DOCSLIB.ORG

NASA JSC Mission Design NASA/KARI F2F October 25-26, 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NASA JSC Mission Design NASA/KARI F2F October 25-26, 2016 NASA JSC Mission Design NASA/KARI F2F October 25-26, 2016 Gerald Condon / EG5 281-483-8173 / 832-221-7306 [email protected] Frank Monahan / EG5 281-244-7173 [email protected] Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Branch Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Division Engineering DirectorateJohnson Space Center NASA / Johnson Space Center 1 Outline • JSC / EG5 Capabilities • Software Tools – Copernicus • Video • Overview • Mission Examples – General • Lunar and Cislunar Mission Examples • Constellation • MARE • EM-1 • EM-2 • Other –Station keeping Moon, NRO, Project M Johnson Space Center 2 Outline • JSC / EG5 Capabilities • Software Tools – Copernicus • Video • Overview • Mission Examples – General • Lunar and Cislunar Mission Examples • Constellation • MARE • EM-1 • EM-2 • Other Johnson Space Center 3 JSC Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Branch (EG5) Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Branch Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Division Engineering DirectorateJohnson Space Center NASA / Johnson Space Center Charter The Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Branch (EG5) is responsible for the design and evaluation of reference trajectories and flight vehicle performance capabilities for all missions assigned to JSCJohnson Space Center 5 Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Roles Program/Project Directives Vehicle Designs and Subsystem and Technology • Destinations; Missions Performance Capabilities Impacts • Requirements; Resources Structures Propulsion Thermal PS Aero Power Avionics Mission Systems Software Analyses Design(s) Examples from Flight Mechanics GN&C Design Flight Environments Technology Needs Flight Testing Design and Evaluation Johnson Space Center 6 Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Roles • Design/development of mission design and associated trajectories for all flight phases of a space mission, including: • Ascent/Orbit/Rendezvous/Interplanetary/Entry/ Aerocapture/Terminal Descent • Integrated Design Reference Missions • Conceptual Flight Profiles • Flight Performance Envelopes and Corridors • Windows – Launch; De-orbit (including Phasing); Trans-lunar and Trans-Mars Injections • Vehicle Capability Evaluations and Requirements • Preliminary GN&C Algorithms and Architectures • Parachute/Parafoil System Design and Performance • Entry Demise and Debris Predictions • Optimal Performance Analysis • Loads and Dynamics Design for Human Rating • Trajectory/Vehicle /Flight Mechanics Visualization • Software tool development Johnson Space Center 7 Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Roles Surface Coverage vs Mission Delta-V Assessment of Lunar Surface Coverage vs Mission DV For Selected Epoch Coverage Assumptions: Full Coazimuth Return Convert prop to dry mass (lbm) > 2000 1500 1000 500 4648 ft/s 5003 ft/s Vehicle Equivalent V (m/s) > (1220) (1268) (1317) (1366) 1417 m/s 1525 m/s 100 99.8%99.8% 97% AssumptionsAssumptions 90 AssumptionsAssumptions --DVDV driverdriver configurationconfiguration 87.4%87.4% --FullFull coazimuthcoazimuth usedused forfor eacheach 80 --136136 hrhr returnreturn (TEI(TEI--11 toto --ForFor 606606 POD:POD: 74% EI)EI) NominalNominal returnreturn withwith fullfull Capability 70 coazimuth driver --SharedShared internalinternal VV coazimuth driver budgetbudget ----ForFor prop/massprop/mass swap:swap: - All major maneuvers 60 AuxilliaryAuxilliaryengineengine - All major maneuvers backup driver - Dispersions not backup driver 56.3%56.3% - Dispersions not appliedapplied 50 --LoiterLoiter usedused toto increaseincrease coveragecoverage (up(up toto 21.121.1 daysdays CEVCEV Evaluations and 40 activeactive lifetimelifetime 100% Temporal Availability 95% Temporal Availability 30 90 % Temporal Availability 80% Temporal Availability Surface Coverage (percent) Coverage Surface 20 60% Temporal Availability