DOCSLIB.ORG

Airlock (LEIA) • Cislunar Habitat Module • Artificial Gravity Study • Additional Projects • Conclusions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Airlock (LEIA) • Cislunar Habitat Module • Artificial Gravity Study • Additional Projects • Conclusions Human Spaceflight Structures Engineering Internship Joshua Peterson NASA’s Johnson Space Center – Spring 2017 University Science Research Association (USRA) 05/11/2017 1 Content • Background • Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) • Cislunar Habitat Module • Artificial Gravity Study • Additional Projects • Conclusions 05/11/2017 2 Content • Background • Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) • Cislunar Habitat Module • Artificial Gravity Study • Additional Projects • Conclusions 05/11/2017 3 Background • Hometown – Suwanee, Georgia • School – Georgia Institute of Technology – 4th Year BS Aerospace Engineering – Graduation: May 2018 • Engineering Work Experience – NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center – Lockheed Martin, Missiles and Fire Control – Conway & Owen MEP Consulting Engineers • Engineering Research Experience – Georgia Institute of Technology, High Power Electric Propulsion Laboratory – Georgia Institute of Technology, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laboratory 05/11/2017 4 Content • Background • Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) • Cislunar Habitat Module • Artificial Gravity Study • Additional Projects • Conclusions 05/11/2017 5 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Overview • An inflatable crewlock, coupled with an equipment lock, can provide significant weight savings from its metallic counterpart • Inflatable structures only have shape, size, and rigidity when inflated • In order to use an inflatable as an airlock, an additional structure is necessary to maintain shape, size, and rigidity • Conceptual designs based on Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) interior envelope Inflatable Tubes Shark Cage Resin Rigidized Structure • Design Concepts – Inflatable Tubes – Shark Cage – Resin Rigidized Structure – Expandable Truss – Inflatable Walls Expandable Truss Inflatable Walls 05/11/2017 6 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Volume Analysis • Compared LEIA volume concepts to the Quest Joint Airlock • Found that all LEIA concepts had plenty of volume to perform airlock procedures • Additional Questions – Will astronauts have trouble rotating to operate EV hatch? Shark Cage Quest Joint Airlock Inflatable Tubes – Will the extra volume in LEIA designs create problems with translation and rotation? 05/11/2017 7 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Shark Cage • Composed of 2024-T3 aluminum tubes • Design includes longitudinal tubes and hoop tubes that are fastened together • Crew will receive Shark Cage in several pieces and assemble within inflatable structure • Major Advantages – Low Mass – High Available Volume – Simple Manufacturing – Simple In-Space Assembly 05/11/2017 8 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Initial Analysis UNITS DESC. MATL SPEC SOURCE Ftu Fsu Fcy • Hand calculations performed on 125 lb. incidental Shark Cage MMPDS-11, 2024-T3 QQ-A-250/4 64 39 42 ksi loads located on outside of EV Hatch Member 3-118 DETAIL LOAD CASE FAILURE MODE M.S.* • The factor of safety used was 2.25 for metallic Shark Cage – EV Hatch 125 lbs AFT Shear Stress +High structure Connection Shark Cage – Midpoint 125 lbs AFT Compression +High • Margins shown are for one longitudinal member with a 2.5” outer diameter and a 1.8” inner Shark Cage – Midpoint 125 lbs AFT Buckling +0.06 Shark Cage – IV Hatch 125 lbs DN Compression +0.52 diameter Connection AFT Load Case DN Load Case 05/11/2017 9 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Initial Analysis • Compared likely weights for Material and Cross Section Weight Comparison aluminum, steel, and titanium tent poles • While each material could withstand all loads with only one 1 Pole pole, the