DOCSLIB.ORG

Design of a Lunar Rover Utilizing Hydrogen-Oxygen Fuel Cell Technologies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Design of a Lunar Rover Utilizing Hydrogen-Oxygen Fuel Cell Technologies A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science for Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Michael Phillip Snyder Graduate Program in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering The Ohio State University 2011 Master's Examination Committee: Dr. Meyer J. Benzakein, Advisor Dr. Gerald M. Gregorek Copyright by Michael Phillip Snyder 2011 Abstract Future exploration of the solar system will depend on new designs and technologies that are efficient and versatile. Roving systems have explored the Moon and Mars but current means of supplying power are fragile and inefficient, or are considered hazardous to launch. NASA’s Glenn Research Center developed criteria necessary for the design of a robotic lunar rover with an extended exploration time. In order to satisfy these requirements a versatile rover equipped with a hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell with a 1 kilowatt nominal power output was designed to operate in the lunar environment for longer than 5 years continuously. Scaled testing of the rover was performed to predict the performance of the lunar rover. Testing was performed at the Ohio State University’s Aeronautical and Astronautical Research Laboratory in order to determined drawbar pull and sinkage of the rover. Regolith mitigation strategies were investigated in order to prolong the life of the rover by limiting and eliminating contamination caused by the lunar dust. ii Dedicated to To Diane, Walter, Andrea and everyone else who has helped me along to reach the starting point of my journey. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Meyer Benzakein for all of his help and guidance. I would also like to thank Dr. Paul Penko, Eric Joyce, and Joel Longo for their help with this project. iv Vita April 16, 1986………………………... Born, Sandusky Ohio, USA June 2004…………………………….. Diploma, Bellevue Senior High School June 14, 2009………………………… B.S., Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, The Ohio State University October- December 2009………………. Graduate Research Assistant, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, The Ohio State University January- March 2010………………… Graduate Teaching Assistant, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, The Ohio State University September- December 2010……………. Graduate Teaching Assistant, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University January- March 2011………………… Instructor, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, The Ohio State University April- June 2011…………… Graduate Teaching Assistant, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University v Publications Snyder, M.P. and Joyce, E.R., Lunar Extra-Vehicular Activities and Colonization Strategies, AIAA SPACE 2008 Conference and Exposition, September 9-11, 2008, San Diego, California. Snyder, M.P. and Joyce, E.R., Optimization of Fuselage Design for a Sounding Rocket Using Composite Materials, 45th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, August 2-5, 2009, Denver, Colorado. Joyce, E.R. and Snyder, M.P., Solid Rocket Motor Design for a High Altitude Composite Rocket, 45th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, August 2-5, 2009, Denver, Colorado. Snyder, M.P. and Joyce, E.R., Robotic Lunar Rover Design Utilizing Fuel Cell Technologies and Regolith Mitigation Strategies, AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference and Exposition, September 14-17, 2009, Pasadena, California. Joyce, E.R. and Snyder, M.P., Lunar Legislation: Strategies for Developing and Protecting the Lunar Frontier, SPACE 2009 Conference and Exposition, September 14-17, 2009, Pasadena, California. Snyder, Michael and Eric Joyce. "Development of Active Rocket Guidance at The Ohio State University: a guidance system being constructed by undergraduate students." Ohio State Engineer Spring 2009: 06. Snyder, Michael and Eric Joyce. "Luna Plaustrum: building a test prototype lunar rover." Ohio State Engineer Spring 2009: 08-10. Snyder, M.P., Joyce, E.R. and Osborne, J.C., Component Propulsion System: A New Philosophy for Exploration, Space Propulsion 2010, May 3-6, 2010, San Sebastian, Spain. Snyder, M.P., et al, A Mars Utility Vehicle Design with Incorporated Regenerative Fuel Cell Technology and In-Situ Resource Utilization, 46th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, July 25-28, 2010, Nashville, Tennessee. Joyce, E.R., et al, Design of a Versatile Regenerative Fuel Cell System for Multi-Kilowatt Applications, SPACE 2010 Conference and Exposition, August 30- September 2, 2010, Anaheim, California. Snyder, M.P., et al, Mobile Instrument for Lunar Exploration Endeavors: The Design of a Fuel Cell Powered Lunar Exploration Vehicle, SPACE 2010 Conference and Exposition, August 30- September 2, 2010, Anaheim, California. Jedrey, R., et al, Preliminary Mars Ascent Rendezvous Study, SPACE 2010 Conference and Exposition, August 30- September 2, 2010, Anaheim, California. Dunn, J., et al, 3D Metal Printing in Space: Enabling New Markets and Accelerating the Growth of Orbital Infrastructure, Space Studies Institute Space Manufacturing 2010 Conference, October 29-31, Mountain View, California. vi Fields of Study Major Field: Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering vii Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………... ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………………….. iii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………… iv Vita………………………………………………………………………………………. v List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….. x List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………… xi Chapter 1: Background 1.1 Interplanetary Rover Exploration………………………………………... 1 1.1.1 Lunokhod…………………………………………………………... 1 1.1.2 Lunar Roving Vehicle……………………………………………… 2 1.1.3 Martian Rovers……………………………………………………... 3 1.1.4 Current Designs……………………………………………………. 4 1.2 Fuel Cell Technologies......………………………………………………. 5 Chapter 2: Requirements 2.1 Rover Design Requirements……………………………………………. 10 2.2 Mission Requirements………………………………………………….. 10 2.3 Regolith Mitigation……………………………………………………... 11 Chapter 3: Design and Testing 3.1 Design…………………………………………………………………... 13 viii 3.1.1 Base Station……………………………………………………... 13 3.1.2 Rover……………………………………………………………..16 3.2 Testing………………………………………………………………… 27 Chapter 4: Results……………………………………………………………………... 31 Chapter 5: Conclusions…………………………………………………………………37 References……………………………………………………………………………. 39 ix List of Tables Table 1: Mass Break Down……………………………………………………………... 17 Table 2: Range, Payload, and Velocity…………………………………………………. 19 Table 3: Parameters for Rover and Scaled Rover………………………………………. 29 Table 4: Theoretical Results……………………………………………………………. 32 Table 5: Experimental Results………………………………………………………….. 33 x List of Figures Figure 1: General Fuel Cell Operation………………………………………………….. 6 Figure 2: Flow-Through Fuel Cell and Water Separation Schemes……………………...7 Figure 3: Non-flow-through PEM Fuel Cell……………………………………………...8 Figure 4: Base Station…………………………………………………………………... 14 Figure 5: Male Port Adapter with Nozzles……………………..………………………. 16 Figure 6: Power Allotment……………………………………………………………... 18 Figure 7: Rover Frame………………………………………………………………….. 20 Figure 8: Stress Analysis of Frame…………………………………………………...… 21 Figure 9: Track System…………………………………………………………………. 22 Figure 10: Motor Performance………………………………………………………….. 23 Figure 11: Tread Design………………………………………………………………... 24 Figure 12: Rover with Navigation System……………………………………………… 26 Figure 13: Assembled Rover Front View (Dimensions in meters)……………………... 27 Figure 14: Assembled Rover Side View (Dimensions in meters)……………………… 27 Figure 15: Scaled Tread Pod……………………………………………………………. 28 Figure 16: Regolith Test Bin……………………………………………………………. 29 Figure 17: Sinkage Test………………………………………………………………… 31 Figure 18: Pressure Contours for Helium………………………………………………. 34 Figure 19: Velocity Contours for Helium………………………………………………. 35 Figure 20: Pressure Contours for Nitrogen……………………………………………... 35 xi Figure 21: Velocity Contours for Nitrogen……………………………………………... 36 xii Nomenclature A Area b Track Width ESA European Space Agency c Cohesion Factor F Force k Parameter GRC Glenn Research Center l Track Length H Hydrogen m Mass I Current n Valence Electrons JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory p Normal Pressure LRV Lunar Roving Vehicle u Exponent of Deformation M Molar Mass x Length MCFC Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell v Velocity MSL Mars Science Laboratory z Sinkage NASA National Aeronautics and φ Internal Shearing Space Administration Resistance Angle O Oxygen Subscripts PAFC Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell C Pressure-Sinkage PEM Proton Exchange Membrane c Cell R External Resistance d Density RTG Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator n Normal SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell t Track Sol Martian Day φ Pressure-Sinkage W Weight xiii Chapter 1: Background The ability to explore and examine unknown terrain is critical to the future exploration of our solar system. Future mission plans require the ability to stay, for an extended period of time, on the surface of the planetary body that is being explored as well as gather as much information as possible for subsequent missions (1). In order to extend the overall time of exploration while simultaneously reducing the cost of a mission, robotic exploration is a vital method to examine the surface of a planetary body. Specifically, the exploration of the lunar surface cannot be fully completed without, at minimum, the aid of robotic rovers due to the extreme and hazardous environment. Currently, only one type of vehicle has remotely explored the Moon and several others have travelled to Mars. A new type of rover,
Recommended publications
  • Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp

    Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp

    Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp AIAA Space Mission System 2019-2020 Virginia Tech Aerospace Engineering Faculty Advisor : Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Team Members : Olivia Arthur, Bobby Aselford, Michel Becker, Patrick Crandall, Heidi Engebreth, Maedini Jayaprakash, Logan Lark, Nico Ortiz, Matthew Pieczynski, Brendan Ventura Member AIAA Number Member AIAA Number And Signature And Signature Faculty Advisor 25807 Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Brendan Ventura 1109196 Matthew Pieczynski 936900 Team Lead/Operations Logan Lark 902106 Heidi Engebreth 1109232 Structures & Environment Patrick Crandall 1109193 Olivia Arthur 999589 Power & Thermal Maedini Jayaprakash 1085663 Robert Aselford 1109195 CCDH/Operations Michel Becker 1109194 Nico Ortiz 1109533 Attitude, Trajectory, Orbits and Launch Vehicles Contents 1 Symbols and Acronyms 8 2 Executive Summary 9 3 Preface and Introduction 13 3.1 Project Management . 13 3.2 Problem Definition . 14 3.2.1 Background and Motivation . 14 3.2.2 RFP and Description . 14 3.2.3 Project Scope . 15 3.2.4 Disciplines . 15 3.2.5 Societal Sectors . 15 3.2.6 Assumptions . 16 3.2.7 Relevant Capital and Resources . 16 4 Value System Design 17 4.1 Introduction . 17 4.2 Analytical Hierarchical Process . 17 4.2.1 Longevity . 18 4.2.2 Expandability . 19 4.2.3 Scientific Return . 19 4.2.4 Risk . 20 4.2.5 Cost . 21 5 Initial Concept of Operations 21 5.1 Orbital Analysis . 22 5.2 Launch Vehicles . 22 6 Habitat Location 25 6.1 Introduction . 25 6.2 Region Selection . 25 6.3 Locations of Interest . 26 6.4 Eliminated Locations . 26 6.5 Remaining Locations . 27 6.6 Chosen Location .
  • Apollo Spacecraft

    Apollo Spacecraft

    APOLLO NEWS REFERENCE APOLLO SPACECRAFT The Apollo spacecraft comprises the lunar occupies the right flight station. The astronauts module, the command module, theservice module, transfer to the ascent stage, through the docking the spacecraft-lunar module adapter, and the tunne l, after the LM has docked with the CM and launch escape system. The five parts, 82 feet tall both have attained lunar orbit. The ascent stage when assembled, are carried atop the launch comprises three major areas: crew compartment, vehicle. midsection, and aft equipment bay. The cabin, comprising the crew compartment and midsection, After the launch escape system and the launch has an overa ll volume of 235 cubic feet. vehicle have been jettisoned, the three modu les remain to form the basic spacecraft. The command module carries the three astronauts to and from Because the LM is operated in either the weight­ lunar orbit. The service modu le contains the pro­ lessness of space or in lunar gravity, the cabin pulsion system that propels the spacecraft during contains harness- like restraint equipment rather the trans lunar and transearth flights. The lunar than the foldable couches provided in the CM. The module carries two astronauts, the Commander restraints al low the astronauts sufficient freedom and the Lunar Module Pilot, to and from the of movement to operate al l LM controls while in a moon, and serves as the base of operations during re lativelyupright position. the lunar stay. LUNAR MODULE The lunar module wil l be operated in the vacuum of space; there was no need, therefore,for it to have the aerodynamic symmetry of the com· mand module.
  • Exploration of the Moon

