DOCSLIB.ORG

Constellation Program Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Constellation Program Overview October 2008 hris Culbert anager, Lunar Surface Systems Project Office ASA/Johnson Space Center Constellation Program EarthEarth DepartureDeparture OrionOrion -- StageStage CrewCrew ExplorationExploration VehicleVehicle AresAres VV -- HeavyHeavy LiftLift LaunchLaunch VehicleVehicle AltairAltair LunarLunar LanderLander AresAres II -- CrewCrew LaunchLaunch VehicleVehicle Lunar Capabilities Concept Review EstablishedEstablished Lunar Lunar Transportation Transportation EstablishEstablish Lunar Lunar Surface SurfaceArchitecturesArchitectures ArchitectureArchitecture Point Point of of Departure: Departure: StrategiesStrategies which: which: Satisfy NASA NGO’s to acceptable degree ProvidesProvides crew crew & & cargo cargo delivery delivery to to & & from from the the Satisfy NASA NGO’s to acceptable degree within acceptable schedule moonmoon within acceptable schedule Are consistent with capacity and capabilities ProvidesProvides capacity capacity and and ca capabilitiespabilities consistent consistent Are consistent with capacity and capabilities withwith candidate candidate surface surface architectures architectures ofof the the transportation transportation systems systems ProvidesProvides sufficient sufficient performance performance margins margins IncludeInclude set set of of options options fo for rvarious various prioritizations prioritizations of cost, schedule & risk RemainsRemains within within programmatic programmatic constraints constraints of cost, schedule & risk ResultsResults in in acceptable acceptable levels levels of of risk risk Transportation System Ares I Elements Instrument Unit Stack Integration • Primary Ares I control • 2M lb gross liftoff weight avionics system • 325 ft in length • NASA Design / Boeing • NASA-led Production Orion CEV First Stage • Derived from current Shuttle RSRM/B Upper Stage Interstage • Five segments/Polybutadiene Acrylonitride (PBAN) propellant • 305k lb LOX/LH2 stage • Recoverable • 18 ft diameter • New forward adapter • Aluminum-Lithium (Al-Li) structures • Avionics upgrades • Instrument Unit and Interstage • ATK Launch Systems • Reaction Control System (RCS) / roll control for first stage flight • Primary Ares I control avionics system • NASA Design / Boeing Production Upper Stage Engine • Saturn J-2 derived engine (J-2X) • Expendable • Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne DAC 2 TR 5 Orion Spacecraft Overview Mission Summary Mission Summary Max Crew 4 (lunar), 6 (ISS) Element Mass Targets CrewedMax Crew Mission Duration 21.1 4 (lunar), days 6 (ISS) CM ISSCrewed GLOW Mission Limit Duration 27,676 21.1 days kg LunarISS GLOW GLOW Limit Limit 30,257 27,676 kg kg ISS: 9,525 kg TLILunar Control GLOW Mass Limit20,185 30,257 kg kg Lunar: 8,732 kg LoadedTLI Control SM Delta Mass V (lunar) 1,492 20,185 m/s kg TankLoaded Sizing SM Delta Delta V V (lunar) (lunar)1,560 1,492 m/s m/s Tank Sizing Delta V (lunar) 1,560 m/s SA LAS 627 kg 7,260 kg ConfigurationConfiguration (606D) (606D) Pressurized Volume (Total) 19.4 m3 (686 ft3) Pressurized Volume (Total) 19.4 m3 (686 ft3) SM Propellant MMH/N2O4 SM Propellant MMH/N2O4 CM Propellant Hydrazine CM Propellant Hydrazine Payload (Pressurized Lunar Return) 100kg SM Payload (Pressurized Lunar Return) 100kg Radiator Area 20.25 m2 (218 ft2) ISS: 8,808 kg Radiator Area 20.25 m2 (218 ft2) CM Batteries 6 x 55 A-hr Lunar: 12,510 kg CM Batteries 6 x 55 A-hr Loaded CM Prop (Lunar) 146 kg Loaded CM Prop (Lunar) 146 kg SM Batteries 2 x 55 A-hr SM Batteries 2 x 55 A-hr SA Solar Array Diameter 5.84 m Solar Array Diameter 5.84 m (Jettisoned) Loaded SM Prop (Lunar) 8,185 kg Loaded SM Prop (Lunar) 8,185 kg 1,012 kg CEV +Z OME Isp (Mean) 326 s OME Isp (Mean) 326 s Current Mass Estimates ISS GLOW: 25,779 kg (Predicted) CEV +X ISS Injected: 17,629 kg (Predicted) Orion Stack Lunar GLOW: 29,954 kg (Predicted) STA 1000.00 (Launch Configuration) Lunar Injected: 21,804 kg (Predicted) CLV I/F Lunar TLI: 19,927 kg (Predicted) Ares V Concept Gross Lift Off Mass: 3,704.5 t (8,167.1k lbm) Altair Lunar Lander Integrated Stack Length: 116 m (381 ft) Payload Adapter Solid Rocket Boosters (2) J–2X • Two recoverable 5.5-segment Payload Loiter Skirt PBAN-fueled, steel-casing Shroud Interstage boosters (derived from current Ares I first stage Earth Departure Stage (EDS) • One Saturn-derived J–2X LOX/LH2 engine (expendable) • 10 m (33 ft) diameter stage Two representative configurations shown • Aluminum-Lithium (Al-Li) tanks Multiple configurations for adding a 6th Engine being traded • Composite structures, Instrument Unit RS–68B and Interstage Engines • Primary Ares V avionics system Core Stage (6) • Six Delta IV-derived RS–68B LOX/LH2 engines (expendable) • 10 m (33 ft) diameter stage • Composite structures • Aluminum-Lithium (Al-Li) tanks Altair Lunar Lander •4 crew to and from the surface • Seven days on the surface • Lunar outpost crew rotations •Global Access Capability •Anytime return to Earth • Capability to land 14 to 17 metric tons of dedicated cargo • Airlock for surface activities •Descent stage: •Liquid oxygen / liquid hydrogen propulsion • Ascent stage: • Hypergolic Propellants or Liquid oxygen/methane Altair Crewed Vehicle Concept Windows EVA Suit Storage Hammocks Umbilical Storage Lockers EVA Hatch Crew Display Monitor Hand Controls Storage Lockers Trash Bag Storage Airlock Module / Descent Module Adapter Lunar Sample Box AM-Airlock Airlock Connecting Structure Thermal Insulation Airlock Avionics AM Connecting Egress boxes (x2) Structure Hatch DM LH2 Fuel (Remains on DM) Life Support Tank (x4) Oxygen Tank Pressurant Landing Leg Tank (x2) (x4) DM RCS Thruster Pod (x4) LOX Tank Support Cone (x4) RCS Tanks DM Main Engine Radiator (x2) EVA System (Suit) is Integral Science EVA System Architecture Configuration 2 Suit is utilized for all phases of the lunar mission, i.e., transportation and lunar surface operations LEA/Microgravity EVA Suit Lunar Surface EVA Suit (Configuration 1) (Configuration 2) Change to soft rear Two ‘shortie‘ cores entry design Shoulder bearing Common PLSS (8 Hr EVA) retained for mobility helmet Enhanced shoulder Removed mobility Body Seal Closure Common Waist Bearing lower arms IVA Gloves EVA Gloves Removed Hip Multi-hip Bearing Bearings Rear entry hatch TMG/MLI for relevant Thigh Disconnect Common environment – incl. Retained for legs/boots modularity boot covers * Modular, reconfigurable, component-based architecture that meets various mission objectives Mission Key Driving Requirements MOONMOON Example of short stay Design Reference Mission 7 d Ascent 1,881 m/s (6,171 ft/s) 100 kg (220 lbm) pressurized return payload TBD hrs post lunar ascent Descent ΔV 2,030 m/s (6,660 ft/s) LH2/LO2 descent engine restartable/throttleable LLO 100 km (54nm) Sizing: Altair ΔV for LOI Altair Performs LOI 1,000 m/s (3,281 ft/s) 3-burn LOI TEI 1,492 m/s (4,895 ft/s) 1,000 m/s (3,281 ft/s) 1-5 days Altair LLO loiter (Tanks sized for 1, 560 m/s (5,118 m/s) (Propellant load for 950 m/s) Altair TLI Injected Control Mass 45 t (99,200 lb ) m Orion • Orion TLI Control Mass 20,185 kg (44,500 lbm) EDS TLI Injection Capability 66.1 t (145,726 lbm) + 5 t reserve EDS Performs TLI 3,175 m/s (10,417 ft/s) ERO up to 241km (130nm), minimum 222 km, LEO attitude = Gravity Gradient -20x185 km (-11x100 nm), 29º Ares-I Delivered Mass 23.6 t (52,070 lbm) 4 days LEO loiter EARTHEARTH ≥ 90 min. 1 - 5 d ~4d 1-5d 7 d 1d <5.8d Ares-V Extensibility to Mars Missions 51.00.47: Performance Summary • Mars Architecture study conducted during 2007 51.00.47 Performance Summary 200 in parallel with LAT-1 and LAT-2 Performance Performance Margin Margin 175 9.0 13.7 Total = 158.5 t Total = 153.8 t • Key Emphasis: 150 ASE ASE 5.2 7.9 125 51.00.47 Gross – Update Mars reference architecture LEO Payload 161.8 Lander/Ballast 100 – Assess strategic linkages between lunar and Mars Allocation 89.6 Mass (t) 75 Lander/Ballast strategies and systems Allocation 136.9 50 • Launch Vehicle Assessments Included: Aero-Shroud 25 50.0 – Staging altitude 0 Reference 51.00.47 to 222km Dual-Use Aero Shroud to 407km Jettisoned Aero Shroud to 407km – Payload size (length and diameter) - Baseline vehicle flies to lower orbit than Dual Use Shroud mission [222km (120nmi) circ vs. 407km (220nmi) circ] - Baseline 51.00.47 LEO payload (EDS propellant and Lunar Lander) is reported as ‘Gross Payload’. - Vehicles are structurally sized to accommodate larger shrouds. – Launch rate and frequency 5/30/2008 9:39:21 AM 4 – Delivery of both Mars payloads and using the Ares-V shroud as the Mars entry aeroshell 51.00.48: Performance Summary • Bottom Line: 51.00.48 Performance Summary 200 – Ares-V 51.xx series launch vehicles provide Performance Performance 175 Margin Margin 8.4 13.1 adequate performance (130+ t) Total = 151.5 t Total = 146.8 t 150 ASE ASE – Total number of Ares-V launches per Mars 4.8 125 51.00.48 Gross 7.6 LEO Payload mission: 7+ with a launch frequency of 30 days 154.3 100 Lander/Ballast Allocation Mass (t) 83.6 or less 75 Lander/Ballast Allocation 130.8 – Shroud volume is a key driver (10 m x 30 m) 50 Aero-Shroud 25 • Further Assessments: 50.0 0 – Further refinement of Dual use shroud concept Reference 51.00.48 to 222km Dual-Use Aero Shroud to 407km Jettisoned Aero Shroud to 407km - Baseline vehicle flies to lower orbit than Dual Use Shroud mission [222km (120nmi) circ vs. 407km (220nmi) circ] - Baseline 51.00.48 LEO payload (EDS propellant and Lunar Lander) is reported as ‘Gross Payload’. – Further refinement of mission payload strategies - Vehicles are structurally sized to accommodate larger
Recommended publications
  • Frequently Asked Questions

