DOCSLIB.ORG

Terrapin Undergraduate Rover for Terrestrial Lunar Exploration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Terrapin Undergraduate Rover for Terrestrial Lunar Exploration Project TURTLE: Terrapin Undergraduate Rover for Terrestrial Lunar Exploration University of Maryland RASC-AL Presentation June 9-11, 2008 Team TURTLE Avionics Crew Systems Mission Planning and • Andrew Ellsberry •James Briscoe Analysis • Michael Levashov • Sara Fields •David Berg • Joseph Lisee* •AliHusain • Hasan Oberoi • Jacob Zwillinger • Jason Laing* •May Lam •AdamMirvis • Ryan Murphy Loads, Structures, and • Tiffany Russell • Matt Schaffer Mechanisms • Enrique Coello Power, Propulsion, and Systems Integration •Aaron Cox Thermal • Joshua Colver • Stuart Douglas • Jason Leggett •DavidGers •Ryan Levin • Aleksandar Nacev* • Madeline Kirk* • David McLaren* • Ugonma Onukwubiri •Thomas Mariano • Jessica Mayerovitch •StephaniePetillo • Kanwarpal Chandhok •Brian McCall • Ali-Reza Shishineh • Omar Manning • Zohaib Hasnain * RASC-AL Presenters June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 2 Project TURTLE Program Rationale • Lunar exploration will become the focus of NASA's future human space program - Constellation Program • Focus mainly on lunar outpost and infrastructure development • Requires dedicated lander-based sortie missions for exploration beyond immediate region of outpost site • System payload constraints limit additional payload for extended range rovers • Project concept: develop a light-weight pressurized rover capable of independent launch and delivery using existing EELVs to augment exploration and science goals of Constellation sortie missions June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 3 Project TURTLE TURTLE Project Goals • Design the smallest practical pressurized rover to support Constellation sortie-class missions with independent delivery to moon • Validate critical issues in habitability and crew operations by developing a full-scale mock-up of the rover cabin and external interfaces • Develop a variant of the basic sortie rover to support Constellation outpost construction and operations • Start the design and development process for a fully functional Earth simulation rover for near-term lunar analogue studies 4 TURTLE Overview • 4 wheels, independently steered & powered • Range: 25 km radius around lander over two three-day sorties • Suitports provide astronaut ingress/egress • External Platform – Folds in 3 configurations – Provides suitport access – External driving capabilities • TURTLE total dimensions – Length: 3.45 m – Width: 3.24 m – Height: 2.93 m TURTLE Components • Total initial mass: 1750 kg* * Initial mass does not include astronauts or suits, but does include consumables June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 5 Project TURTLE Concept of Operations (Transit) Primary Descent Stage Trans-lunar Injection (LLO – 2 km) Low Lunar Parking Orbit Transfer Engine Separation Descent Stage (2 km) Burn Delta V Delta-IV Heavy to TLI Landing Stage w/ Retro Engine TLI to Low Lunar Parking Orbit 800 m/s Braking Honeycomb Transfer Descent 135 m/s inserts in legs (2 km - 1 m) Retro Engine Braking 1725 m/s crush upon landing Landing 80 m/s Rover Separation Stage (surface) June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 6 Project TURTLE Concept of Operations (Mission) Science Goals • Deploy equipment for long- term data collection • Collect data for the lunar base design • Obtain samples for study on Earth • Perform basic analysis of samples on the moon • Increase understanding of lunar habitability Sample Sortie Mission Nasa Image TURTLE will autonomously Two crew members will Upon return, two rendezvous with crew who board TURTLE for a other astronauts will will land less than 10 km three day mission with board TURTLE for a away three EVAs traveling up second three day to 25 km from base mission June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 7 Project TURTLE Level One Requirements The following are excerpts from the 25 Level One Requirements initially provided to highlight