application of more 4 longitudinal members will be 2 3 convenient for handholds and 1 Pole will provide additional stability 6 7 8 1 Pole 2 3 4 5 • Initial Conclusion: Between 4 and 2 3 8 longitudinal members are MS = 0 feasible as a secondary support structure for an inflatable airlock 05/11/2017 10 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – FEM Analysis • Set out to optimize the (1) weight of the Shark Cage (2) 500 lb. 500 lb. concept (3) • Loads (4) – Incidental Loads (5) – Crew Egress – Crew Ingress Incidental Loads Crew Egress Crew Ingress – Crew Ingress and Rest 500 lb. 500 lb. – EV Hatch Opening 250 lb. 250 lb. – Crew Movement • Constraints – Longitudinal members fixed to IV Hatch and rigidly connected 250 lb. 250 lb. along EV Hatch Crew Ingress and Rest EV Hatch Opening Crew Movement 05/11/2017 11 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Design Study Margin of Safety v. Longitudinal Members - 2 Hoops • How does the stress change with 1.5 1 OD 0.675" different geometries? 0.5 OD 0.75" M.S. 0 OD 1.0" -0.5 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 • Task: Optimize the Shark Cage design -1 OD 1.5" Number of Longitudinal Members • Design Variables: Margin of Safety v. Longitudinal Members - 4 Hoops 6 – Cross Section Outer Diameter 4 OD 0.675" 2 OD 0.75" M.S. • 5/8”, 3/4”, 1”, 1.5”, 2” 0 OD 1.0" 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 -2 OD 1.5" – Number of Longitudinal Members Number of Longitudinal Members • 6, 8, 12, 16 Margin of Safety v. Longitudinal Members - 5 Hoops 4 OD 0.675" – Number of Circular Members 2 OD 0.75" M.S. 0 • 2, 4, 5 OD 1.0" 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 -2 OD 1.5" Number of Longitudinal Members 05/11/2017 12 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Design Study • The first table displays lightest designs for each number of longitudinal members OD (in) ID (in) Longitudinals Hoops Weight (lbs) Max Stress (psi) M.S. 1.5 1.43 6 2 24 46112 0.387925 – The highlighted design is not the lightest 1.5 1.43 8 2 28 37356 0.713246 overall design but it does provide an optimal 1 0.93 12 4 31 39269 0.629784 amount of members for movement about 1 0.93 16 4 36 37799 0.693166 the airlock Design Trade Summary – This design was chosen for a subscale structural test and a full-scale mockup evaluation DETAIL LOAD CASE FAILURE MODE M.S.* Ultimate Tensile Location 4 125 lbs +X +0.63 • The second table displays the results of the Strength stress analysis performed on the optimized Load Case 34 EV Hatch Opening Compression Yield +0.12 Shark Cage design Load Case 34 EV Hatch Opening Buckling +2.60 – Analysis will be confirmed by full-scale structural test Margin of Safety Summary 05/11/2017 13 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Compression Test UNITS DESC. MATL SPEC SOURCE Ftu Fsu Fcy Shark Cage MMPDS-11, • Finite element analysis is a useful 6061-T6 WW-T-700/6 42 34 35 ksi Member 3-447 tool, but Shark Cage must be tested before it is considered flight ready • Developed a 1:10 scale FEM of Shark Cage which uses the geometry and material of the small-scale test article developed by Mykale – Determined likely failure modes and ultimate stresses – Will correlate test data to FEA data 05/11/2017 14 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Compression Test • Test consisted of 3 configurations each with 4 hoop tubes: 4, 8, and 16 longitudinal tubes were arranged in a small scale test article • Small-scale test article was 1:10 scale to size of Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) • Each configuration was compressed until failure in a load frame 05/11/2017 15 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Compression Test • The small-scale compression test showed my FEA was conservative and needs to be Analytical Prediction tuned to represent real-world results Expected Expected Expected Expected Observed • Error between FEA and Test Data: Test Article Number of Yield Ultimate Buckling Max Elastic Failure Configuration Longitudinals = X 100 Strength