Astronauts and Robots 2015: Mike Gernhardt, NASA
Download as pptx, pdf2 likes2,000 views
The document discusses NASA's plans for human exploration of Phobos, one of Mars' moons, detailing mission architecture, scientific objectives, and operational considerations. It highlights the potential benefits of exploring Phobos and Deimos as precursors to Mars surface operations, including reduced radiation exposure and extensive scientific insights. The document outlines proposed mission concepts, EVA timelines, and habitat designs tailored for the unique conditions on Phobos.
![19
HAT Task
7C:
Moons of
Mars
Crew/ Duration
@ Phobos
2 crew /
50 days
4 crew /
50 days
4 crew / 500
days [1000 d]
4 crew / 500
days [1000 d]
2 crew / 50
days
4 crew / 500
days [1000 d]
Pre-Staged to
Phobos
Nothing
-PEV+RCS Sled
-Log. Modules
-PEV + RCS sled
-Habitat
-PEV + RCS Sled
-Habitat
Nothing
- Mobile Hab
(incl. prop)
Pre-Staged
Mass (kg)
- 11,021kg
33,536 kg
[45,246 kg]
31,893 - 37,383
[40,509 - 46,098]
-
32,000 kg
[43,943kg]
Launched to
HMO
-PEV Taxi+SM
-Log Modules
-PEV Taxi + SM - PEV-Taxi + SM - PEV-Taxi + SM
-Minimal Taxi
/ Lander + SM
-Log Modules
-Minimal Taxi +
SM
Mass to HMO 35,703 kg 25,305 kg 25,305 kg 25,305 kg 24,303 kg 13,579 kg
% Science Sites
achieved
100% 100% 100% [200%] 100% [200%] 20% 100% [200%]
Radiation Dose
vs. HMO-only
97% 97% 94-96% 66-80% 97% 66-80%
Phobos-
specific
elements
RCS Sled,
optional
Hopper
RCS Sled,
optional
Hopper
RCS Sled,
optional
Hopper
Hab landing legs,
RCS Sled,
optional Hopper
-
Hab landing
legs
Surface HabDRO Habitat
2x PEV
(1 as Taxi)
+
2x PEV
(1 as Taxi)
+
1x PEV
Log Modules
2x PEV
(1 as Taxi)
Minimal
Taxi / Lander
Minimal Taxi
+
Mobile Hab](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/astronauts-robots2015-05-12-1515gernhardt-150603032457-lva1-app6892/85/Astronauts-and-Robots-2015-Mike-Gernhardt-NASA-19-320.jpg)
Astronauts and Robots 2015: Mike Gernhardt, NASA
- 1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Exploration of Phobos Mike Gernhardt PhD. Nasa JSC
- 2. Human Spaceflight Architecture Mars Moons Team • Paul Abell • Andrew Abercromby • Charles Allton • Paul Bielski • Dan Brit • Steve Chappell • Bryan Cloyd • David Coan • Zack Crues • Dan Dexter • Mike Gernhardt • Bill Harris • A. Scott Howe • Steve Hoffman • Sharon Jefferies • Dina Poncia • David Reeves • Mike Wright • Michelle Rucker • Greg Schmidt • Bill Todd • Pat Troutman • Matt Simon • Larry Toups • James Johnson • Dave Lee • Pascal Lee • Harry Litaker • Stan Love • Mark Lupisella • Dan Mazanek • Natalie Mary • Fay McKinney • Gabe Merrill • Nathan Moore • Rob Mueller • Tom Percy • Tara Polsgrove • Jason Poffenberger
- 3. Phobos/Deimos Human Missions Phobos 27x22x18 km Deimos 15x12x10 km Human Architecture Team Task 7C: Mars Moons
- 4. Mars Moons - Introduction • Mars’ moons are interesting scientifically and potentially offer engineering, operational, and public engagement benefits that could enhance subsequent mars surface operations o Mars moons interesting in themselves and would also likely provide insights into the evolution of Mars o Multiple scientific benefits: 1) Moons of Mars, 2) possibly captured asteroids 3) likely contains Mars surface materials 4) likely collection of materials from asteroid belt 5) near-zero latency tele-operation of Mars surface assets o Potentially an affordable and productive first-step towards eventual Mars surface operations • Provides significant radiation protection • Phobos and Deimos are both interesting exploration destinations o With current imagery, we know Phobos is interesting because of craters and fissures etc. It is also the driving transportation case and therefore the focus of this study o We are formulating a precursor mission that would look at both moons