those with the largest design impacts • Launch on an existing EELV as a stand-alone addition to a Constellation sortie mission • Capable of autonomously driving up to 10 km to rendezvous with the crew • Fully support two astronauts for a pair of three day missions plus 48 hours contingency • Capable of traveling a 25 km radius from the lander with a total travel distance of 100 km between two sortie missions • Accommodate crew size from 95th percentile American male to 5th percentile American female • Support two-person EVAs without cabin depressurization • Have a maximum operating speed of 15 km/hr on flat, level terrain • Accommodate a 0.5 m obstacle at minimal velocity and a 0.1 m obstacle at 7.5 km/hr • Accommodate a 20° slope with positive static and dynamic margins June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 8 Project TURTLE Rover Variations There are four rover variations to fulfill separate goals and missions Flight Rover Design Rover Mock-up The baseline rover design Test Full size model of flight rover that fits the requirements Results cabin and suitports for use as listed above for one time use a design tool Field Rover Outpost Rover Fully functional Earth A flight rover designed to based rover to test the concepts of the flight support a lunar outpost rover for multiple missions June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 9 Project TURTLE Mock-up Rover Testing Goals • Determine suitport functionality and ease of use • Confirm window placement and sizing Original • Determine most effective interior layout Flight Design – Bed, chairs, driving console, storage Tested in Mockup Modified Flight Design June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 10 Project TURTLE Mobility System Wheels • To clear 0.5 m obstacle, wheels have 1 m diameter • Bekker’s Theory was used to determine number of wheels, grousers, and wheel width • Wheels are non-pneumatic Aluminum 2024 Number of wheels 4 Height 1 m Width 0.3 m Drawbar Pull vs Slope for 4, 6, 8 Number of contact grousers 8 Wheels Grouser height 1.5 cm June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 12 Project TURTLE Motors • DC brushless motors (TRL 6) mounted to the strut of the suspension system • The motors extend a drive shaft into a 5:1 parallel reduction gear train which is centered in the wheel • Encased in aluminum housing for dust protection Performance Ratings Critical Ratings Nominal Motor Torque 26 N-m Average Power Draw 0.821 kW Max Motor RPM 540 rpm Max Power Draw 6.19 kW Max Torque per Motor 62 N-m Acceleration 0.23 m/s² Efficiency 0.91 Average Waste Heat 48.6 W Total Mass 171 kg Total Length 22 cm June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 13 Project TURTLE Steering and Braking •Steering – A linear actuator (TRL 5) mounted on the suspension strut controls the steering of each wheel with a maximum rotation of 60° – Highest power draw from each actuator is estimated at 100 W •Braking – Stopping distance is 4.34 m in 2.1 s from top speed which is determined by crew sight lines – Magnetic braking from motors and friction titanium carbide brakes (TRL 4) June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 14 Project TURTLE Suspension & Stability • Independent, MacPherson struts (TRL 4) Reaction to Loads – Required to absorb impact forces from: Case Max Settling • Driving over 10 cm boulder at 7.5 kmph Force Time • Landing on one wheel, 1 m/s impact velocity Landing 28 kN 0.1 s – Spring constant: 35 kN/m Rock Hit 6.5 kN 0.1 s – Damping constant: 1 kN*s/m – Max 15 cm compression – System mass: 120 kg (for 4 wheels) • Stability & performance – Static stability critical angles • 37° longitudinal • 48° lateral – 9.2 m turning radius at 15 kph, on level ground – Pitch and roll angles < 3° during motion over bumpy terrain MacPherson Strut June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 15 Project TURTLE Structures Chassis • Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6 (TRL 9) • Loads (Safety Factor = 1.4) – Takeoff: 6g axial, 2g lateral – Forces transferred from suspension – Temperature variation • All members sized to resist buckling, bending, shear, and axial loads with > 15% MOS • 90 separate circular, hollow members Chassis Design • Final mass: 163 kg Critical loads and structural sizes in chassis regions Region Load Critical Load Inner/Outer Safety Source diameter (mm) Margin Shock Tower Driving 180 Nm moment 16/28 0.45 Main Chassis Launch -35 kN axial force 34/52 0.25 Suitport Support Launch 2.3 kNm moment 36/62 0.23 Long. Strut Launch -20 kN axial force 22/42 0.16 June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 17 Project TURTLE Cabin: Pressure Shell • Graphite epoxy T300/934 (TRL 9) Region Front Rear Cylinder • Loads (safety factor = 3) Endcap Endcap – Internal pressure Thickness 10 mm 10 mm 8.4 mm – Thermal stress Sources of Window Suitports --- – External loads (drive, land, launch) Extra Stress •Geometry Max Stress 190 MPa 198 MPa 190 MPa – Cylindrical region: 2.43 m long, 1.83 m diameter – Semielliptical endcaps extend 0.325 m • Two layers, enclosing chassis – Inner layer: resists loads – Outer layer: uniform 2 mm thickness to protect against micrometeoroid strike • Margin of safety: 1% (rear endcap) • Total mass 240 kg Inner Shell: Stress from pressure, chassis loads June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 18 Project TURTLE Cabin: Additional Structure • Fiberglass grated flooring (TRL 4) – Corrosion, fire, and impact resistant – Eight removable panels – 0.1 mm deflection under 360 N load – Total mass: 33 kg • Driving Window – FOV: 45° L/R, 20° down, 5° up – Two-pane system derived from space shuttle design Driving Window Dimensions • Material TRL 9; System TRL 5 Pane Glass type Thickness Purpose – Vitreloy frame molds to cabin Resist shape Inner Fused silica 20 mm pressure • Material TRL 8; System TRL 4 Heat, micro- – Total mass: 54 kg Alumino- Outer 13 mm meteoroid silicate shield Window Construction June 9-11, 2008 University of Maryland 19 Project TURTLE Crew Systems Cabin Interior Layout 1. First aid kit, AED, supplemental oxygen 9 2 2. Fire extinguishers 6 3. Food / food waste storage 7 3 5 4. Clothing storage 5. Suitports 8 4 6. Computers 6 9 7. Storage locker 1 8.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Design of a Human Settlement on Mars Using In-Situ Resources
    46th International Conference on Environmental Systems ICES-2016-151 10-14 July 2016, Vienna, Austria Design of a Human Settlement on Mars Using In-Situ Resources Marlies Arnhof1 Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, 1040, Austria Mars provides plenty of raw materials needed to establish a lasting, self-sufficient human colony on its surface. Due to the planet's vast distance from Earth, it is neither possible nor economically reasonable to provide permanent, interplanetary supply. In-situ resource utilization (ISRU) will be necessary to keep the Earth launch burden and mission costs as low as possible, and to provide – apart from propellant and life support – a variety of construction material. However, to include outposts on other planets into the scope of human spaceflight also opens up new psychological and sociological challenges. Crews will live in extreme environments under isolated and confined conditions for much longer periods of time than ever before. Therefore, the design of a Mars habitat requires most careful consideration of physiological as well as psychosocial conditions of living in space. In this design for a Martian settlement, the author proposes that – following preliminary automated exploration – a basic surface base brought from Earth would be set up. Bags of unprocessed Martian regolith would be used to provide additional shielding for the habitat. Once the viability of the base and its production facilities are secured, the settlement would be expanded, using planetary resources. Martian concrete – processed regolith with a polymeric binder – would be used as main in-situ construction material. To provide optimum living and working conditions, the base would respond to the environment and the residents' number and needs, thereby evolving and growing continuously.