    Exploration of the Moon

    Exploration of the Moon The physical exploration of the Moon began when Luna 2, a space probe launched by the Soviet Union, made an impact on the surface of the Moon on September 14, 1959. Prior to that the only available means of exploration had been observation from Earth. The invention of the optical telescope brought about the first leap in the quality of lunar observations. Galileo Galilei is generally credited as the first person to use a telescope for astronomical purposes; having made his own telescope in 1609, the mountains and craters on the lunar surface were among his first observations using it. NASA's Apollo program was the first, and to date only, mission to successfully land humans on the Moon, which it did six times. The first landing took place in 1969, when astronauts placed scientific instruments and returnedlunar samples to Earth. Apollo 12 Lunar Module Intrepid prepares to descend towards the surface of the Moon. NASA photo. Contents Early history Space race Recent exploration Plans Past and future lunar missions See also References External links Early history The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (d. 428 BC) reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former. His non-religious view of the heavens was one cause for his imprisonment and eventual exile.[1] In his little book On the Face in the Moon's Orb, Plutarch suggested that the Moon had deep recesses in which the light of the Sun did not reach and that the spots are nothing but the shadows of rivers or deep chasms.
  • A Comparative Analysis of the Geology Tools Used During the Apollo Lunar Program and Their Suitability for Future Missions to the Om on Lindsay Kathleen Anderson

    A Comparative Analysis of the Geology Tools Used During the Apollo Lunar Program and Their Suitability for Future Missions to the Om on Lindsay Kathleen Anderson

    University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects January 2016 A Comparative Analysis Of The Geology Tools Used During The Apollo Lunar Program And Their Suitability For Future Missions To The oM on Lindsay Kathleen Anderson Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/theses Recommended Citation Anderson, Lindsay Kathleen, "A Comparative Analysis Of The Geology Tools Used During The Apollo Lunar Program And Their Suitability For Future Missions To The oonM " (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1860. https://commons.und.edu/theses/1860 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE GEOLOGY TOOLS USED DURING THE APOLLO LUNAR PROGRAM AND THEIR SUITABILITY FOR FUTURE MISSIONS TO THE MOON by Lindsay Kathleen Anderson Bachelor of Science, University of North Dakota, 2009 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of North Dakota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Grand Forks, North Dakota May 2016 Copyright 2016 Lindsay Anderson ii iii PERMISSION Title A Comparative Analysis of the Geology Tools Used During the Apollo Lunar Program and Their Suitability for Future Missions to the Moon Department Space Studies Degree Master of Science In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a graduate degree from the University of North Dakota, I agree that the library of this University shall make it freely available for inspection.
  • 50. Obletnica Pristanka Na Luni in Pomen Osvajanja Vesolja Za Geodezijo 50Th Anniversary of the Moon Landing and the Importance

    50. Obletnica Pristanka Na Luni in Pomen Osvajanja Vesolja Za Geodezijo 50Th Anniversary of the Moon Landing and the Importance