- 5. Maximum Vertical Jump – 650 lb. Suited Crew (crew + suit + jetpack) Apollo 16 – John Young’s Jump Salute Weight on Phobos lbf Crewmember in a Suit 0.3 SEV (6,000 kg) 7.7 Habitat (15,000 kg) 19.2 Lander (50,000 kg) 63.9 Time of Flight Moon 2.5 sec. Phobos 11.7 min. Deimos 22.2 min. 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1.2 350.9 666.7 VerticalHeight(m) Maximum Vertical Jump w/ 2 m/s Take-Off Velocity 5
- 6. Mars Moons Trade Tree Based on Campaign Team & Transportation Team Recommendations & Discussions Destinations Phobos Only Deimos Only Phobos + Deimos Mars Moon Habitat Phobos / Deimos Surface Static Relocatable Phobos Parking Orbit L1 L4 / L5 DRO Pre-Staged Assets None Mars Moon Habitat Mars Moon Habitat + PEV(s) Transportation Loitering Hab Dual Hab Conjunction Class Direct to Phobos Earth ↔ Mars Transit Stack in HMO Free-Return Trajectory Work- systems Jetpacks SEV-class Unpressurized Excursion Vehicle Pressurized Excursion Vehicle Mars Lander Class 6
- 7. Radiation Exposure Cumulative exposure calculated using Phase 1 methodology • i.e. Oltaris exposure estimates adjusted for occlusion of sky due to Mars and Phobos (incl. 10o crater rim for surface missions) Total radiation dose reduced by up to 34% for Phobos surface Hab
- 8. Updated Regions of Interest on Phobos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 These are examples of areas of interest on Phobos for investigation: 1) Floor of Stickney Crater 2) Side wall of Stickney Crater 3) Far rim of Stickney Crater 4) Overturn of Stickney Crater and grooves 5) Overlap of yellow and white units 6) Overlap of red and white units with grooves 7) Opposite rim of Stickney and start of grooves 8) Brown outlined unit and “mid-point” of grooves 9) “End point” of grooves 10)“Young” fresh crater 11)“Deep” groove structure Very likely in reality that some of these sites (i.e., inside Stickney crater) may have to be expanded to cover larger areas to obtain the desired science.
- 9. Phobos Exploration EVA Timeline Analysis F1 F2 H1 • For analysis purposes, utilize DRAFT science “regions” of interest defined by scientists (1-11) • Defined 1-km diameter “sites” in each region • Traverses would explore “sites” in each region by performing activities at 5 smaller “subsites” (~15 m radius) within each “site” • Standard circuit at each “subsite” consists of a standard series of tasks, e.g. 2 float samples, 1 soil, 1 core, 1 hammer chip, and an instrument deploy task. • 11 near field survey ( 1km dia each) and 55 standard circuits including drill deploys • 16 detailed EVA Timelines developed (i.e. standard circuit, near- field survey, drill deploy, etc.) for 4 different Ops Cons / work- system combinations S1 C1 Standard Circuit at Subsite Legend • F = float • H = hammer chip • S = soil • C = core • I = instr. deploy I 15 m 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 500 m SITE SUBSITE
- 11. Work-System Concepts Unpressurized Excursion Vehicle Jetpacks (+ Mobile Payload Carrier) Pressurized Excursion Vehicle 11
- 12. Low Energy Escapes from the Surface of Phobos Dots along trajectories indicate 1 hour marks out to 6 hours. The dashed segments then extend out to 1 day. 12
- 13. Contingency Return Estimates • Assume return to radiation shelter required within 20 minutes (CxP requirement) – Green indicates < 20 mins • Estimates assume uniform Phobos gravitational effects and neglect curvature of Phobos • Assumes 0.1 ms-2 max acceleration / deceleration Never reach max allowable speed 13
