ALBERT

Description: Having adopted a flexible path approach to space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is in a process of evaluating future targets for space exploration. In order to maintain the welfare of a crew during future missions, a suite of life support technology is responsible for oxygen and water generation, carbon dioxide control, the removal of trace concentrations of organic contaminants, processing and recovery of water, and the storage and reclamation of solid waste. For each particular life support subsystem, a variety competing technologies either exist or are under aggressive development efforts. Each individual technology has strengths and weaknesses with regard to launch mass, power and cooling requirements, volume of hardware and consumables, and crew time requirements for operation. However, from a system level perspective, the favorability of each life support architecture is better assessed when the sub-system technologies are analyzed in aggregate. In order to evaluate each specific life support system architecture, the measure of equivalent system mass (ESM) was employed to benchmark system favorability. Moreover, the results discussed herein will be from the context of loop-closure with respect to the air, water, and waste sub-systems. Specifically, closure relates to the amount of consumables mass that crosses the boundary of the vehicle over the lifetime of a mission. As will be demonstrated in this manuscript, the optimal level of loop closure is heavily dependent upon mission requirements such as duration and the level of extra- vehicular activity (EVA) performed. Sub-system level trades were also considered as a function of mission duration to assess when increased loop closure is practical. Although many additional factors will likely merit consideration in designing life support systems for future missions, the ESM results described herein provide a context for future architecture design decisions toward a flexible path program.

Description: This white paper documents a roadmap for development of Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) Systems (ECLSS) capabilities required to enable beyond-Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Exploration missions. In many cases, the execution of this Exploration-based roadmap will directly benefit International Space Station (ISS) operational capability by resolving known issues and/or improving overall system reliability. In addition, many of the resulting products will be applicable across multiple Exploration elements such as Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV), Deep Space Habitat (DSH), and Landers. Within the ECLS community, this white paper will be a unifying tool that will improve coordination of resources, common hardware, and technologies. It will help to align efforts to focus on the highest priority needs that will produce life support systems for future human exploration missions that will simply run in the background, requiring minimal crew interaction.

Description: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is in a process of evaluating future targets for space exploration. In order to maintain the welfare of a crew during future missions, a suite of life support technology is responsible for oxygen and water generation, carbon dioxide control, the removal of trace concentrations of organic contaminants, processing and recovery of water, and the storage and reclamation of solid waste. For each particular life support subsystem, a variety competing technologies either exist or are under aggressive development efforts. Each individual technology has strengths and weaknesses with regard to launch mass, power and cooling requirements, volume of hardware and consumables, and crew time requirements for operation. However, from a system level perspective, the favorability of each life support architecture is better assessed when the sub-system technologies are analyzed in aggregate. In order to evaluate each specific life support system architecture, the measure of equivalent system mass (ESM) was employed to benchmark system favorability. Moreover, the results discussed herein will be from the context of loop-closure with respect to the air, water, and waste sub-systems. Specifically, closure relates to the amount of consumables mass that crosses the boundary of the vehicle over the lifetime of a mission. As will be demonstrated in this manuscript, the optimal level of loop closure is heavily dependent upon mission requirements such as duration and the level of extra-vehicular activity (EVA) performed. Sub-system level trades were also considered as a function of mission duration to assess when increased loop closure is practical. Although many additional factors will likely merit consideration in designing life support systems for future missions, the ESM results described herein provide a context for future architecture design decisions toward a flexible path program.

Description: HEFT was a NASA-wide team that performed analyses of architectures for human exploration beyond LEO, evaluating technical, programmatic, and budgetary issues to support decisions at the highest level of the agency in HSF planning. HEFT Phase I (April - September, 2010) and Phase II (September - December, 2010) examined a broad set of Human Exploration of Near Earth Objects (NEOs) Design Reference Missions (DRMs), evaluating such factors as elements, performance, technologies, schedule, and cost. At end of HEFT Phase 1, an architecture concept known as DRM 4a represented the best available option for a full capability NEO mission. Within DRM4a, the habitation system was provided by Deep Space Habitat (DSH), Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV), and Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) pressurized elements. HEFT Phase 2 extended DRM4a, resulting in DRM4b. Scrubbed element-level functionality assumptions and mission Concepts of Operations. Habitation Team developed more detailed concepts of the DSH and the DSH/MMSEV/CTV Conops, including functionality and accommodations, mass & volume estimates, technology requirements, and DDT&E costs. DRM 5 represented an effort to reduce cost by scaling back on technologies and eliminating the need for the development of an MMSEV.

Description: The baseline Environmental Control and Life Support Systems which are currently deployed on the International Space Station or planned to be launched in Node 3 are based on technologies selected in the early 1990's. While they are generally meeting or exceeding requirements for supporting the ISS crew, lessons learned from years of on orbit and ground testing, new advances in technology state of the art, and requirements for future manned missions prompt consideration of the next logical step to enhance these systems to increase performance, robustness, reliability, and reduce on-orbit and logistical resource requirements. This paper discusses the current state of the art in ISS ECLSS technologies, and possible areas for enhancement/improvement. Potential utilization of the ISS as a testbed for on-orbit checkout of selected technology improvements is also addressed.