Requirements 10 606 POD 606 POD Tank Loading Tank Sizing 0 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Mission DV Budget (m/s) 3609 3937 4265 4593 4921 5249 Mission DV Budget (ft/s) NOTE: Possibility of relaxing the 200 nm boundary for Canada and Mexico exists, but that requires approval at the highest level and may not be appropriate for nominal operations. Moses Lake, WA For Big Sand Gap, OR ascending approaches: Redmond, OR 0.3 L/D => Catlow Valley, OR Salt Water two sites Springs, NV Graves Valley, CA Carson Flats, NV 0.35 L/D => eight sites 25 nm / 200 nm coastal boundary 0.3 L/D => 230 nm toe to LS Edwards AFB, CA 0.4 L/D => 0.35 L/D => 370 nm toe to LS eight sites 0.4 L/D => 530 nm toe to LS Groundtrack thru Edwards 530 nm Johnson Space Center 1 8 Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Roles Preliminary GN&C Architectures & Algorithms 1 Lunar Lander Vehicle (LLV) 2 Certified Landing Area An area mission planners have chosen Landing Target which they believe has a high The a priori designated point that a probability of containing at least one mission planner would like the LLV safe Landing Aim Point and is worthy to touchdown at or near. A of exploration. designated area around this landing 6 target (flag) is the known as the Intended Landing Point Landing Site by ALHAT. The selected Landing Aim Point chosen from a prioritized list of candidate LAPs. 7 A Landing Location Actual point on the lunar surface where the LLV eventually touches down. 5 Tye Brady 4 Draper Laboratory Landing Aim Point Release 1.1 A surface relative position free of Landing Scan Area hazards, identified within the The portion of the lunar surface that is 3 Landing Scan Area. scanned for hazards by the onboard LLV Landing Site hazard detection system. Scan occurs A 90m (3 sigma) radial area that near the start of the approach trajectory surrounds the Landing Target and activity at a slant range of 500m to 2km also has a high probability of LANDING TERMS from the Landing Target. Scan area is containing at least one safe Landing smaller than 90m radius to ensure Aim Point. Johnson Spaceprecision Centergoals are met. 9 Core Strengths • Collaborative systems engineering approach to mission, trajectory, and vehicle designs Orbital Mechanics • Optimal trajectory designs for atmospheric and Flight Mechanics exo-atmospheric flight Dynamics • Terminal descent systems design and dynamics Optimization • Guidance algorithm development Flight Testing Systems Engineering • Corridors formulation based on multiple systems constraints • Monte Carlo evaluation of guided trajectories Direct With Flyby E a r t L h 1 M o L H o 2 n a 10 l Johnson Space Center o Analysis Tools • Ascent/Entry/Aerocapture/ Powered • Interplanetary Descent – Copernicus – 3 DOF – SORT & POST – Optimization to any destination – 3 DOF - 6 DOF – Low thrust/High thrust – Monte Carlo – Multi-body – Optimization w/ GN&C – Patched conic to Fully integrated – Antares – 6 DOF w/ GN&C – Mission Assessment Post-Processor (MAPP) – Monte Carlo – Trajectory design scanning and mission planner – Ares/Orion – Multi-body • Entry Debris – FAST – Simulation for Prediction of Entry Article – 3 - 6 DOF w/ GN&C Demise (SPEAD) – Monte Carlo – 6 DOF – Capable of modeling different vehicles – Combined heating, structural break-up, and – Multi-body trajectory – Predicts break-up sequence and pieces survival • Orbital – Flight Analysis System (FAS) • Terminal Descent – 3 DOF – Decelerator Systems Simulation (DSS) – Launch targeting, rendezvous design, – 6 DOF – 18 DOF orbital maneuvering – Chute system design, dynamics, and – STK and LandOpp performance – Trajectory graphics – Parafoil Dynamics Simulation (PDS) – Landing opportunities analyses – 8 DOF parafoil simulation – Parafoil design, dynamics, and performance 11 – GN&C design Johnson Space Center Outline • JSC / EG5 Capabilities • Software Tools – Copernicus • Video • Overview • Mission Examples – General • Lunar and Cislunar Mission Examples • Constellation • MARE • EM-1 • EM-2 • Other Johnson Space Center 12 Copernicus Gerald Condon / JSC/EG5 