    GEODETSKI VESTNIK | 63/4 | 50. OBLETNICA PRISTANKA 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF NA LUNI IN POMEN THE MOON LANDING AND OSVAJANJA VESOLJA ZA THE IMPORTANCE OF GEODEZIJO CONQUERING SPACE FOR GEODESY Sandi Berk STROKOVNE RAZPRAVE | PROFESSIONAL DISCUSSIONS RAZPRAVE STROKOVNE 1 UVOD Letos mineva petdeset let od prvega obiska človeka na edini Zemljini luni – Mesecu (v nadaljevanju kar: Luna). Ta »majhen korak za človeka, a velikanski skok za človeštvo« je bil storjen 20. julija 1969, ko sta Neil Armstrong in Edwin Aldrin v lunarnem modulu Eagle (tj. Orel) pristala poleg Malega zahodnega kraterja v Morju tišine (slika 1). Okrogla obletnica je priložnost, da se ozremo nazaj in osvežimo dogod- ke iz pionirskih časov osvajanja vesolja. Hkrati lahko osvetlimo pomen takratnih podvigov ter njihove učinke na tehnološki razvoj in tudi napredek geodezije. Slika 1: Armstrongova fotografija Aldrina ob nameščenem seizmografu; nad njim je reflektor za lasersko merjenje oddaljenosti od Zemlje, desno zgoraj pa je lunarni modul Eagle (vir: NASA, 2019). | 589 | | 63/4 | GEODETSKI VESTNIK Kje se sploh prične vesolje – kako visoko je treba poleteti? Mejo med Zemljino atmosfero in vesoljskim prostorom (angl. outer space) imenujemo Kármánova ločnica in je približno sto kilometrov nad površjem Zemlje. Nad to višino za letenje ne veljajo več zakoni aerodinamike, ampak je mogoče zgolj še letenje po zakonih balistike, torej na raketni pogon. Pomembna je tudi v pravnem smislu, saj se tu konča zračni prostor držav in začne veljati mednarodno vesoljsko pravo. Kot vemo, letijo potniška letala na višini približno deset kilometrov. Nedavni rekordni polet z jadralnim letalom je dosegel višino 23 kilometrov nad morjem, vendar s pomočjo stratosferskih zavetrnih valov, ki nastajajo zaradi izredno močnih zračnih tokov med visokimi gorskimi vrhovi Andov (Ebbesen Jensen, 2019).
  • Apollo 11 Astronaut Neil Armstrong Broadcast from the Moon (July 21, 1969) Added to the National Registry: 2004 Essay by Cary O’Dell

    Apollo 11 Astronaut Neil Armstrong Broadcast from the Moon (July 21, 1969) Added to the National Registry: 2004 Essay by Cary O’Dell

    Apollo 11 Astronaut Neil Armstrong Broadcast from the Moon (July 21, 1969) Added to the National Registry: 2004 Essay by Cary O’Dell “One small step for…” Though no American has stepped onto the surface of the moon since 1972, the exiting of the Earth’s atmosphere today is almost commonplace. Once covered live over all TV and radio networks, increasingly US space launches have been relegated to a fleeting mention on the nightly news, if mentioned at all. But there was a time when leaving the planet got the full attention it deserved. Certainly it did in July of 1969 when an American man, Neil Armstrong, became the first human being to ever step foot on the moon’s surface. The pictures he took and the reports he sent back to Earth stopped the world in its tracks, especially his eloquent opening salvo which became as famous and as known to most citizens as any words ever spoken. The mid-1969 mission of NASA’s Apollo 11 mission became the defining moment of the US- USSR “Space Race” usually dated as the period between 1957 and 1975 when the world’s two superpowers were competing to top each other in technological advances and scientific knowledge (and bragging rights) related to, truly, the “final frontier.” There were three astronauts on the Apollo 11 spacecraft, the US’s fifth manned spaced mission, and the third lunar mission of the Apollo program. They were: Neil Armstrong, Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, and Michael Collins. The trio was launched from Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 16, 1969 at 1:32pm.
  • 350 International Atlas of Lunar Exploration 8 January 1973