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Frequently Asked Questions What Types of Companies Are on the "Don't Test" List? This list includes companies that make cosmetics, personal-care products, household-cleaning products, and other common household products. All companies that are included on PETA's "don't test" list have signed our statement of assurance verifying that they and their ingredient suppliers don't conduct, commission, pay for, or allow any tests on animals for ingredients, formulations, or finished products anywhere in the world and will not do so in the future. We encourage consumers to support the companies on this list, since we know that they're committed to making products without harming animals. Companies on the "Do Test" list should be shunned until they implement a policy that prohibits animal testing. The "do test" list doesn't include companies that manufacture only products that are required by law to be tested on animals (e.g., pharmaceuticals and garden chemicals). Although PETA is opposed to all animal testing, our focus in those instances is less on the individual companies and more on the regulatory agencies that require animal testing. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Legend V - The company makes or sells strictly vegan products. L - The company has licensed PETA's official cruelty-free bunny logo. F - The company is a PETA Business Friend, and shopping at this company supports an innovative partnership for compassionate companies willing to assist in PETA's groundbreaking work to stop animal abuse and suffering. Companies Whose Products Are Available in Russian Federation L F 100% Pure 510-836-6500 http://www.100percentpure.com L 3INA https://3ina.com/ V L 66°30 https://66-30.com/en/ V L Abyssal Japan Co.
  • LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) Observation Campaign: Strategies, Implementation, and Lessons Learned

    LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) Observation Campaign: Strategies, Implementation, and Lessons Learned

    Space Sci Rev DOI 10.1007/s11214-011-9759-y LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) Observation Campaign: Strategies, Implementation, and Lessons Learned Jennifer L. Heldmann · Anthony Colaprete · Diane H. Wooden · Robert F. Ackermann · David D. Acton · Peter R. Backus · Vanessa Bailey · Jesse G. Ball · William C. Barott · Samantha K. Blair · Marc W. Buie · Shawn Callahan · Nancy J. Chanover · Young-Jun Choi · Al Conrad · Dolores M. Coulson · Kirk B. Crawford · Russell DeHart · Imke de Pater · Michael Disanti · James R. Forster · Reiko Furusho · Tetsuharu Fuse · Tom Geballe · J. Duane Gibson · David Goldstein · Stephen A. Gregory · David J. Gutierrez · Ryan T. Hamilton · Taiga Hamura · David E. Harker · Gerry R. Harp · Junichi Haruyama · Morag Hastie · Yutaka Hayano · Phillip Hinz · Peng K. Hong · Steven P. James · Toshihiko Kadono · Hideyo Kawakita · Michael S. Kelley · Daryl L. Kim · Kosuke Kurosawa · Duk-Hang Lee · Michael Long · Paul G. Lucey · Keith Marach · Anthony C. Matulonis · Richard M. McDermid · Russet McMillan · Charles Miller · Hong-Kyu Moon · Ryosuke Nakamura · Hirotomo Noda · Natsuko Okamura · Lawrence Ong · Dallan Porter · Jeffery J. Puschell · John T. Rayner · J. Jedadiah Rembold · Katherine C. Roth · Richard J. Rudy · Ray W. Russell · Eileen V. Ryan · William H. Ryan · Tomohiko Sekiguchi · Yasuhito Sekine · Mark A. Skinner · Mitsuru Sôma · Andrew W. Stephens · Alex Storrs · Robert M. Suggs · Seiji Sugita · Eon-Chang Sung · Naruhisa Takatoh · Jill C. Tarter · Scott M. Taylor · Hiroshi Terada · Chadwick J. Trujillo · Vidhya Vaitheeswaran · Faith Vilas · Brian D. Walls · Jun-ihi Watanabe · William J. Welch · Charles E. Woodward · Hong-Suh Yim · Eliot F. Young Received: 9 October 2010 / Accepted: 8 February 2011 © The Author(s) 2011.
  • LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE for LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B

    LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE for LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B

    LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE FOR LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B. Robinson∗ A trade study was conducted with the objective of comparing and contrasting the radiometric naviga- tion performance provided by various architectures of lunar-based navigations assets. Architectures considered consist of a compliment of two beacons located on the lunar surface, and two orbiting bea- cons that provide range and range-rate measurements to the user. Configurations of these assets include both coplanar and linked constellations of frozen elliptic orbiters and halo orbiters. Each architecture was studied during the lunar-approach, lunar-orbit, and landing phases of a South Pole lunar sortie mis- sion. Navigation filter performance was evaluated on the basis of filter convergence latency, and the steady state uncertainty in the navigation solution. The sensitivity of the filter solution to Earth-based tracking augmentation and availability of range measurements was also studied. Filter performance was examined during the build up of the lunar-based navigation system by exploring different combi- nations of orbiting and surface-based assets. 1 INTRODUCTION The objective of the work outlined in this document is to conduct a parametric trade intended to evaluate some proposed constellations of moon-orbiting navigation and communication beacons. These orbiting beacons are intended to support the lunar missions of NASA’s Constellation program. This study is sponsored by the flight performance systems integration group at JPL (FPSIG), whose work is funded by the NASA Constellation program office. The work outlined in this report will focus on investigating lunar network aided navigation performance during near lunar phases of baseline missions proposed by the Constellation program.
  • NASA: Issues for Authorization, Appropriations, and Oversight in the 113Th Congress

    NASA: Issues for Authorization, Appropriations, and Oversight in the 113Th Congress

    NASA: Issues for Authorization, Appropriations, and Oversight in the 113th Congress Daniel Morgan Specialist in Science and Technology Policy July 11, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43144 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress NASA: Issues for Authorization, Appropriations, and Oversight in the 113th Congress Summary Spaceflight fascinates and inspires many Americans, but in a time of constrained federal budgets, it must compete with a multitude of other national priorities. As the 113th Congress conducts oversight and considers authorization and appropriations legislation for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an overarching question is how NASA should move forward within budget constraints. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267) set a new direction for NASA’s human spaceflight programs. For access to low Earth orbit, including the International Space Station (ISS), it confirmed NASA’s plans to develop a commercial space transportation capability for both cargo and astronauts. The first commercial cargo flight for ISS resupply was conducted in May 2012. Pending the planned availability of commercial crew transportation in 2017, NASA is paying Russia to carry U.S. astronauts to and from the ISS on Soyuz spacecraft. Issues for Congress include the cost, schedule, and safety of future commercial crew services, as well as the need for alternatives if commercial providers do not succeed. For human exploration beyond Earth orbit, the 2010 NASA authorization act mandated development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to launch Orion into space.
  • Go for Lunar Landing Conference Report

    Go for Lunar Landing Conference Report

    CONFERENCE REPORT Sponsored by: REPORT OF THE GO FOR LUNAR LANDING: FROM TERMINAL DESCENT TO TOUCHDOWN CONFERENCE March 4-5, 2008 Fiesta Inn, Tempe, AZ Sponsors: Arizona State University Lunar and Planetary Institute University of Arizona Report Editors: William Gregory Wayne Ottinger Mark Robinson Harrison Schmitt Samuel J. Lawrence, Executive Editor Organizing Committee: William Gregory, Co-Chair, Honeywell International Wayne Ottinger, Co-Chair, NASA and Bell Aerosystems, retired Roberto Fufaro, University of Arizona Kip Hodges, Arizona State University Samuel J. Lawrence, Arizona State University Wendell Mendell, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Clive Neal, University of Notre Dame Charles Oman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology James Rice, Arizona State University Mark Robinson, Arizona State University Cindy Ryan, Arizona State University Harrison H. Schmitt, NASA, retired Rick Shangraw, Arizona State University Camelia Skiba, Arizona State University Nicolé A. Staab, Arizona State University i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2 Notes...............................................................................................................................3 THE APOLLO EXPERIENCE............................................................................................4 Panelists...........................................................................................................................4
  • Silencing Nasa's Space Shuttle Crawler