Jacob Williams / ERC/JETS Johnson Space Center Video Johnson Space Center 14 What is Copernicus? A generalized spacecraft trajectory design and optimization application An integrated Graphical User Interface (GUI) Real-time 3D interactive visualization Johnson Space Center 15 Copernicus Architecture Copernicus marries a powerful computation engine with a friendly GUI and an interactive OpenGL graphics visualization capability. Main Program Copernicus Libraries GUI User Inputs Mission Design Design Modifications Toolkit Library Numerical Feedback Celestial Mechanics Routines SPICE Interface Math Utilities Coordinate Transformations Binary File I/O Gravity Models Engine Trajectory Segments Optimization Visualization Integration Batch Library Aid in Problem Set-Up Control Algorithms Distributed Processing Trajectory Solution Feedback Engine Models Automated Copernicus Runs “Real” Trajectory Insights Production Data Output Johnson Space Center 16 Copernicus: Interactive 3D Graphics High resolution 3D graphics provide continuous feedback when using Copernicus to solve an optimization problem. Johnson Space Center Start of Problem Solution Johnson Space Center User Adjustment Johnson Space Center 19 Iteration Process Johnson Space Center 20 Converged Solution Johnson Space Center 21 Trajectory Design Features Copernicus provides enough design features to allow the user to create a myriad of trajectories of varying level of complexity. • Mission Segments • Impulsive Maneuvers • Integrators/Propagators • Lambert Targeting • Optimal Control Theory • State Parameterizations • Parameter Optimization • Maneuver • Numerical Differentiation Parameterizations • Ephemerides • Gravity Assists • Reference
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Overview of Mars Vicinity Transportation Concepts for a Human Mars Mission
    An Overview of Mars Vicinity Transportation Concepts for a Human Mars Mission Carol E. Dexter NASA/MSFC Exploration Transportation Office Larry Kos NASA/MSFC Preliminary Design Office/Mission Analysis Team Abstract To send a piloted mission to Mars, transportation systems must be developed for the Earth to Orbit, trans Mars injection (TMI), capture into Mars orbit, Mars descent, surface stay, Mars ascent, trans Earth injection (TEI), and Earth return phases. This paper presents a brief overview of the transportation systems for the Human Mars Mission (HMM) only in the vicinity of Mars. This includes: capture into Mars orbit, Mars descent, surface stay, and Mars ascent. Development of feasible mission scenarios now is important for identification of critical technology areas that must be developed to support future human missions. Although there is no funded human Mars mission today, architecture studies are focusing on missions traveling to Mars between 2011 and the early 2020's. Introduction For several years engineers and scientists at NASA have been developing mission scenarios for sending humans to Mars and returning them safely to Earth. The HMM has evolved as analyses have been completed and updated. The design reference mission (DRM) :'2 describes the baseline mission architecture at a given time, it is not intended to be a final or recommended mission scenario. As development of the HMM continues, the DRM and various mission architecture options or design reference points (DRPs) are refined and updated. Several locations are included in the DRPs: Mars, the Moon, and asteroids. At this time, only the Mars DRP has been evaluated in any detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Domi Inter Astra