    350 International Atlas of Lunar Exploration 8 January 1973

    :UP/3-PAGINATION/IAW-PROOFS/3B2/978«52181«5(M.3D 350 [7428] 19.8.20073:28PM 350 International Atlas of Lunar Exploration 8 January 1973: Luna 21 and Lunokhod 2 (Soviet Union) The 4850 kg Luna 21 spacecraft was launched from Baikonur at 06:56 UT on a Proton booster, placed in a low Earth parking orbit and then put on a lunar trajec­ tory. Power problems required that the Lunokhod solar panel be opened in flight to augment power, and stowed again for the trajectory correction and orbit insertion burns and for landing. On 12 January Luna 21 entered a 90 km by 100 km lunar orbit inclined 60° to the equator. After a day in orbit the low point was reduced to 16 km, and on 15 January after 40 orbits the vehicle braked and dropped to just 750 m above the surface. Then the main thrusters slowed the descent, and at :UP/3-PAGINATION/IAW-PROOFS/3B2/978«52181«5(M.3D 351 [7428] 19.8.20073:28PM Chronological sequence of missions and events 351 22 m a set of secondary thrusters took over until the After landing, Lunokhod 2 surveyed its surround­ spacecraft was only 1.5 meters high, when the thrusters ings. A rock partly blocked the west-facing ramp so the were shut off. Landing time was 23:35 UT. rover was driven east across a shallow crater, leaving the The site was in Le Monnier crater on the eastern edge lander at 01:14 UT on 16 January. It rested 30 m from of Mare Serenitatis, 180 km north of the Apollo 17 land­ the descent stage to recharge its batteries until 18 ing site, at 25.85° N, 30.45° E (Figure 327A).
  • 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
  • Stereo Reconstruction from Apollo 15 and 16 Metric Camerazachary

    Stereo Reconstruction from Apollo 15 and 16 Metric Camerazachary

    42nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2011) 2267.pdf Stereo Reconstruction from Apollo 15 and 16 Metric Camera Zachary Moratto1, Ara Nefian1,2, Taemin Kim1, Michael Broxton1,2, Ross Beyer1,3, and Terry Fong1, 1NASA Ames Research Center, MS 269-3, Moffett Field, CA, USA ([email protected]), 2Carnegie Mellon University, 3Carl Sagan Center SETI Introduction saic, DIM, and precision maps are produced for both This paper presents the production of digital terrain mod- missions separately. els (DTMs) and digital image mosaics (DIMs) of the Lu- The DTM mosaic is formed by a weighted average of nar surface that cover a large portion of the near-side of the stereo pair DTMs. Input DTMs were weighted max- the Moon at 40 m/px and 10 m/px respectively. These imum value at their centers and then feathered to zero at data products, produced under direction of the NASA the edges. The DTM mosaics are shown in Fig. 1 and 2. ESMD Lunar Mapping and Modeling Project (LMMP), The DIM was created by projecting the original res- are based on 2600 stereo image pairs from the Apollo olution images onto the 40 m/px DTMs, creating indi- 15 and 16 missions that were digitized at high resolution vidual orthoimages. Those orthoimages were then mo- from the original mission films [1]. Our reconstruction saicked by a process described in [5] without reflectance. was carried out using the highly automated Ames Stereo Therefore, only the final image mosaic and time expo- Pipeline software [2], which runs on NASA’s Pleiades sures were calculated.
  • Larry Page Developing the Largest Corporate Foundation in Every Successful Company Must Face: As Google Word.” the United States

    Larry Page Developing the Largest Corporate Foundation in Every Successful Company Must Face: As Google Word.” the United States

    LOWE —continued from front flap— Praise for $19.95 USA/$23.95 CAN In addition to examining Google’s breakthrough business strategies and new business models— In many ways, Google is the prototype of a which have transformed online advertising G and changed the way we look at corporate successful twenty-fi rst-century company. It uses responsibility and employee relations——Lowe Google technology in new ways to make information universally accessible; promotes a corporate explains why Google may be a harbinger of o 5]]UZS SPEAKS culture that encourages creativity among its where corporate America is headed. She also A>3/9A addresses controversies surrounding Google, such o employees; and takes its role as a corporate citizen as copyright infringement, antitrust concerns, and “It’s not hard to see that Google is a phenomenal company....At Secrets of the World’s Greatest Billionaire Entrepreneurs, very seriously, investing in green initiatives and personal privacy and poses the question almost Geico, we pay these guys a whole lot of money for this and that key g Sergey Brin and Larry Page developing the largest corporate foundation in every successful company must face: as Google word.” the United States. grows, can it hold on to its entrepreneurial spirit as —Warren Buffett l well as its informal motto, “Don’t do evil”? e Following in the footsteps of Warren Buffett “Google rocks. It raised my perceived IQ by about 20 points.” Speaks and Jack Welch Speaks——which contain a SPEAKS What started out as a university research project —Wes Boyd conversational style that successfully captures the conducted by Sergey Brin and Larry Page has President of Moveon.Org essence of these business leaders—Google Speaks ended up revolutionizing the world we live in.
  • Mobile Lunar and Planetary Base Architectures

