionOrion DevelopmentDevelopment AltairAltair Lunar LanderLander Development AresAres VV and EarthEarth DepartureDeparture Stage SurfaceSurface SystemsSystems DevelopmentDevelopment ORION: NEXT GENERATION PILOTED SPACECRAFT Human access to Low Earth Orbit … … to the Moon and Mars ORION PROJECT: CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE Orion will support both space station and moon missions Launch Abort System Orion will support both space stationDesigned and moonto operate missions for up to 210 days in Earth or lunar Designedorbit to operate for up to 210 days in Earth or lunar orbit Designed for lunar
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Earth Return Vehicle (MERV) Propulsion Options
    Mars Earth Return Vehicle (MERV) Propulsion Options Steven R. Oleson,1 Melissa L. McGuire,2 Laura Burke,3 James Fincannon,4 Joe Warner,5 Glenn Williams,6 and Thomas Parkey7 NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135 Tony Colozza,8 Jim Fittje,9 Mike Martini,10 and Tom Packard11 Analex Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio 44135 Joseph Hemminger12 N&R Engineering, Cleveland, Ohio 44135 John Gyekenyesi13 ASRC Engineering, Cleveland, Ohio 44135 The COMPASS Team was tasked with the design of a Mars Sample Return Vehicle. The current Mars sample return mission is a joint National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and European Space Agency (ESA) mission, with ESA contributing the launch vehicle for the Mars Sample Return Vehicle. The COMPASS Team ran a series of design trades for this Mars sample return vehicle. Four design options were investigated: Chemical Return /solar electric propulsion (SEP) stage outbound, all-SEP, all chemical and chemical with aerobraking. The all-SEP and Chemical with aerobraking were deemed the best choices for comparison. SEP can eliminate both the Earth flyby and the aerobraking maneuver (both considered high risk by the Mars Sample Return Project) required by the chemical propulsion option but also require long low thrust spiral times. However this is offset somewhat by the chemical/aerobrake missions use of an Earth flyby and aerobraking which also take many months. Cost and risk analyses are used to further differentiate the all-SEP and Chemical/Aerobrake options. 1COMPASS Lead, DSB0, 21000 Brookpark Road, and AIAA Senior Member. 2COMPASS Integration Lead, DSB0, 21000 Brookpark Road, non-member. 3Mission Designer, DSB0, 21000 Brookpark Road, and Non-Member.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Nasa's Exploration
    A REVIEW OF NASA’S EXPLORATION PROGRAM IN TRANSITION: ISSUES FOR CONGRESS AND INDUSTRY HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 30, 2011 Serial No. 112–8 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65–305PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS HON.
    [Show full text]
  • Crew Exploration Vehicle
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration CREW EXPLORATION NASA SUMMER OF INNOVATION VEHICLE UNIT Engineering: Exploration LESSON DESCRIPTION Students will design and build a Crew GRADE LEVELS Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that will carry th th 7 – 9 two cm-sized passengers safely and will fit within a certain volume (size limitation). CONNECTION TO CURRICULUM Potential and Kinetic Energy, Acceleration due to gravity, Air OBJECTIVES Resistance, Measurement (Volume) Students will: TEACHER PREPARATION TIME Engage in the engineering design 15-30 minutes process LESSON TIME NEEDED Design and build a model CEV 60-120 Minutes Level: Intermediate within certain parameters Test their vehicle using a Drop Test and revise their designs NATIONAL STANDARDS National Science Education Standards (NSTA) Science as Inquiry Understanding of scientific concepts Understanding of the nature of science Skills necessary to become independent inquirers about the natural world The dispositions to use the skills, abilities, and attitudes associated with science Science and Technology Abilities of technological design Understanding about science and technology Physical Science Standards Motions and forces Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (NCTM) Geometry Solve real-life and mathematical problems involving angle measure, area, surface area, and volume ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for Students (ISTE) Creativity and Innovation Students: apply existing knowledge to generate new ideas, products, or processes create original works as a means
    [Show full text]
  • A Human Lunar Surface Base and Infrastructure Solution
    Space 2006 AIAA 2006-7336 19 - 21 September 2006, San Jose, California A Human Lunar Surface Base and Infrastructure Solution David K. Bodkin1, Paul Escalera2, and Kenneth J. Bocam3 Orbital Sciences Corporation, Dulles, VA, 20166 Orbital’s Lunar Surface Infrastructure is comprised of five areas: Human Transport System, Cargo Transport System, Lunar Exploration Surface Infrastructure, Lunar In- Space Support Systems, and Lunar Precursor and Science System. This paper focuses on the Cargo Transport System and the Lunar Exploration Surface Infrastructure and discusses some of the critical challenges faced, alternatives considered, and Orbital’s solution for these challenges. In addition to presenting a Lunar Surface Exploration architecture that fits within program constraints and highlighting the architecture defining trade studies, e.g. habitat geometry, habitat radiation shielding, lunar surface power, and cargo delivery system, a launch manifest and strategy for lunar base expansion are also discussed. 1 Principal Engineer, Advanced Programs Group – Advanced Flight Systems, 21839 Atlantic Blvd., Member. 2 Senior Engineer, Advanced Programs Group – Advanced Flight Systems, 21839 Atlantic Blvd., Member. 3 Senior Principal Engineer, Advanced Programs Group – Advanced Flight Systems, 21839 Atlantic Blvd., Senior Member. 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Copyright © 2006 by Orbital Sciences Corporation. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. I. Introduction ecent events within the aerospace community, such as the President’s Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), the R Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), and the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) program, have generated much discussion on the space transportation segment of the lunar exploration mission. While transportation is a critical aspect of exploration, the discussion has not yet focused on the lunar surface base and infrastructure required to establish a sustained human presence on the moon.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Humans Back to the Moon…40 Years Later!