- 14. PEV Options • SEV-class vehicle with RCS Sled & Hopper • SEV-class vehicle with RCS sled only • SEV-based taxi/lander • MAV derived SEV/HAL- Derived SEV + RCS Sled SEV + RCS Sled + Hopper MAV-Derived Taxi/Lander (horizontal) MAV-Derived Taxi/ Lander (vertical)
- 15. PEV based EVA on Phobos 15 Zack Crues/ER7, Guy de Carufel/OSR, Dan Dexter/ER7 August 20, 2014
- 17. 17 Core Cabin Begin with cabin design for Mars surface and then work backwards to Mars moons, ARM, etc Expl. Atmos. Validation HAL-Taxi-PEV-MAV-SPR Standard Interface ECLSS Mars Transit Vehicle Habitat Dust Tolerance & Mitigation EVA Systems Common Cabin Approach with Standard Interfaces
- 18. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 18NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution Integrated Phobos Model Combines the following data: • Copernicus estimates of Delta-V for DRO ↔ Surface and Surface ↔ Surface gross translations (Dave Lee) • NExSys estimates of Delta-V for 5m to 500m surface translations (Zack Crues, Dan Dexter & NExSys team) • Logistics estimates (Kandyce Goodliff’s calculator) • Habitat estimates (Matt Simon, David Reeves) • Detailed EVA timelines (Steve Chappell) • HMO ↔ Phobos service module estimates (based on data from Tara Polsgrove) • Identified regions of scientific interest (Paul Abell) Generates mission-level estimates and comparisons of 70+ figures of merit including system masses, logistics, crew time, EVA time, EVA overhead, EVA productivity, and propellant
- 19. 19 HAT Task 7C: Moons of Mars Crew/ Duration @ Phobos 2 crew / 50 days 4 crew / 50 days 4 crew / 500 days [1000 d] 4 crew / 500 days [1000 d] 2 crew / 50 days 4 crew / 500 days [1000 d] Pre-Staged to Phobos Nothing -PEV+RCS Sled -Log. Modules -PEV + RCS sled -Habitat -PEV + RCS Sled -Habitat Nothing - Mobile Hab (incl. prop) Pre-Staged Mass (kg) - 11,021kg 33,536 kg [45,246 kg] 31,893 - 37,383 [40,509 - 46,098] - 32,000 kg [43,943kg] Launched to HMO -PEV Taxi+SM -Log Modules -PEV Taxi + SM - PEV-Taxi + SM - PEV-Taxi + SM -Minimal Taxi / Lander + SM -Log Modules -Minimal Taxi + SM Mass to HMO 35,703 kg 25,305 kg 25,305 kg 25,305 kg 24,303 kg 13,579 kg % Science Sites achieved 100% 100% 100% [200%] 100% [200%] 20% 100% [200%] Radiation Dose vs. HMO-only 97% 97% 94-96% 66-80% 97% 66-80% Phobos- specific elements RCS Sled, optional Hopper RCS Sled, optional Hopper RCS Sled, optional Hopper Hab landing legs, RCS Sled, optional Hopper - Hab landing legs Surface HabDRO Habitat 2x PEV (1 as Taxi) + 2x PEV (1 as Taxi) + 1x PEV Log Modules 2x PEV (1 as Taxi) Minimal Taxi / Lander Minimal Taxi + Mobile Hab
- 20. 20 20 Phobos Mission Mass (deltas to Mars Orbital Mission)
- 21. 21 21 How Long to Complete “Reference Science Content”? (From Phase 1 analysis, 100% = Standard EVA task circuit completed at 11 regions x 5 sites per region) Cases 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, & 2.7 Case 2.6
- 22. Phobos Hopper ATHLETE (6 Limbs) MMSEV cabin ATHLETE-derived limbs Ratchet spring for capturing landing energy Ball joint footpad with passive spring for leveling Pros: - Existing technology - Footpads can be swapped for wheels or other implements for Mars surface use Cons: - Landing strain on ATHLETE joints - Six limbs good for walking, but maybe not necessary for hopper ATHLETE-derived leg MEL (kg) qty Hip yaw 20.8 1 20.80 Hip pitch 24.4 1 24.40 Lower thigh 4.6 1 4.60 Knee pitch 16.4 1 16.40 Knee roll 13.8 1 13.80 Shin 1.8 1 1.80 Ankle pitch 11.2 1 11.20 Ankle roll 13.6 1 13.60 FT sensor 10 1 10.00 Footpad cylinder 55 1 55.00 Footpad shaft 3.6 1 3.60 Footpad spring 2 1 2.00 Footpad 23 1 23.00 Avionics 43.3 1 43.33 Total / leg 243.53 Total suspension system 6 1461.20