    [Show full text]
  • Suitport Feasibility - Development and Test of a Suitport and Space Suit for Human Pressurized Space Suit Donning Tests
    Suitport Feasibility - Development and Test of a Suitport and Space Suit for Human Pressurized Space Suit Donning Tests Robert M. Boyle1, Kathryn Mitchell2, Charles Allton3, Hsing Ju4 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Houston, Texas 77058 E-Mail: [email protected]; Phone: 281.483.5349 The suitport concept has been recently implemented as part of the small pressurized lunar rover (Currently the Space Exploration vehicle, or SEV) and the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) concept demonstrator vehicle. Suitport replaces or augments the traditional airlock function of a spacecraft by providing a bulkhead opening, capture mechanism, and sealing system to allow ingress and egress of a space suit while the space suit remains outside of the pressurized volume of the spacecraft. This presents significant new opportunities to EVA exploration in both microgravity and surface environments. The suitport concept will enable three main improvements in EVA by providing reductions in: pre-EVA time from hours to less than thirty minutes; airlock consumables; contamination returned to the cabin with the EVA crewmember. To date, the first generation suitport has been tested with mockup suits on the rover cabins and pressurized on a bench top engineering unit. The work on the rover cabin has helped define the operational concepts and timelines, and has demonstrated the potential of suitport to save significant amounts of crew time before and after EVAs. The work with the engineering unit has successfully demonstrated the pressurizable seal concept including the ability to seal after the introduction and removal of contamination to the sealing surfaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Dust Mitigation Gap Assessment Report
    DUST MITIGATION GAP ASSESSMENT REPORT Feb 9, 2016 International Agency Working Group “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the Moon. I think we can overcome other physiological or physical or mechanical problems except dust.” Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 Technical Debrief “Dust is still a principal limiting factor in returning to the lunar surface for missions of any extended duration. However, viable technology solutions have been identified, but need maturation to be available to support both lunar and Mars missions.” Dust Mitigation Gap Assessment Team, Final Report DUST MITIGATION GAP ASSESSMENT REPORT WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP ASI (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana) Raffaele Mugnuolo Simone Pirrotta CSA (Canadian Space Agency) Mireille Bedirian Daniel Lefebvre Martin Picard Taryn Tomlinson Michel Wander (Co-Chair) ESA (European Space Agency) Henry Wong JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) Satoshi Hosoda Sachiko Wakabayashi Hiroshi Ueno NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Phil Abel Juan Agui Jesse Buffington Carlos Calle James (Jim) Gaier Natalie Mary Drew Smith Sharon Straka Scott Vangen (Chair) Page 2 DUST MITIGATION GAP ASSESSMENT REPORT DUST MITIGATION GAP ASSESSMENT REPORT INTERNATIONAL AGENCY WORKING GROUP Table of Contents 1. Objectives and Approach 1.1. TWG and SME Objectives for Gap Assessment Team 1.2. Gap Assessment Approach (Tasks) 1.3. Executive Summary of Key Findings 2. Dust Mitigation Challenges 2.1. Life Support Systems 2.2. EVA Systems 2.3. Mobility Systems 2.4. Human Health and Performance 2.5. Systems 2.6. Ascent/Descent Vehicles 2.7. In Situ Resource Utilization 3. Dust Mitigation Solutions 3.1. Active Technologies 3.2.
    [Show full text]
  • AIAA-95-1 062 the Suitport's Progress M. Cohen NASA Ames Research
    NASA-TM-111836 /t/ .' I I AIAA-95-1 062 The Suitport's Progress M. Cohen NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA Life Sciences and Space Medicine Conference April 3-5, 1995 / Houston, TX For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SOW., Washington, D.C. 20024 AIAA-95-106; THE SUITPORT'S PROGRESS Marc M. Cohen* NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California Abstract Origins of the Suitport NASA-Ames Research Center developed The Suitport Extravehicular Access Facility the Suitport as an advanced space suit originated during the early phase of the airlock to support a Space Station suit, Space Station Advanced Development based on the AX-5 hard suit. Several third Program. It grew from a recognition that the parties proposed their own variations the construction and operation of Space Station Suitport on the moon and Mars. The Freedom (SSF) would require several Suitport recently found its first practical use thousand hours of EVA time (This finding as a terrestrial application in the NASA- has not changed much for the new design Ames Hazmat vehicle for the clean-up of for "Space Station Alpha." To make the best hazardous and toxic materials. In the Hazmat use of SSF crew time, it will become application, the Suitport offers substantial necessary to make the entire space suit improvements over conventional hazard donning and doffing, and airlock suits, by eliminating the necessicty to egress/ingress as safe, rapid, and efficient decontaminate before doffing the suit. as possible. Definitions The Space Shuttle EMU suit and airlock AX-5 Ames Experimental Suit 5 systems pose several potential CCPS Command/Control Pressure Suit disadvantages for frequent and routine EMU Extra-Vehicular Mobility Unit Space Station operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Z-1 Prototype Space Suit Testing Summary