    Design a Crew Exploration Vehicle Design a Crew Student page Taking humans back to the Moon…40 years later! NASA needs a new vehicle to take astronauts to the Moon because the Space Shuttle was never designed to leave the Earth’s orbit. NASA and its industry partners are working on a space vehicle that will take astronauts to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. This spacecraft is called the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The CEV is a vehicle to transport human crews beyond low-Earth orbit and back again. The CEV must be designed to serve multiple functions and operate in a variety of environments. 104 THE CHALLENGE: DESIGN Each team must design and build a Crew challenge Exploration Vehicle with the following To design and build a Crew constraints: Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that will carry two 2 cm- sized passengers safely 1. The CEV must safely carry two “astronauts”. and will fit within a certain You must design and build a secure seat for volume (size limitation). these astronauts, without gluing or taping them The CEV will be launched in place. The astronauts should stay in their in the next session. seats during each drop test. 2. The CEV must fit within the ______________. This item serves simply as a size constraint. The CEV is not to be stored in this or launched from this item. 3. The CEV must include a model of an internal holding tank for fuel with a volume of 30 cm3. Design a CEV (Note: your tanks will not actually be filled with a Student page liquid.) 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Design a Crew Exploration Vehicle
    Design a Crew Exploration Vehicle DESIGN challenge To design and build a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that will carry two 2 cm- sized passengers safely and will fit within a certain volume (size limitation). The CEV will be launched in the next session. OBJECTIVE STUDENT PAGES To demonstrate an understanding of Design Challenge the Engineering Design Process while utilizing each stage to successfully Ask, Imagine and Plan complete a team challenge. Experiment and Record PROCESS SKILLS Quality Assurance Form Measuring, calculating, designing, Fun with Engineering at Home evaluating MATERIALS PRE-ACTIVITY SET-UP Select a size constraint (mailing tube, General building supplies oatmeal canister or coffee can). Digital scale Fill in the sentence on the Design Challenge so students will know what Mailing tube, oatmeal canister, the size constraint is for their CEV. or small coffee can (used as size constraint) 2 - 2 cm plastic people (i.e. Lego®) exploration 101 Design a Crew Exploration Vehicle Design a Crew Teacher page MOTIVATE Show the NASA BEST video titled “Repeatability”: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/goto?10515 Ask the students why it is important to test their own designs. SET THE STAGE: ASKIMAGINE &PLAN Share the Design Challenge with the students. Remind students to imagine a solution and draw their ideas. All drawings should be approved before building. CREATE Challenge students to build their CEVs based on their designs. Remind them to keep within specifications. Visit each team and test their designs to ensure they fit within the size specifications of the cylinder you are using. EXPERIMENT Each team must conduct three drop test (at 1, 2 and 3 m) and record the results.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities Pub
    CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE A CBO STUDY OCTOBER 2006 Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities Pub. No. 2568 A CBO STUDY Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities October 2006 The Congress of the United States O Congressional Budget Office Note Unless otherwise indicated, all years referred to in this study are federal fiscal years, and all dollar amounts are expressed in 2006 dollars of budget authority. Preface Currently available launch vehicles have the capacity to lift payloads into low earth orbit that weigh up to about 25 metric tons, which is the requirement for almost all of the commercial and governmental payloads expected to be launched into orbit over the next 10 to 15 years. However, the launch vehicles needed to support the return of humans to the moon, which has been called for under the Bush Administration’s Vision for Space Exploration, may be required to lift payloads into orbit that weigh in excess of 100 metric tons and, as a result, may constitute a unique demand for launch services. What alternatives might be pursued to develop and procure the type of launch vehicles neces- sary for conducting manned lunar missions, and how much would those alternatives cost? This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study—prepared at the request of the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee—examines those questions. The analysis presents six alternative programs for developing launchers and estimates their costs under the assump- tion that manned lunar missions will commence in either 2018 or 2020. In keeping with CBO’s mandate to provide impartial analysis, the study makes no recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Service Module, (Eight Nozzles) Docked to a Conceptual Lunar Landing Craft, Orbit the Moon