- 23. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 23NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution
- 24. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 24NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution
- 25. Mars Moons Task Conceptual Design • Conceptual design of a mobile surface habitat – Close on concept(s) for mobile Phobos surface habitat; consider cis- lunar, transit, and Mars surface commonality as much as possible – Include propulsion and legs for landing and for gross and local mobility once on surface ? ATHLETE ARM-Derived Fixed Legs
- 26. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mobile Surface Hab Exploration Assumptions • Assumes a mobile habitat / vehicle that uses thrusters for gross repositioning • Options for thrusters and/or “walking legs” to move to subsites within a site Standard Circuit at Subsite Legend • F = float • H = hammer chip • S = soil • C = core • I = instr. deploy 500 m SITE F1 F2 H1 S1 C1 I 15 m 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBSITE
- 27. Surface Hab Descent Motor Cutoff at Altitude to Minimize Surface Plume Contamination • During descent, the Surface Hab can terminate propulsive thrusting at a maximum altitude of 95 to 155 m to minimize surface plume contamination – Low gravity levels on Phobos allow acceptable touchdown velocities • Thrust vector during approach may be at an oblique angle to the surface, further minimizing contamination Kinematic analysis of landing gear motion yields touchdown velocity limit of about 1.08 m/s NExSyS simulation of Free-Fall in Phobos gravity yields max engine cutoff altitude of 95 to 155 m depending on location (~4.6 mins)
- 28. Airlock (with 14.7 psi / 21% O2) • Airlock: – ISLE Prebreathe Protocol: 3h 39 min – Airlock Egress: 5 min – Jetpack Donning & Checkout: ~15 min – Jetpack Doffing & Configuration for Recharge: ~15 min – Suit cleaning & verification: minimum 20 min – Airlock Ingress: 10 min Total Overhead: 4h 44 min • Work Efficiency Index: 1.37 (assumes 6.5 hr EVA)
- 29. Suit Port (with Exploration Atmosphere): Suit Port Egress: 20 min Jetpack Donning & Checkout: ~15 min Jetpack Doffing & Config for Recharge: ~15 min Suit Cleaning: 5 min Suitport Ingress:10 min Total Overhead: 1h 5 min Work Efficiency Index: 6.0 (assumes 6.5 hr EVA) • Suit Port Egress • Don Suit: 8 min • Close/lock hatch: 1 min • Mode to PRESS (6.0 PSI): 0.5 min • Leak check in suit: 2 min • Purge: 2 min • Mode to EVA (6 PSI): 0.5 min • Start prebreathe clock • Vestibule depress to 3.5 PSI: 1 min • Leak Check: 1 min • Vestibule depress to 0 PSI: 1 min • Release from Suit Port: 1 min • Suit Port Ingress: • Engage Suit Port (red) • Vestibule press to 8.0 PSI • Leak Check 1 min • Vestibule-Cabin press equalization • Vestibule-Cabin-Suit equalization • Open PLSS lock • Open hatch (blue) • Close PLSS lock • Egress suit
- 30. EVA Crew can work from PFR and/or BRT
- 31. Reconfigurable booms increase radius of influence from surface habitat
- 32. EVA Jetpacks increase range up to ~1 km at expense of worksite stabilization
- 33. Page No. 33 Pre-decisional, For Internal Use Only • NEEMO 20 will investigate the concept of having a deployable structure on a Phobos Habitat. • This device would allow for translation and body-stabilized activities off a Phobos habitat providing access to a wide area to study from a single landing site on Phobos, which is a body with milligravity.
