ALBERT

Description: Introduction: A pair of small pressurized rovers (Space Exploration Vehicles, or SEVs) is at the center of the Global Point-of-Departure architecture for future human planetary exploration. Simultaneous operation of multiple crewed surface assets should maximize productive crew time, minimize overhead, and preserve contingency return paths. Methods: A 14-day mission simulation was conducted in the Arizona desert as part of NASA?s 2010 Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS). The simulation involved two SEV concept vehicles performing geological exploration under varied operational modes affecting both the extent to which the SEVs must maintain real-time communications with mission control ("Continuous" vs. "Twice-a-Day") and their proximity to each other ("Lead-and-Follow" vs. "Divide-and-Conquer"). As part of a minimalist lunar architecture, no communications relay satellites were assumed. Two-person crews consisting of an astronaut and a field geologist operated each SEV, day and night, throughout the entire 14-day mission, only leaving via the suit ports to perform simulated extravehicular activities. Standard metrics enabled quantification of the habitability and usability of all aspects of the SEV concept vehicles throughout the mission, as well as comparison of the extent to which the operating modes affected crew productivity and performance. Practically significant differences in the relevant metrics were prospectively defined for the testing of all hypotheses. Results and Discussion: Data showed a significant 14% increase in available science time (AST) during Lead-and-Follow mode compared with Divide-and-Conquer, primarily because of the minimal overhead required to maintain communications during Lead-and-Follow. In Lead-and-Follow mode, there was a non-significant 2% increase in AST during Twice-a-Day vs. Continuous communications. Situational awareness of the other vehicle?s location, activities, and contingency return constraints were enhanced during Lead-and-Follow and Twice-a-Day communications modes due to line-of-sight and direct SEV-to-SEV communication. Preliminary analysis of Scientific Data Quality and Observation Quality metrics showed no significant differences between modes.

Description: This study developed, analyzed, and compared mission architectures for human exploration of Mars' Moons within the context of an Evolvable Mars Campaign. METHODS: All trades assumed conjunction class missions to Phobos (approximately 500 days in Mars system) as it was considered the driving case for the transportation architecture. All architectures assumed that the Mars Transit Habitat would remain in a High Mars Orbit with crewmembers transferring between HMO and Phobos in a small crew taxi vehicle. A reference science / exploration program was developed including performance of a standard set of tasks at 55 locations on the Phobos surface. Detailed EVA timelines were developed using realistic flight rules to accomplish the reference science tasks using exploration systems ranging from jetpacks to multi-person pressurized excursion vehicles combined with Phobos surface and orbital (L1, L4/L5, 20km Distant Retrograde Orbit) habitat options. Detailed models of propellant mass, crew time, science productivity, radiation exposure, systems and consumables masses, and other figures of merit were integrated to enable quantitative comparison of different architectural options. Options for pre-staging assets using solar electric propulsion (SEP) vs. delivering all systems with the crew were also evaluated. Seven discrete mission architectures were evaluated. RESULTS: The driving consideration for habitat location (Phobos surface vs. orbital) was radiation exposure, with an estimated reduction in cumulative mission radiation exposure of up to 34% (vs. Mars orbital mission) when the habitat is located on the Phobos surface, compared with only 3-6% reduction for a habitat in a 20km DRO. The exploration utility of lightweight unpressurized excursion vehicles was limited by the need to remain within 20 minutes of Solar Particle Event radiation protection combined with complex GN&C systems required by the non-intuitive and highly-variable gravitational environment. Two-person pressurized excursion vehicles as well as mobile surface habitats offer significant exploration capability and operational benefits compared with unpressurized EVA mobility systems at the cost of increased system and propellant mass. Mechanical surface translation modes (i.e. hopping) were modeled and offer potentially significant propellant savings and the possibility of extended exploration operations between crewed missions. Options for extending the utilization of the crew taxi vehicle were examined, including use as an exploration asset for Phobos surface exploration (when combined with an alternate mobility system) and as an EVA platform, both on Phobos and for contingency EVA on the Mars Transit Habitat. CONCLUSIONS: Human exploration of Phobos offers a scientifically meaningful first step towards human Mars surface missions that develops and validates transportation, habitation, and exploration systems and operations in advance of the Mars landing systems.

Description: The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3.

Description: Phobos is a scientifically significant destination that would facilitate the development and operation of the human Mars transportation infrastructure, unmanned cargo delivery systems and other Mars surface systems. In addition to developing systems relevant to Mars surface missions, Phobos offers engineering, operational, and public engagement opportunities that could enhance subsequent Mars surface operations. These opportunities include the use of low latency teleoperations to control Mars surface assets associated with exploration science, human landingsite selection and infrastructure development which may include in situ resource utilization (ISRU) to provide liquid oxygen for the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). A human mission to Mars' moons would be preceded by a cargo predeploy of a surface habitat and a pressurized excursion vehicle (PEV) to Mars orbit. Once in Mars orbit, the habitat and PEV would spiral to Phobos using solar electric propulsion based systems, with the habitat descending to the surface and the PEV remaining in orbit. When a crewed mission is launched to Phobos, it would include the remaining systems to support the crew during the EarthMars transit and to reach Phobos after insertion in to Mars orbit. The crew would taxi from Mars orbit to Phobos to join with the predeployed systems in a spacecraft that is based on a MAV, dock with and transfer to the PEV in Phobos orbit, and descend in the PEV to the surface habitat. A static Phobos surface habitat was chosen as a baseline architecture, in combination with the PEV that was used to descend from orbit as the main exploration vehicle. The habitat would, however, have limited capability to relocate on the surface to shorten excursion distances required by the PEV during exploration and to provide rescue capability should the PEV become disabled. To supplement exploration capabilities of the PEV, the surface habitat would utilize deployable EVA support structures that allow astronauts to work from portable foot restraints or body restrain tethers in the vicinity of the habitat. Prototype structures were tested as part of NEEMO 20. PEVs would contain closed loop guidance and provide life support and consumables for two crew for 2 weeks plus reserves. The PEV has a cabin that uses the exploration atmosphere of 8.2 psi with 34% oxygen, enabling use of suit ports for rapid EVA with minimal oxygen prebreathe as well as dust control by keeping the suits outside the pressurized volume. When equipped with outriggers and control moment gyros, the PEV enables EVA tasks of up to 8 pounds of force application without the need to anchor. Tasks with higher force requirements can be performed with PEV propulsion providing the necessary thrust to react forces. Exploration of Phobos builds heavily from the developments of the cislunar proving ground, and significantly reduces Mars surface risk by facilitating the development and testing of habitats, MAVs, and pressurized rover cabins that are all Mars surface forward. A robotic precursor mission to Phobos and Deimos is also under consideration and would need to launch in 2022 to support a 2031 human Phobos mission.

Description: Center of gravity (CG) is likely to be an important variable in astronaut performance during partial gravity extravehicular activity (EVA). The Apollo Lunar EVA experience revealed challenges with suit stability and control. The EVA Physiology, Systems and Performance Project (EPSP) in conjunction with the Constellation EVA Systems Project Office have developed plans to systematically understand the role of suit weight, CG and suit pressure on astronaut performance in partial gravity environments. This presentation based upon CG studies seeks to understand the impact of varied CG on human performance in lunar gravity.