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Constellation Program: America’s Spacecraft for a New Generationf of Explorers a c t s The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle NASA The Orion crew exploration vehicle and its service module orbit the moon with disc-shaped solar arrays tracking the sun to generate electricity. America will send a new generation of explorers Orion will be capable of carrying crew and cargo to the moon aboard NASA’s Orion crew exploration to the space station. It will be able to rendezvous vehicle. Making its first flights early in the next with a lunar landing module and an Earth departure decade, Orion is part of the Constellation Program stage in low-Earth orbit to carry crews to the moon to send human explorers back to the moon, and and, one day, to Mars-bound vehicles assembled then onward to Mars and other destinations in the in low-Earth orbit. Orion will be the Earth entry solar system. vehicle for lunar and Mars returns. Orion’s design will borrow its shape from the capsules of the past, A component of the Vision for Space Exploration, but takes advantage of 21st century technology Orion’s development is taking place in parallel in computers, electronics, life support, propulsion with missions to complete the International Space and heat protection systems. Station using the space shuttle before the shuttle is retired in 2010. Veteran Shape, State-of-the Art Technology the Orion spacecraft stays in lunar orbit. Once the astronauts’ Orion will be similar in shape to the Apollo spacecraft, lunar mission is complete, they will return to the orbiting but significantly larger.
    [Show full text]
  • Lunar Outpost the Challenges of Establishing a Human Settlement on the Moon Erik Seedhouse Lunar Outpost the Challenges of Establishing a Human Settlement on the Moon
    Lunar Outpost The Challenges of Establishing a Human Settlement on the Moon Erik Seedhouse Lunar Outpost The Challenges of Establishing a Human Settlement on the Moon Published in association with Praxis Publishing Chichester, UK Dr Erik Seedhouse, F.B.I.S., As.M.A. Milton Ontario Canada SPRINGER±PRAXIS BOOKS IN SPACE EXPLORATION SUBJECT ADVISORY EDITOR: John Mason, M.Sc., B.Sc., Ph.D. ISBN 978-0-387-09746-6 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York Springer is part of Springer-Science + Business Media (springer.com) Library of Congress Control Number: 2008934751 Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers. # Praxis Publishing Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2009 Printed in Germany The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speci®c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Cover design: Jim Wilkie Project management: Originator Publishing Services, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK Printed on acid-free paper Contents Preface ............................................. xiii Acknowledgments ...................................... xvii About the author....................................... xix List of ®gures ........................................ xxi List of tables ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Crew Exploration Vehicle Ascent Abort Overview
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20070031124 2019-08-30T01:40:16+00:00Z View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NASA Technical Reports Server Crew Exploration Vehicle Ascent Abort Overview John Davidson* NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681 Jennifer Madsen†, Ryan Proud‡, and Deborah Merritt† NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 David Raney§ and Dean Sparks§ NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681 Paul Kenyon** and Richard Burt†† Lockheed Martin Corporation, Denver, CO 80201 Mike McFarland‡‡ Orbital Sciences Corporation, Dulles, VA 20166 Abstract One of the primary design drivers for NASA’s Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is to ensure crew safety. Aborts during the critical ascent flight phase require the design and operation of CEV systems to escape from the Crew Launch Vehicle and return the crew safely to the Earth. To accomplish this requirement of continuous abort coverage, CEV ascent abort modes are being designed and analyzed to accommodate the velocity, altitude, atmospheric, and vehicle configuration changes that occur during ascent. The analysis involves an evaluation of the feasibility and survivability of each abort mode and an assessment of the abort mode coverage. These studies and design trades are being conducted so that more informed decisions can be made regarding the vehicle abort requirements, design, and operation. This paper presents an overview of the CEV, driving requirements for abort scenarios, and an overview of current ascent abort modes. Example analysis results are then discussed. Finally, future areas for abort analysis are addressed. Nomenclature Acronyms: ACM Attitude Control Motor ADL Abort Decision Logic AGL Above Ground Level AOA Abort Once Around ATO Abort To Orbit BPC Boost Protective Cover CEV Crew Exploration Vehicle CLV Crew Launch Vehicle CM Crew Module DAEZ Down-range Abort Exclusion Zone GRAM Global Reference Atmospheric Model * Aerospace Engineer, Dynamic Systems and Control Branch, M/S 308, Senior Member AIAA.
    [Show full text]