    Silencing Nasa's Space Shuttle Crawler

    SILENCING NASA’S SPACE SHUTTLE CRAWLER TRANSPORTER R. MacDonalda, C. Faszerb, and R. Margasahayamc aNoise Solutions Inc., #310 605 – 1st Street SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3S9 bFaszer Farquharson & Associates, #304 605 – 1st Street SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3S9 cNASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida, United States of America 32899 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract. The crawler transporter (CT) is the world’s second largest known tracked vehicle, weighing 6 million pounds with a length of 131 feet and a width of 113 feet. The Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has two CTs that were designed and built for the Apollo program in the 1960’s, maintained and retrofitted for use in the Space Shuttle program. As a key element of the Space Shuttle ground systems, the crawler transports the entire 12-million-pound stack comprising the orbiter, the mobile launch platform (MLP), the external tank (ET), and the solid rocket boosters (SRB) from the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to the launch pad. This rollout, constituting a 3.5 to 5.0 mile journey at a top speed of 0.9 miles-per-hour, requires over 8 hours to reach either Launch Complex 39A or B. This activity is only a prelude to the spectacle of sound and fury of the Space Shuttle launch to orbit in less than 10 minutes and traveling at orbital velocities of Mach 24. This paper summarizes preliminary results from the Crawler Transporter Sound Attenuation Study, encompassing test and engineering analysis of significant sound sources to measure and record full frequency spectrum and intensity of the various noise sources and to analyze the potential for noise mitigation.
  • NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris

    NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris

    NASA-HANDBOOK NASA HANDBOOK 8719.14 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Approved: 2008-07-30 Washington, DC 20546 Expiration Date: 2013-07-30 HANDBOOK FOR LIMITING ORBITAL DEBRIS Measurement System Identification: Metric APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED NASA-Handbook 8719.14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 DOCUMENT HISTORY LOG Status Document Approval Date Description Revision Baseline 2008-07-30 Initial Release Page 3 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SCOPE...........................................................................................................................13 1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Applicability ....................................................................................................................... 13 2 APPLICABLE AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS................................................14 3 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ...........................................................................15 3.1 Acronyms............................................................................................................................ 15 3.2 Definitions .........................................................................................................................
  • MAVEN—Definitive Answers About Mars Climate History

    MAVEN—Definitive Answers About Mars Climate History

    Page 1 The Critical Path A Flight Projects Directorate Quarterly Publication Volume 20 number 3 A Newsletter Published for Code 400 Employees 2012 Winter INSIDE THIS ISSUE: MAVEN—Definitive Answers about MAVEN—Definitive Answers Mars Climate History Page 1 about Mars Climate History When the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) Message From The Director Of Page 2 mission launches in November 2013 it will make history. Personality Tintypes Page 3 Even though there have been a number of Mars missions before, MAVEN is the first mission to focus its study on the Comings and Going Page 10 Mars upper atmosphere. MAVEN will study the evolution of the Mars atmosphere and climate, by examining the conduit NASA’s LADEE Spacecraft Gets Page 11 Final Science Instrument Installed through which the atmosphere has to pass as it is lost to space (i.e., the upper atmosphere). It is the first mission NASA's GPM Observatory Page 13 devoted to understanding the role that loss to space played in Completes First Dry Run the history of the atmosphere and climate. MAVEN will Three Former GSFC Leaders Page 15 provide a comprehensive picture of the Mars upper atmos- Pass On phere, ionosphere, solar energetic drivers, and atmospheric An Ode to McDonald Page 16 losses. It will deliver definitive answers to long-standing questions about the climate history and habitability of Mars. New Business News Page 17 MAVEN is a Principal Investigator-led mission and the first Knowledge Management Corner Page 20 Mars mission managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center 2012 Agency Honor Award (GSFC).
  • Dream Center for Lunar Science: a Three Year Summary Report