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20130011564 2019-08-31T00:40:26+00:00Z View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NASA Technical Reports Server Z-1 Prototype Space Suit Testing Summary Amy Ross1 NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, 77058 The Advanced Space Suit team of the NASA-Johnson Space Center performed a series of test with the Z-1 prototype space suit in 2012. This paper discusses, at a summary level, the tests performed and results from those tests. The purpose of the tests were two-fold: 1) characterize the suit performance so that the data could be used in the downselection of components for the Z-2 Space Suit and 2) develop interfaces with the suitport and exploration vehicles through pressurized suit evaluations. Tests performed included isolated and functional range of motion data capture, Z-1 waist and hip testing, joint torque testing, CO2 washout testing, fit checks and subject familiarizations, an exploration vehicle aft deck and suitport controls interface evaluation, delta pressure suitport tests including pressurized suit don and doff, and gross mobility and suitport ingress and egress demonstrations in reduced gravity. Lessons learned specific to the Z-1 prototype and to suit testing techniques will be presented. Nomenclature A = amplitude of oscillation a = cylinder diameter [To be completed] I. Introduction A principal role of the Johnson Space Center advanced space suit pressure garment team, herein referred to as “suit team”, is to characterize space suit pressure garment components and full suit architectures. Each mobility joint system and full suit architecture has different capabilities and limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Benefits of a Single-Person Spacecraft for Weightless Operations (Stop Walking and Start Flying)
    42nd International Conference on Environmental Systems AIAA 2012-3630 15 - 19 July 2012, San Diego, California Benefits of a Single-Person Spacecraft for Weightless Operations (Stop Walking and Start Flying) Brand N. Griffin1 Gray Research, Engineering, Science, and Technical Services Contract, 655 Discovery Drive Ste. 300, Huntsville, AL 35806 U.S.A Historically, less than 20 percent of crew time related to extravehicular activity (EVA) is spent on productive external work. For planetary operations space suits are still the logical choice; however, for safe and rapid access to the weightless environment, spacecraft offer compelling advantages. FlexCraft, a concept for a single-person spacecraft, enables any- time access to space for short or long excursions by different astronauts. For the International Space Station (ISS), going outside is time-consuming, requiring pre-breathing, donning a fitted space suit, and pumping down an airlock. For each ISS EVA this is between 12.5 and 16 hours. FlexCraft provides immediate access to space because it operates with the same cabin atmosphere as its host. Furthermore, compared to the space suit pure oxygen environment, a mixed gas atmosphere lowers the fire risk and allows use of conventional materials and systems. For getting to the worksite, integral propulsion replaces hand-over- hand translation or having another crew member operate the robotic arm. This means less physical exertion and more time at the work site. Possibly more important, in case of an emergency, FlexCraft can return from the most distant point on ISS in less than a minute. The one-size-fits-all FlexCraft means no on-orbit inventory of parts or crew time required to fit all astronauts.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Spaceflight: Phobos Base
    2017 AIAA Student Design Competition HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT: PHOBOS BASE Timothy Bishop Victor Kitmanyen Thomas Lagarde Zachary Taylor Faculty Advisor: Olga Bannova, Ph.D. Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston Houston, Texas, USA ~ 2 ~ Copyright © 2017 by Timothy Bishop, Victor Kitmanyen, Thomas Lagarde & Zachary Taylor. All Rights Reserved. Published with express permission, by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. ~ 3 ~ Signature Page Timothy Bishop Project Manager AIAA #: 677333 Victor Kitmanyen Microgravity Countermeasures Architect AIAA #: 819885 Zachary Taylor Space Architect AIAA #: 819283 Thomas Lagarde RECLSS Architect AIAA #: 819864 Dr. Olga Bannova Faculty & Project Advisor Copyright © 2017 by Timothy Bishop, Victor Kitmanyen, Thomas Lagarde & Zachary Taylor. All Rights Reserved. Published with express permission, by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. ~ 4 ~ Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ___________________________________________________________________________ 6 ACRONYMS _________________________________________________________________________________ 8 1.0 ABSTRACT _______________________________________________________________________________ 9 2.