    Team members Alice Sueko Müller | Anshoo Mehra | Chaitnya Chopra | Ekaterina Seltikova Isabel Alonso Serrano | James Xie | Jay Kamdar | Julie Pradel | Kunal Kulkarni Matej Poliaček | Myles Harris | Nitya Jagadam | Richal Abhang | Ruvimbo Samanga | Sagarika Rao Valluri Sanket Kalambe | Sejal Budholiya | Selene Cannelli Space Generation Advisory Council Team 1 Contents Society and Culture 3 Tourist Attractions 3 Astronaut and Tourist Selection 3 Architecture 4 Module 1: Greenhouse, Guest Amenities, Medicine, and Environmental Control 5 Module 2: Social Space and Greenhouse 5 Module 3: Kitchen, Fitness, Hygiene, and Social 6 Module 3: Sky-view 6 Module 4: Crew Bedrooms and Private Social Space 6 Module 5: Workspace 6 Management and Politics 7 Governance, Ownership, and Intellectual Property 7 Crew Operations 7 Base Management System 8 Safety & Emergency Planning 8 Engineering 9 Landing & Settlement Site 9 Settlement Structure 10 Robotics and Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) 10 Construction Timeline 11 Communications System 12 Critical Life Support (Air & Water) Systems 12 Thermal System 13 Food & Human Waste Recycling 14 Other Waste 14 Technical Floor Plan 14 Power Generation & Storage 14 Economy 16 Capital & Operating Costs 16 Revenue Generation 17 Tourism & Outreach 17 Commercial Activities 18 Lunar Manufacturing 18 References 20 ntariksha, aptly meaning ‘the universe’ in to be a giant leap for all the young girls around the Sanskrit, is an avid stargazer fascinated world, and she knew something incredible is waiting by the blanket of splurging stars she saw to be known. from her village in North East India. To- day, her joy knew no bounds upon learn- “Each civilization must become space-faring or ex- ingA that she would get a chance to visit Domi Inter tinct”.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Horizon Report
    Volume I · SUMMARY AND SUPPORTING CONSIDERATIONS UNITED STATES · ARMY CRD/I ( S) Proposal t c• Establish a Lunar Outpost (C) Chief of Ordnance ·cRD 20 Mar 1 95 9 1. (U) Reference letter to Chief of Ordnance from Chief of Research and Devel opment, subject as above. 2. (C) Subsequent t o approval by t he Chief of Staff of reference, repre­ sentatives of the Army Ballistic ~tissiles Agency indicat e d that supplementar y guidance would· be r equired concerning the scope of the preliminary investigation s pecified in the reference. In particular these r epresentatives requested guidance concerning the source of funds required to conduct the investigation. 3. (S) I envision expeditious development o! the proposal to establish a lunar outpost to be of critical innportance t o the p. S . Army of the future. This eva luation i s appar ently shar ed by the Chief of Staff in view of his expeditious a pproval and enthusiastic endorsement of initiation of the study. Therefore, the detail to be covered by the investigation and the subs equent plan should be as com­ plete a s is feas ible in the tin1e limits a llowed and within the funds currently a vailable within t he office of t he Chief of Ordnance. I n this time of limited budget , additional monies are unavailable. Current. programs have been scrutinized r igidly and identifiable "fat'' trimmed awa y. Thus high study costs are prohibitive at this time , 4. (C) I leave it to your discretion t o determine the source and the amount of money to be devoted to this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Template for Two-Page Abstracts in Word 97 (PC)
    SAMPLE CURATION AT A LUNAR OUTPOST. C. C. Allen 1, G. E. Lofgren1, A. H. Treiman2, and M. L. Lindstrom3 1NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 USA [email protected] [email protected] 2Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX 77058 USA [email protected] 3NASA Headquarters, Washing- ton, DC 20546 USA [email protected] Introduction: The six Apollo surface missions re- particularly iron-rich pyroclastic glass and ilmenite- turned 2,196 individual rock and soil samples, with a bearing material. Ice-rich deposits have been pre- total mass of 381.6 kg [1]. Samples were collected dicted in permanently-shadowed locations, and the based on visual examination by the astronauts and con- verification of such deposits is an import goal for lunar sultation with geologists in the science “back room” in exploration. Other volatiles, derived from volcanic Houston. The samples were photographed during col- emissions or implanted by the solar wind, may also lection, packaged in uniquely-identified containers, prove valuable resources. and transported to the Lunar Module. All