Strength Strength Deflection Load − – Configuration A: 60% (UTS) A 4 375 lbf 500 lbf 625 lbf 0.0569 in 800 lbf B 8 1125 lbf 1375 lbf 1500 lbf 0.0307 in 2500 lbf – Configuration B: 67% (Buckling) C 16 3000 lbf 3875 lbf 3500 lbf 0.0350 in 3000 lbf – Configuration C: -23% (UTS) • Possible sources of discrepancy Shark Cage: Load-Displacement Data 3500 – All members except EV Hatch connections in Plastic Fastener UTS Failure 3000 FEA were clamped-clamped configuration (did Local Buckling Failure not account for fasteners and distributed load 2500 2000 interactions) 4C 4L 1500 Ultimate Tensile Strength Failure Load(lbf) 4C 8L – EV hatch longitudinal connections in FEA were 1000 4C 16L allowed to rotate 500 – Did not take into account the plastic connectors 0 0.00E+00 -5.00E-02 -1.00E-01 -1.50E-01 -2.00E-01 -2.50E-01 -3.00E-01 -3.50E-01 -4.00E-01 -4.50E-01 used in assembly of test article Vertical Displacement (in) 05/11/2017 16 Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) – Future Work • Refine FEM for better correlation with test data • Develop and test full-scale mock-ups of Inflatable Tube and Shark Cage design • Continue developing resin rigidizable technology • Launch and test final concept on ISS 05/11/2017 17 Content • Background • Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA) • Cislunar Habitat Module • Artificial Gravity Study • Additional Projects • Conclusions 05/11/2017 18 Cislunar Habitat Module – Overview • Working to develop next generation space station habitat modules for cislunar space • ISS era modules carried launch loads and instruments around the outer edge of the module • Future cislunar modules will carry launch loads and instruments in the center of the module core structure much like a fighter jet 05/11/2017 19 Cislunar Habitat Module – Task • Previous cislunar habitat module model had a diameter of 4.0 m • Redesigned the module with a maximum diameter for the SLS – Block 1 Fairing – Increased diameter to 5.6 m – 40% larger diameter than previous model 05/11/2017 20 Cislunar Habitat Module – Analysis • Rebuilt finite element model in Femap and used Load Case Axial Load (G) Lateral Load (G) NASTRAN to analyze stress within the structure Transonic X -2 0.75 Transonic Y -2 0.75 • Expected Loads Max Q X -2.5 0.5 Max Q Y -2.5 0.5 – SLS Launch Boost Max X -3.25 0.3 Boost Max Y -3.25 0.3 – Operational / Docking Core Max X -3.5 0.3 Core Max Y -3.5 0.3 Conservative X -4 2 • A safety factor of 1.4 for UTS and buckling and 1.0 for Conservative Y -4 2 yield during launch was used per NASA document SSP-30559-C, Section 3.3.1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Call for a New Human Missions Cost Model
    A Call For A New Human Missions Cost Model NASA 2019 Cost and Schedule Analysis Symposium NASA Johnson Space Center, August 13-15, 2019 Joseph Hamaker, PhD Christian Smart, PhD Galorath Human Missions Cost Model Advocates Dr. Joseph Hamaker Dr. Christian Smart Director, NASA and DoD Programs Chief Scientist • Former Director for Cost Analytics • Founding Director of the Cost and Parametric Estimating for the Analysis Division at NASA U.S. Missile Defense Agency Headquarters • Oversaw development of the • Originator of NASA’s NAFCOM NASA/Air Force Cost Model cost model, the NASA QuickCost (NAFCOM) Model, the NASA Cost Analysis • Provides subject matter expertise to Data Requirement and the NASA NASA Headquarters, DARPA, and ONCE database Space Development Agency • Recognized expert on parametrics 2 Agenda Historical human space projects Why consider a new Human Missions Cost Model Database for a Human Missions Cost Model • NASA has over 50 years of Human Space Missions experience • NASA’s International Partners have accomplished additional projects . • There are around 70 projects that can provide cost and schedule data • This talk will explore how that data might be assembled to form the basis for a Human Missions Cost Model WHY A NEW HUMAN MISSIONS COST MODEL? NASA’s Artemis Program plans to Artemis needs cost and schedule land humans on the moon by 2024 estimates Lots of projects: Lunar Gateway, Existing tools have some Orion, landers, SLS, commercially applicability but it seems obvious provided elements (which we may (to us) that a dedicated HMCM is want to independently estimate) needed Some of these elements have And this can be done—all we ongoing cost trajectories (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Notes