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________________ 10 3.0 REQUIREMENTS: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ____________________________________ 11 3.1 SITE ___________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Charting the Course for Sustainable Human Space Exploration Table of Contents
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Voyages Charting the Course for Sustainable Human Space Exploration Table of Contents Executive Summary: Charting the Course 2 NASA Vision Why We Explore 4 Reach for How We Explore: A Capability-Driven Approach 6 new heights and reveal The International Space Station: Cornerstone the unknown, of Human Space Exploration 8 so that what we do and learn Destination: Cis-Lunar Space 10 will benefit all Destination: Near-Earth Asteroid 12 humankind. Destination: Moon 14 Destination: Mars 16 NASA Mission Capabilities: Foundations of Human Space Exploration 18 Drive advances Transportation Capabilities 20 in science, technology, Capabilities for Mission Operations 24 and exploration to enhance Habitation and Destination Capabilities 26 knowledge, Conclusion: Firsts from LEO to Mars 32 education, innovation, Acknowledgements 34 economic vitality, and stewardship of Earth. 1 Executive Summary: Charting the Course This report articulates NASA’s multi-destination human space exploration strategy using a capability-driven approach NASA is ensuring that the United States fosters a safe, robust, affordable, sustainable, and flexible space program by developing a set of core evolving capabilities instead of specialized, destination-specific hardware These core capabilities allow NASA the flexibility to conduct increasingly complex missions to a range of destinations over time By expanding human presence throughout the solar system, we increase our scientific knowledge, enable technological and economic growth,
    [Show full text]
  • Eva-Exp-0031 Baseline
    EVA-EXP-0031 BASELINE National Aeronautics and EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/18/2018 Space Administration EVA OFFICE EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA) AIRLOCKS AND ALTERNATIVE INGRESS/EGRESS METHODS DOCUMENT The electronic version is the official approved document. ECCN Notice: This document does not contain export controlled technical data. Revision: Baseline Document No: EVA-EXP-0031 Release Date: 04/18/2018 Page: 2 of 143 Title: EVA Airlocks and Alternative Ingress Egress Methods Document REVISION AND HISTORY PAGE Revision Change Description Release No. No. Date EVA-EXP-0031 Baseline Baseline per CR# EVA-CR-00031 04/18/2018 Document dated 03/07/2018 submitted and approved through DAA process/DAA # TN54054 approved April 9, 2018 EVA-REF-001 DAA Pre Baseline 03/12/2015 33134 Draft EVA-RD-002 05/14/2015 SAA 12/15/2015 DRAFT The electronic version is the official approved document. ECCN Notice: This document does not contain export controlled technical data. Revision: Baseline Document No: EVA-EXP-0031 Release Date: 04/18/2018 Page: 3 of 143 Title: EVA Airlocks and Alternative Ingress Egress Methods Document Executive Summary This document captures the currently perceived vehicle and EVA trades with high level definition of the capabilities and interfaces associated with performing an Extravehicular Activity (EVA) using an exploration EVA system and ingress/egress methods during future missions. Human spaceflight missions to Cislunar space, Mars transit, the moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos), the Lunar surface, and the surface of Mars will include both microgravity and partial-gravity EVAs, and potential vehicles with which an exploration EVA system will need to interface.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Exploration Vehicle
    The Space Exploration Vehicle Characteristics (Surface Concept) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Docking Hatch: Suit Portable Life Support Suitports: Pressurized Rover: Allows crew members to System-based Environmental Allow suit donning and vehicle Low-mass, low-volume design move from the rover to a Control Life Support System: egress in less than 10 minutes makes it possible to have two habitat, an ascent module Reduces mass, cost, volume with minimal gas loss. vehicles on a planetary lunar Space Exploration Vehicle Concept or another rover. and complexity. surface, greatly extending the range of safe exploration. Ice-shielded Lock / Fusible Heat Sink: Chariot Style Aft Lock surrounded by 2.5 cm Driving Station: of frozen water provides Enables crew to drive radiation protection. Same Pivoting