    Mobile Lunar and Planetary Base Architectures

    Space 2003 AIAA 2003-6280 23 - 25 September 2003, Long Beach, California Mobile Lunar and Planetary Bases Marc M. Cohen, Arch.D. Advanced Projects Branch, Mail Stop 244-14, NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 TEL 650 604-0068 FAX 650 604-0673 [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper presents a review of design concepts over three decades for developing mobile lunar and planetary bases. The idea of the mobile base addresses several key challenges for extraterrestrial surface bases. These challenges include moving the landed assets a safe distance away from the landing zone; deploying and assembling the base remotely by automation and robotics; moving the base from one location of scientific or technical interest to another; and providing sufficient redundancy, reliability and safety for crew roving expeditions. The objective of the mobile base is to make the best use of the landed resources by moving them to where they will be most useful to support the crew, carry out exploration and conduct research. This review covers a range of surface mobility concepts that address the mobility issue in a variety of ways. These concepts include the Rockwell Lunar Sortie Vehicle (1971), Cintala’s Lunar Traverse caravan, 1984, First Lunar Outpost (1992), Frassanito’s Lunar Rover Base (1993), Thangavelu’s Nomad Explorer (1993), Kozlov and Shevchenko’s Mobile Lunar Base (1995), and the most recent evolution, John Mankins’ “Habot” (2000-present). The review compares the several mobile base approaches, then focuses on the Habot approach as the most germane to current and future exploration plans.
  • Searching for Lunar Horizon Glow with the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA)

    Searching for Lunar Horizon Glow with the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA)

    Searching for lunar horizon glow with the lunar orbiter laser altimeter (LOLA) M. K. Barker, D. Smith, T. McClanahan, E. Mazarico, X. Sun, M. T. Zuber, G. A. Neumann, M. H. Torrence, J. W. Head DAP-2017 Boulder, CO Jan. 11-13, 2017 Lunar Horizon Glow • Surveyor landers, Lunokhod-2 lander, Apollo 17 astronaut sketches (Rennilson & Criswell 1974, Severnyi et al. 1975, McCoy & Criswell 1974, Zook & McCoy 1991) ==> Electrostatic levitation, dynamic lofting (Stubbs et al. 2006, Farrell et al. 2007) • Apollo 15 photographs at dawn: LHG extending ~30 km above horizon, N~103-105 cm-2 for grain r = 0.1 µm (McCoy 1976, Glenar et al. 2011) ==> Meteor stream impact ejecta could initiate a saltation-like cascade process • Recent searches with Clementine Star Trackers, LRO/LAMP, and LADEE/LDEX gave limits on dust density ~100x lower than A15 (Glenar et al. 2014, Feldman et al. 2014, Szalay & Horányi 2015, Horányi et al. 2015) Glenar et al. (2011) Lunar Orbiter ~65 m Diffractive Optical Element Laser Altimeter (LOLA) •5-beam time-of-flight laser altimeter onboard the Lunar Reconnaissance 50 m Orbiter (LRO) 5-m diameter •28 Hz laser, 140 measurements/sec observation area (red) •Each shot provides: • up to 5 ranges to surface (10 cm prec.) 20-m FOV (green) • footprint-scale surface roughness • footprint-scale slope 10 to 12 m apart • 1064-nm reflectance of surface along track •Detectors: 5 fiber optically-coupled avalanche photodiodes LOLA has two radiometric modes: (1) Active radiometry: LOLA laser is the light source. 1064-nm normal albedo Lemelin et al. (2016) (2) Passive radiometry: Sun is the light source.