    Current Notes Space Shuttle Special July 2011 Manchester Astronomical Society Page 1 Manchester Astronomical Society Page 2 Contents History Page 1 The Space Shuttle Atlantis/Carrier (Photo) Page 3 Space Shuttle Orbiter Page 4 Shuttle Orbiter Specifications Page 6 Shuttle Orbiter Cut-away (Diagram) Page 7 Shuttle-Mir Program Page 8 Hubble Servicing Mission 4 Page 10 Shuttle All Glass Cockpit Page 11 Shuttle Mission List Page 13 STS-135 Mission Reports Page 18 Shuttle Disasters Page 32 Mission Patches Page 34 The Future ? Page 36 If you wish to contribute to the next edition of current notes please send your article(s) to [email protected] Manchester Astronomical Society Page 3 Introduction Welcome to the special edition of Current Notes. This Edition has been compiled to celebrate 30years of Space Shuttle missions and to coincide with the last mission. NASA's greatest achievement was the creation of a reusable spacecraft. The Apollo spacecraft cost an astronomical sum to produce and were single-use only. The heat from Earth's atmosphere essentially disintegrated the shielding used to protect the spacecraft. The spacecraft also landed in the ocean, and the impact and sea water damaged the equipment. To remedy this, NASA built a spacecraft that had two rocket launchers attached to an external fuel tank and an orbiter module. They coated the spacecraft with protective heat-resistant ceramic tiles and changed the landing design to a glider-style. It took nine years of preparation, from 1972 to 1981, before the first mission. I would like to thank NASA/JPL and ESA for the information that has been compiled in this special edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Assessment Aboard the International Space Station
    COMMITTEE CERTIFICATION OF APPROVED VERSION The committee for Stephen Forrest Hart M.D. certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis: HEARING ASSESSMENT ABOARD THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION Committee: Richard T. Jennings, M.D., Supervisor Deborah L. Carlson, Ph.D. Billy U. Philips Jr., Ph.D. ______________________________ Dean, Graduate School HEARING ASSESSMENT ABOARD THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION by Stephen F. Hart M.M.S. Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the University of Texas Medical Branch Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Galveston in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Medical Sciences Approved by the Supervisory Committee Richard T. Jennings, M.D. Deborah L. Carlson, Ph.D. Billy U. Philips Jr., Ph.D. December, 2006 Galveston, Texas Key words: audiogram, NIHL, astronaut © 2006, Stephen F. Hart ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to Mary Sue Harrison, Michael Santucci, CJ Stevens, Tony Eldon, Dick Danielson, Jerry Goodman, and Chris Allen., as well as Yvgeny Kobzev and Eduard Matsnev. Most especially special thanks to my wife Laurie and children Josie, Molly and Ethan, who know me for what I am. iii ABSTRACT HEARING ASSESSMENT ABOARD THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION Publication No._____________ Stephen Forrest Hart, MMS The University of Texas Medical Branch Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Galveston, 2006 Supervisor: Richard T. Jennings This study undertakes to refine the understanding of the accuracy of a novel PC- based hearing assessment utilized aboard the International Space Station. During the design and construction of the ISS, time and funding constraints led to engineering compromise related to acoustics, resulting in a vehicle with excessive noise levels.