samples Lunar Outpost Curation Studies: Concepts for collected on the Moon were returned to Earth. the collection of samples at lunar outposts were stud- NASA’s upcoming return to the Moon will be dif- ied intensively in the years following Apollo. The ferent. Astronauts will have extended stays at an out- 1988 “Geoscience at a Lunar Base” workshop [2] care- post and will collect more samples than they will re- fully considered the curation and analysis of samples turn. They will need curation and analysis facilities on on the Moon’s surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Shuttle Chronology Spacecalc
    CBS News/Spaceflight Now STS Flight History by Launch Date 7/20/06 Space Shuttle Chronology SpaceCalc Space Shuttle DD HH MM SS Flights Notes Challenger 062 07 56 22 10 MET based on main gear Columbia 300 17 40 22 28 touchdown. Compiled from Discovery 268 15 29 30 32 news reports, NASA files. Atlantis 219 21 27 17 26 Endeavour 206 14 12 17 19 Compiled by William Harwood Program Total 1058 04 45 48 115 CBS News/Spaceflight Now OV # STS DD HH MM SS Launch Mission Description 102 N/A 01 00 00 00 00 02/28/81 Flight readiness firing 102 01 01 02 06 20 53 04/12/81 First shuttle flight 102 02 02 02 06 13 11 11/12/81 Fuel cell failure; MDM flight 102 03 03 08 00 04 46 03/22/82 White Sands, N.M., landing 102 04 04 07 01 09 31 06/27/82 Final shuttle test flight 102 05 05 05 02 14 26 11/11/82 1st STS satellites launched 99 N/A 06 00 00 00 00 12/18/82 Flight Readiness Firing 99 N/A 06 00 00 00 00 01/25/83 FRF-2 99 06 06 05 00 23 42 04/04/83 TDRS-1; 1st STS spacewalk 99 07 07 06 02 23 59 06/18/83 Three comsats 99 08 08 06 01 08 43 08/30/83 Insat, CFES 102 09 09 10 07 47 24 11/28/83 First Spacelab flight 99 10 41B 07 23 15 55 02/02/84 2 comsats lost; MMU EVA 99 11 41C 06 23 40 07 04/06/84 Solar Max repair; MMU EVA 103 N/A 41D 00 00 00 00 06/02/84 Flight readiness firing 103 N/A 41D 00 00 00 00 06/26/84 RSLS abort 103 12 41D 06 00 56 04 08/30/84 SBS, Syncom, Telstar 99 13 41G 08 05 23 38 10/05/84 ERBS; 1st female EVA 103 14 51A 07 23 44 56 11/07/84 Westar, Palapa retrieval 103 15 51C 03 01 33 23 01/24/85 DOD (Magnum?) 103 16 51D 06 23 55 23 04/12/85
    [Show full text]
  • Extending NASA™S Exploration Systems Architecture Towards Long
    SpaceOps 2006 Conference AIAA 2006-5746 Extending NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture towards Long - term Crewed Moon and Mars Operations Wilfried K. Hofstetter *, Paul D. Wooster †, Edward F. Crawley ‡ Massac husetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue , Cambridge, MA, 02139 This pape r presents a baseline strategy for extending lunar crew transportation system operations as outlined in NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) report towards longer -stay lunar surface operations and conjunction class Mars missions. The analys is of options for commonality between initial lunar sortie operations and later Moon and Mars exploration missions is essential for reducing life -cycle cost and pr oviding low - investment / high -return options for extending exploration capabilities soon afte r the 7 th human lunar landing . The analysis is also intended to inform the development of the human lunar lander and other exploration system elements by identifying enabling requirements for extension of the lunar crew tr ansportation system. The baseline strategy outlined in this paper was generated using a three -step process : the analysis of exploration objectives and scenarios, identification of functional and operational extension options , and the conceptual design of a set of preferred extension option s. Extension options include (but are not limited to) the use of the human lunar lander as outpost for extended stays, and Mars crew transportation using evolved Crew Exploration Vehicle ( CEV ) and human lander crew compartments. Although t he results presen ted in this paper are based on the ES AS elements , the conclusions drawn in this paper are generally applicable provided the same l unar transportation mode (lunar orbit rendezvous) is used .