    Dream Center for Lunar Science: a Three Year Summary Report

    Annual Meeting of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (2012) 3027.pdf DREAM CENTER FOR LUNAR SCIENCE: A THREE YEAR SUMMARY REPORT. W. M. Farrell1,3, R. M. Killen1,3, and G. T. Delory2,3, 1Solar System Exploration Division, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, 2Space Science Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 3NASA’s Lunar Science Institute, NASA/Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA. Abstract. In early 2009, the Dynamic Response of the Environment At the Moon (DREAM) lunar sci- ence center became a supporting team of NASA's Lu- nar Science Institute specifically to study the solar- lunar connection and understand the response of the lunar plasma, exosphere, dust, and near-surface envi- ronments to solar variations. DREAM especially em- phasizes the effect extreme events like solar storms and impacts have on the plasma-surface-gas dynamical system. One of the center's hallmark contribution is the solar storm/lunar atmosphere modeling (SSLAM) study that cross-integrated a large number of the cen- The Solar-Lunar Connection studies by DREAM. Solar ener- ter's models to determine the effect a strong solar storm gy and matter stimulate the lunar surface, resulting in an exo- has at the Moon. The results from this intramural event sphere, exo-ionosphere, lifted dust, and plasma flow layers. will be described herein. A number of other key studies were performed, including a unique ground-based observation of the LCROSS impact-generated sodium plume, exo- atmosphere modeling studies, and focused studies on the formation and distribution of lunar water. The team is supporting ARTEMIS lunar plasma interaction stud- ies via modeling/data validation efforts, especially ex- amining ion reflection from magnetic anomalies and pick-up ions from the Moon.
  • The New Vision for Space Exploration

    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
  • Sounding Rockets 2013 Annual Report

    Sounding Rockets 2013 Annual Report

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA Sounding Rockets Annual Report 2013 The NASA Sounding Rockets Program has closed another highly successful op- erational year with the completion of 19 successful flights. As of October 2013, the program has had 100% success on 38 flights over a period of 24 months. This is an impressive accomplishment. The scientific teams, the technical and administrative sounding rocket staff, and the launch ranges are to be congratu- lated on a job well done! This year involved flights from Wallops Flight Facility (Virginia), White Sands Missile Range (New Mexico), the Kwajalein Atoll (Marshall Islands), and Poker Flat Research Range (Alaska). The Kwajalein campaign involved four rockets designed to probe the equatorial ionosphere and gain a better understanding of plasma energies and particle dynamics af- fecting the Earth. Multiple telescope missions were flown from White Sands Missile Range to study the Sun, the interstellar medium, and distant galaxies. Message from the Chief Message Flights from Wallops and Alaska have furthered our understanding of how the Phil Eberspeaker Earth and Sun interact. With every flight, NASA added to the body of scien- Chief, Sounding Rockets Program Office tific knowledge that will help unravel a host of scientific mysteries. The Sounding Rockets Program also continued to cultivate young minds by offering two university-level flight opportunities. Approximately 250 students from universities around the country had the opportunity to fly experiments aboard two-stage sounding rockets in 2013. The Sounding Rockets Program once again provided a unique teacher training workshop known as WRATS. With the knowledge obtained from this experience, teachers returned to the classroom with exciting options for enhancing their STEM curriculum.
  • Public Scan.Pdf

    Public Scan.Pdf

    Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program Commercial & International Lunar Communications and Navigation Studies Calvin Ramos (for Jim Schier) 13 May 2008 DRAFT SCaN Interface with Customers/Missions Space Communications & Navigation - Not Just Important, It's Vital 2 State of “Commercial” in SCaN • Space Network (SN)/Tracking & Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) is & will remain Government Owned/Government Operated (GOGO) • Deep Space Network (DSN) is GOGO; contains significant unique technology not in industry; no market beyond NASA – Not a good candidate for commercialization • Ground Network (GN) is ~1/3 GOGO & 2/3 Contractor Owned & Operated (COCO) in transition to 90% COCO • NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN) runs entirely on AT&T • Lunar Network (LN) conceived to support Science & Exploration missions – Subject of new commercial and international study Space Communications & Navigation - Not Just Important, It's Vital 3 Science & Exploration Drivers • SMD - ILN of 6-12 surface stations • ILN Kickoff (12 March 2008) - open to participation by all national space agencies • Initial lunar surface stations in the geophysical network may launch as early as 2011 (UK) or 2013 (US) Space Communications & Navigation - Not Just Important, It's Vital 4 Science & Exploration Drivers • ESMD Studies to date have treated Communication & Navigation (C&N) as if entirely provided by NASA – Lunar Architecture Team Phase 1 & 2 (2006-2007) – Constellation Architecture Team Lunar Surface Systems (CxAT LSS) (2008) • Initial Altair lunar