    [Show full text]
  • China Dream, Space Dream: China's Progress in Space Technologies and Implications for the United States
    China Dream, Space Dream 中国梦，航天梦China’s Progress in Space Technologies and Implications for the United States A report prepared for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Kevin Pollpeter Eric Anderson Jordan Wilson Fan Yang Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Dr. Patrick Besha and Dr. Scott Pace for reviewing a previous draft of this report. They would also like to thank Lynne Bush and Bret Silvis for their master editing skills. Of course, any errors or omissions are the fault of authors. Disclaimer: This research report was prepared at the request of the Commission to support its deliberations. Posting of the report to the Commission's website is intended to promote greater public understanding of the issues addressed by the Commission in its ongoing assessment of U.S.-China economic relations and their implications for U.S. security, as mandated by Public Law 106-398 and Public Law 108-7. However, it does not necessarily imply an endorsement by the Commission or any individual Commissioner of the views or conclusions expressed in this commissioned research report. CONTENTS Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
    [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 and Development Systems (SEEDS) 2014
    SpacE Exploration and Development Systems (SEEDS) 2014 “Missions and Expeditions to Mars” Orpheus Executive Summary SEEDS Executive Summary 09/2014 Page 1 SEEDS Executive Summary 09/2014 Page 2 List of authors: Crescenzio Ruben Xavier AMENDOLA Portia BOWMAN Samuel BROCKSOPP Andrea D’OTTAVIO Alex GEE Samuel R. F. KENNEDY Antonio MAGARIELLO Adrian MORA BOLUDA Ignacio REY Alex ROSENBAUM Joachim STRENGE Aurthur Vimalachandran THOMAS JAYACHANDRAN SEEDS Executive Summary 09/2014 Page 3 SEEDS Executive Summary 09/2014 Page 4 ABSTRACT This six crew mission called Orpheus has been designed in order to fulfil some main objectives of space exploration: scientific advancements, technological progress, public outreach and international cooperation. This paper investigates the possibility of exploring the Martian system by using a manned spacecraft, the Crew Interplanetary Vehicle, (CIV) and a cargo vehicle, the Mars Automated Transfer Vehicle (MATV). The main payloads, carried by the high efficiency solar electric MATV, are a two-passenger spacecraft landing on Phobos; an orbital laboratory and a rover network for deployment to the surface of Mars. In order to cope with the constraints imposed for a human mission to deep space, the feasibility study has been performed using a human-centred design approach. The main output of the mission is the preliminary design of the CIV. Furthermore, the main parameters of the MATV as well as the orbital laboratory and the Phobos Lander were estimated. The manned spacecraft is designed to depart from LEO in 2036 using chemical propulsion. Once in Mars proximity, the main manoeuvres will be performed using nuclear thermal propulsion and a bi-propellant chemical system will perform the minor manoeuvres.
    [Show full text]
  • SMALL SATELLITES – Economic Trends
    SMALL SATELLITES Economic Trends Giovanni Facchinetti Intern – Defence SA – Space Industry and R&D Collaborations Master’s candidate – Universita’ Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milano Supervisors: Nicola Sasanelli AM Director – Space Industry and R&D Collaborations Defence SA Government of South Australia Michael Davis Chair SIAA – Space Industry Association of Australia www.spaceindustry.com.au Giovanni Cucinella Director, General IMT – Ingegneria Marketing Tecnologia www.imtsrl.it December 2016 “Quod Invenias Explorans Spatium Progressus Est Humanitatis” - Human Progress is in Space Exploration Hon Jay Weatherill - Premier of South Australia Facchinetti G, Sasanelli N, Davis M, Cucinella G SMALL SATELLITES – economic trends Disclaimer While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this report, the conclusions and the recommendations included in it constitute the opinions of the authors and should not be taken as representative of the views of Defence SA and the South Australian Government. No warranty, express or implied is made regarding the accuracy, adequacy, completeness, reliability or usefulness of the whole or any part of the information contained in this document. You should seek your own independent expert advice and make your own enquiries and satisfy yourself of all aspects of the information contained in this document. Any use or reliance on any of information contained in this document is at your own risk in all things. The Government of South Australia and its servants and its agents disclaim all liability and responsibility (including for negligence) for any direct or indirect loss or damage which may be suffered by any person through using or relying on any of the information contained in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Shuttle Launches