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Lunar Architecture
    4. Lunar Architecture 4.1 Summary and Recommendations As defined by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), the lunar architecture is a combination of the lunar “mission mode,” the assignment of functionality to flight elements, and the definition of the activities to be performed on the lunar surface. The trade space for the lunar “mission mode,” or approach to performing the crewed lunar missions, was limited to the cislunar space and Earth-orbital staging locations, the lunar surface activities duration and location, and the lunar abort/return strategies. The lunar mission mode analysis is detailed in Section 4.2, Lunar Mission Mode. Surface activities, including those performed on sortie- and outpost-duration missions, are detailed in Section 4.3, Lunar Surface Activities, along with a discussion of the deployment of the outpost itself. The mission mode analysis was built around a matrix of lunar- and Earth-staging nodes. Lunar-staging locations initially considered included the Earth-Moon L1 libration point, Low Lunar Orbit (LLO), and the lunar surface. Earth-orbital staging locations considered included due-east Low Earth Orbits (LEOs), higher-inclination International Space Station (ISS) orbits, and raised apogee High Earth Orbits (HEOs). Cases that lack staging nodes (i.e., “direct” missions) in space and at Earth were also considered. This study addressed lunar surface duration and location variables (including latitude, longi- tude, and surface stay-time) and made an effort to preserve the option for full global landing site access. Abort strategies were also considered from the lunar vicinity. “Anytime return” from the lunar surface is a desirable option that was analyzed along with options for orbital and surface loiter.
    [Show full text]
  • Lunar Architecture Analysis
    Lunar Architecture Analysis Ed Crawley Massachusetts Institute of Technology February 25 th , 2009 Thanks to: Bruce Cameron, Theo Seher, Bill Simmons, Arthur Guest, Wilfried Hofstetter , Ryan Boas USCC Programmatic Workshop on NASA LSS Concepts © Ed Crawley Motivation for a Great Architecture • Architecture is design at the system level • We have before us the design of an unprecedented system to explore the solar system • The system must meet the differing and changing needs of many stakeholders • The system must be flexible, easily integrated, and have life-cycle affordability QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. • This is what sustainable and well architected systems do! USCC Programmatic Workshop on NASA LSS Concepts © Ed Crawley System Architecture • Architecture • The allocation of physical/informational function to elements of form , and definition of relationships* among the elements. Cost $$$ • Consists of: Form • Function • Related by Concept • To Form Benefit Function Concept • Establishes value equation * often, but not always defined by interfaces USCC Programmatic Workshop on NASA LSS Concepts © Ed Crawley Why is System Architecture Important? • Primary link between benefit and cost! • High leverage on an organization’s activities • Selection consumes a relatively small portion of an organization’s efforts, yet decision dictates majority of work. • Architecting can provide: • Cross project commonality and extensibility • Good interface control • Creative new solutions • Source
    [Show full text]
  • Lunar Outpost the Challenges of Establishing a Human Settlement on the Moon Erik Seedhouse Lunar Outpost the Challenges of Establishing a Human Settlement on the Moon
    Lunar Outpost The Challenges of Establishing a Human Settlement on the Moon Erik Seedhouse Lunar Outpost The Challenges of Establishing a Human Settlement on the Moon Published in association with Praxis Publishing Chichester, UK Dr Erik Seedhouse, F.B.I.S., As.M.A. Milton Ontario Canada SPRINGER±PRAXIS BOOKS IN SPACE EXPLORATION SUBJECT ADVISORY EDITOR: John Mason, M.Sc., B.Sc., Ph.D. ISBN 978-0-387-09746-6 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York Springer is part of Springer-Science + Business Media (springer.com) Library of Congress Control Number: 2008934751 Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers. # Praxis Publishing Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2009 Printed in Germany The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speci®c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Cover design: Jim Wilkie Project management: Originator Publishing Services, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK Printed on acid-free paper Contents Preface ............................................. xiii Acknowledgments ...................................... xvii About the author....................................... xix List of ®gures ........................................ xxi List of tables ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Functionality Lunar Habitation Element
    Minimum Functionality Lunar Habitation Element by The University of Maryland Space Systems Laboratory Dr. David L. Akin Massimiliano Di Capua Adam D. Mirvis Omar W. Medina William Cannan Kevin Davis July 2009 ABSTRACT Title: MINIMUM FUNCTIONALITY LUNAR HABITATION ELEMENT Dr. David L. Akin, Massimiliano Di Capua, Adam D. Mirvis, Omar W. Medina, William Cannan, Kevin Davis University of Maryland - Space Systems Laboratory February 2009 NASA’s vision for the future of space exploration includes the establishment of a permanent human presence on the Moon through the Constellation program. Under the auspices of the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, the University of Mary- land Space Systems Laboratory has investigated, through literature reviews, a survey, and rigorous statistical methods, the definition of Minimal Functionality Habitation Element for medium duration lunar missions. By deploying a survey and making use of the Analyt- ical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) methods, the study team determined a list of functions and their relative importance, as well as their impact on systems design/implementation. Based on the past literature and the survey results, four habitat concepts were proposed, focusing on interior space layout and prelim- inary systems sizing. Those concepts were then evaluated for habitability through virtual reality (VR) techniques and merged into a single design. Trade studies were conducted and the final design was defined. A full-scale functional mockup of the final concept was also implemented to enable more realistic human factors studies and to validate the VR techniques used previously. This study was funded by the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD).
    [Show full text]
  • Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989–1998) 3–51
    databk7_collected.book Page 370 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM 370 Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989–1998) (Continued) Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew Major Payloads 73 STS-74/Atlantis November 12, 1995 – CDR: Kenneth D. Cameron NASA Payload Deployed: None November 20, 1995 PLT: James D. Halsell, Jr. Second Shuttle-Mir docking MS: Chris A. Hadfield, Jerry L. Ross, William S. McArthur, Jr. 74 STS-72/Endeavour January 11, 1996 – CDR: Brian Duffy NASA Payload Deployed and Retrieved: DATABOOKNASA HISTORICAL January 20, 1996 PLT: Brent W. Jett, Jr. SPARTAN-OAST Flyer MS: Leroy Chiao, Retrieved Japanese Space Flyer Unit Winston E. Scott, Koichi Wakata, Daniel T. Barry 75 STS-75/Columbia February 22, 1996 – CDR: Andrew M. Allen NASA-Italian Space Agency Payload March 9, 1996 PLT: Scott J. Horowitz Deployed: Tethered Satellite System MS: Jeffrey A. Hoffman, (TSS)-1R Maurizio Cheli, Carried USMP-3 Claude Nicollier PC: Franklin R. Chang-Diaz PS: Umberto Guidoni 76 STS-76/Atlantis March 22, 1996 – CDR: Kevin P. Chilton NASA Payload Deployed: None March 31, 1996 PLT: Richard A. Searfoss Third Shuttle-Mir docking MS: Ronald M. Sega, Michael R. Carried SPACEHAB Single Module Clifford, Linda M. Godwin, Shannon W. Lucid (to Mir) 77 STS-77/Endeavour May 19, 1996 – CDR: John H. Casper NASA Payload Deployed and Retrieved: May 29, 1996 PLT: Curtis L. Brown, Jr. SPARTAN-207 carrying Inflatable MS: Andrew S.W. Thomas, Antenna Experiment Daniel W. Bursch, Mario Runco, Jr., Carried SPACEHAB research module Marc Garneau databk7_collected.book Page 371 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Table 3–51.
    [Show full text]