Wheels: rover while conducting ice is used as a fusible heat Enables crab-style moonwalks. sink, rejecting heat energy driving for docking by melting ice instead of and maneuvering evaporating water to on steep terrain. vacuum. Work Package Modular Design: Interface: Pressurized Rover and Allows attachment chassis may be delivered of modular work facts on separate landers or packages (e.g. pre-integrated on one winch, cable, lander. backhoe or crane). The Space Exploration Vehicle Characteristics (In-Space Concept) Fusible Heat/ Protected suitports for ready Sink Radiator EVA access (depicted with Cabin accomodates body-mounted solar arrays 2-4 crew members NASA High visibility, Three International cockpit layout Docking Systems Standard-compliant docking hatches Small object pass (rear has no crew through airlock transfer) Reactant Control System propellent, power system, Manipulator arms and crew consumables for handling satellites storage Background and other objects of NASA is testing concepts for a new generation of space exploration vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Support Package
    Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035 Technical Support Package Airlocks for Pressurized Rovers NASA Tech Briefs ARC-14557 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Technical Support Package for AIRLOCKS FOR PRESSURIZED ROVERS ARC-14557 NASA Tech Briefs The information in this Technical Support Package comprises the documentation referenced in ARC-14557 of NASA Tech Briefs. It is provided under the Commercial Technology Program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to make available the results of aerospace-related developments considered to have wider technological, scientific, or commercial applications. Further assistance is available from sources listed in NASA Tech Briefs on the page entitled “NASA Commercial Technology Team.” Additional information regarding research and technology in this general area may be found in a variety of publications available from the NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) Program Office. You can access the STI Program Office via http://www.sti.nasa.gov or as follows: NASA STI Help Desk NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 7121 Standard Drive Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Telephone: (301) 621-0390, Fax: (301) 621-0134, E-mail: [email protected] NOTICE: This document was prepared under the sponsorship of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Neither the United States Government nor any person acting on behalf of the United States Government assumes any liability resulting from the use of the information contained in this document or warrants that such use will be free from privately owned rights. If trade names or manufacturers’ names are used in this report, it is for identification only. This usage does not constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Extravehicular Activity Framework for Exploration - 2019
    49th International Conference on Environmental Systems ICES-2019-021 7-11 July 2019, Boston, Massachusetts Extravehicular Activity Framework for Exploration - 2019 Brian K. Alpert1 and Brian J. Johnson2 National Aeronautics and Space Administration – Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, 77058 The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Framework for Exploration describes NASA’s EVA System Goals in the broader context of ongoing human spaceflight efforts. The purpose of this document is to drive integration, coordination and communication of the EVA community’s exploration development plans as crafted to meet long-term EVA needs. Inclusive in the EVA community are NASA partners in academia and industry. The 2019 EVA Framework outlines the office’s current method to answer the following questions: What product does NASA use to compare, contrast and integrate across the elements of the EVA community’s perceived gaps, risks, and unfunded work, particularly for future systems intended for use beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO)? What product does NASA use to proactively coordinate support across the EVA community’s wide spectrum of exploration development work? Where can one go to obtain awareness of ongoing efforts, particularly during consideration of new-start activities and proposals? These questions lead to the need for a product that speaks to the distributed nature of the EVA System across human spaceflight programs, concept studies and flight vehicle architectural elements. This framework can be used and evaluated by the EVA community to assess the full spectrum of needs and answer the question of “what are we missing” or “are we doing things that just do not make sense”. In the end is the EVA community effectively pursuing the future needs of EVA? If answers to those questions reveal the need for change or re-prioritization then actions can be taken through existing project control processes as well as revision to this document and supporting project plans.
    [Show full text]