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Shuttle Launches KSC Historical Report No. 1B (KHR-1B) STS-61-A Hartsfield3, Nagel2, Buchli2, Bluford2, 10/30/85 Challenger9 Spacelab D-1 39A Dunbar, Furrer, Ockels, Messerschmid 11/06/85 17 EAFB Kennedy Space Center STS 61-B Shaw2, O’Connor, Cleave, Spring, 11/26/85 Atlantis2 Morelos-B/AUSSAT-2/ 39A 1981 - 2008 Ross, Vela, Walker 12/03/85 RCA SATCOM Ku-2 22 EAFB Total Space Shuttle Program Launches - 124 STS 61-C Gibson2, Bolden, Chang-Diaz, 01/12/86 Columbia7 RCA SATCOM Ku-1 39A Hawley2, Nelson2, Cenker, Nelson 01/18/86 22 EAFB Space shuttles are launched from NASA facilities at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. Landings have occurred at KSC and Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB) in California, the two prime STS 51-L Scobee2, Smith, McNair, Resnik, 01/28/86 Challenger10 TDRS-B 39B 2 end-of-mission landing sites; and one at Space Harbor (SH), formerly known as Northrup Strip, Onizuka , Jarvis, McAuliffe vehicle lost 73seconds after liftoff White Sands, N.Mex. All liftoff and landing dates are determined using Eastern Standard and East- STS-26 Hauck3, Covey2, Lounge2, 09/29/88 Discovery7 TDRS-3 39B ern Daylight Times. For more detailed information on space shuttle missions and payloads, refer to Hilmers2, Nelson3 10/03/88 17 EAFB Space Shuttle Mission Chronology 1981-1998, KSC Release No. 12-92, Revised February 1999, STS-27 Gibson3, Gardner1, Shepherd, 12/02/88 Atlantis3 DoD 39B or Space Shuttle Mission Chronology 2000-2003, Vol. 2. See PMS-031, Major NASA Launches, Mullane2, Ross2 12/06/88 17 EAFB for information on missions and payloads using other launch vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Astroculture (ADVASC)
    NASA/TP–2006–213721 Inspiring the Next Generation: Student Experiments and Educational Activities on the International Space Station, 2000–2006 Donald A. Thomas and Julie A. Robinson Office of the International Space Station Program Scientist NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas Judy Tate and Tracy Thumm Engineering & Science Contract Group NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas May 2006 THE NASA STI PROGRAM OFFICE . IN PROFILE Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected the advancement of aeronautics and space papers from scientific and technical science. The NASA Scientific and Technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other Information (STI) Program Office plays a key meetings sponsored or cosponsored by part in helping NASA maintain this important NASA. role. • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, The NASA STI Program Office is operated by technical, or historical information from Langley Research Center, the lead center for NASA programs, projects, and mission, NASA’s scientific and technical information. often concerned with subjects having The NASA STI Program Office provides access substantial public interest. to the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of aeronautical and space science STI • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English- in the world. The Program Office is also language translations of foreign scientific NASA’s institutional mechanism for and technical material pertinent to NASA’s disseminating the results of its research and mission. development activities. These results are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report Specialized services that complement the STI Series, which includes the following report Program Office’s diverse offerings include types: creating custom thesauri, building customized databases, organizing and publishing research • TECHNICAL PUBLICATION.
    [Show full text]
  • ISS Systems Engineering Case Study
    International Space Station Systems Engineering Case Study Dr. Bill Stockman InternationalJoe SpaceBoyle Station Systems EngineeringDr. John Bacon Case Study Air Force Center for Systems Engineering Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The views expressed in this Case Study are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of NASA, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. FOREWORD One of the objectives of the Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFCSE) is to develop case studies focusing on the application of systems engineering principles within various aerospace programs. The intent of these case studies is to examine a broad spectrum of program types and a variety of learning principles using the Friedman-Sage Framework to guide overall analysis. In addition to this case, the following studies are available at the AFCSE website. ■ Global Positioning System (space system) ■ Hubble Telescope (space system) ■ Theater Battle Management Core System (complex software development) ■ F-111 Fighter (joint program with significant involvement by the Office of the Secretary of Defense) ■ C-5 Cargo Airlifter (very large, complex aircraft) ■ A-10 Warthog (ground attack) ■ Global Hawk ■ KC-135 Simulator These cases support practitioners of systems engineering and are also used in the academic instruction in systems engineering within military service academies and at both civilian and military graduate schools. Each of the case studies comprises elements of success as well as examples of systems engineering decisions that, in hindsight, were not optimal. Both types of examples are useful for learning. Plans exist for future case studies focusing on various space systems, additional aircraft programs, munitions programs, joint service programs, logistics-led programs, science and technology/laboratory efforts, and a variety of commercial systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Misje Kosmiczne Programy
    Misje kosmiczne Laboratorium kosmiczne: Columbus Iwona Markowska kierunek: Technologie Kosmiczne i Satelitarne PG/AMG/AMW Laboratorium kosmiczne: Columbus Laboratorium kosmiczne Columbus – europejskie laboratorium naukowe będące modułem Międzynarodowej Stacji Kosmicznej (ISS). 11 lutego 2008 roku Columbus został przyłączony do prawoburtowego węzła modułu Hormony. ISS – Międzynarodowa Stacja Kosmiczna „Hormony” to jeden z trzech modułów spełniających funkcję korytarzy łączących ze sobą inne, laboratoryjne Laboratorium moduły Międzynarodowej Stacji naukowe Kosmicznej. Columbus Laboratorium kosmiczne: Columbus Załoga 6, możliwa 7 03.10.2011 MIĘDZYNARODOWA STACJA KOSMICZNA (ISS): Perygeum 400 km - Apogeum 410 km - Źródłem zasilania ISS są baterie słoneczne Okres orbitalny 91,34 minuty - Nachylenie orbity 51,6493 stopni - Transportem ludzi i materiałów do 19 lipca 2011 Okrążeń dziennie 15,50125706 - zajmowały się amerykańskie wahadłowce programu STS (od Dzienna oscylacja 93 m - lutego 2003 do 26 lipca 2005 wstrzymane z wysokości Dni od wystrzelenia 6727 21.04.2017 powodu katastrofy Columbii) oraz rosyjskie statki pierwszego modułu kosmiczne Sojuz i Progress. Po zakończeniu amerykańskiego Dni od zamieszkania 6016 21.04.2017 programu wahadłowców w 2011 roku, jedynym pierwszej załogi przewoźnikiem astronautów stały się rosyjskie rakiety Sojuz Wszystkich okrążeń około 106167 21.04.2017 Ziemi Administracja prezydenta Obamy, która przedłużyła Średnia prędkość 27 743,8 km/h - finansowanie do 2020 roku, a potencjalnie nawet do 2028. (7 706,6 m/s) Masa 417 289 kg - Objętość przestrzeni 837 m³ życiowej ~ 757 mm Hg - Kolejne slajdy przedstawiają wszystkie zainstalowane Ciśnienie (100 kPa) moduły oraz te planowane do zainstalowania w ~ 162,4 mm Hg - Tlen (22 kPa) kolejnych latach w ramach działalności ISS. ~ 4,8 mm Hg - Dwutlenek węgla (640 Pa) Temperatura ~ 26,9°C Laboratorium kosmiczne: Columbus Numer Moduł Data startu Rakieta Kraj Widok MODUŁY misji ZAINSTALOWANE: Rosja (budowa) 1A/R 20 listopada 1998 Proton K USA (finansowanie) Pierwszy komponent stacji.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spacecraft Fun Facts and Figures About NASA’S Atlantis Orbiter
    Atlantis – The Spacecraft Fun Facts and Figures about NASA’s Atlantis Orbiter Guests at the new Space Shuttle AtlantisSM may come across these and other fascinating facts and figures about the orbiter Atlantis during their visit: Atlantis’ official name is OV-104, or Orbiter Vehicle 104. It is the fourth in the fleet of five orbiters – Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour. The first orbiter to be built, Enterprise, never flew in space; it was used to test critical phases of landing and other aspects of shuttle preparation. Atlantis flew on 33 missions and logged more than 126 million miles and 307 days in space. Exactly 207 astronauts have flown on Atlantis. Atlantis was named after the two-masted boat that served as the primary research vessel for the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts from 1930 to 1966. The boat had a 17-member crew and accommodated up to five scientists who worked in two onboard laboratories, examining water samples and marine life. The crew also used the first electronic sounding devices to map the ocean floor. Construction of the orbiter Atlantis began on March 3, 1980. Thanks to lessons learned in the construction and testing of orbiters Enterprise, Columbia and Challenger, Atlantis was completed in about half the time in man-hours spent on Columbia. This was largely attributed to the use of large thermal protection blankets on the orbiter's upper body, rather than individual tiles which required more attention. Weighing in at 151,315 pounds when it rolled out of the assembly plant in Palmdale, Calif., Atlantis was nearly 3.5 tons lighter than Columbia.
    [Show full text]