- 34. [email protected]@nasa.gov / LLT Sequence Summary 34 LLT Sequence Approx. Duration w/ LOS (days) Approx. Duration w/ comm relay (days) Latency Sensitivity 1. Landing Site Recon & Hazard Assessment 119 91 2 2. Offloading 18 7 3 3. Power Cable Deploy w/o trenching & burying 5 5 1 4. Power Cable Deploy with trenching & burying 138 53 4 5. O2 Production 2 2 2 6. MAV Fuel 3 1.5 2 TOTAL without burying power cable 147 107 * TOTAL w burying power cable 280 155 ** * Indicates ~ 28% less time for LLT ops if continuous comm available – e.g. comm relay(s). ** Indicates cable burying time could be reduced almost by half if continuous comm is available. Existing timelines provide on the order of 180 days in a 450day mission available for LLT NASA Pre-Decisional – Internal Use Only – Do Not Distribute
- 35. RRM Coolant Valve Panel (CVP): ~100 hours, ~800 pages of procedures, ~10,000+ commands excluding video support. • Does not include MT/SSRMS/SPDM pre-setup or post relocation. • Checked out 3 tools (SCT, MFT, WCT) • Using Multi Function Tool(MFT) released the 7 MFT adapter receptacle launch locks • Using the Wire Cutting Tool(WCT) cut T-Valve wire and Ambient Cap wire • T-Valve removed using MFT and T-Valve Adapter • Ambient Cap removed using MFT and Ambient Cap Adapter • Plug manipulated using MFT and Plug Manipulator Adapter Refueling Ops: ~80 hours, ~600 pages, ~7,500 commands • Tertiary Cap safety wire cut and Safety Cap safety wire cut using WCT • Tertiary Cap removed using MFT and Tertiary Cap Adapter • Safety Cap removed using SCT • Plumb valve acquired and actuated using ENT • Refueling ops completed
- 36. Evolvability of Phobos Systems from Cis-Lunar Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Cryogenic Propulsion Stage(CPS) Orion + Service Module Taxi (shown as HAL/PEV-derived) Phobos Exploration Vehicle (PEV) (shown w/ RCS sled) Phobos Surface Habitat w/ Landing System Suit Ports w/ Exploration Atmospheres Items evolvable from Cis-Lunar shown in green
- 37. Evolvability of Phobos Systems to Mars Surface Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Cryogenic Propulsion Stage(CPS) Orion + Service Module Taxi (shown as HAL/PEV-derived) Phobos Exploration Vehicle (PEV) (shown w/ RCS sled) Phobos Surface Habitat w/ Landing System Suit Ports w/ Exploration Atmospheres Items not Mars-forward are shown in red
- 38. Systems Needed for Mars Surface (Systems needed for Phobos in Green) Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Cryogenic Propulsion Stage(CPS) Orion + Service Module HAL Small Pressurized Rover (SPR) Surface Habitat SLS Suit Ports w/ Exploration Atmospheres Aeroshell MAV Lander UPR Robotic Rover ISRU Nuclear Power Logistics Modules Offloading Systems Power Cable Systems Exploration EVA Suits
- 39. Affordability • Phobos is a step in the direction of Mars surface – Develops the transportation and operations infrastructure – All of the Phobos systems are Mars surface forward except phobos surface mobility systems • Assuming that SLS, Orion and exploration suits are sunk costs, then Phobos requires: – 7 additional developments: SEP, DSH, CPS, SEV cabin (or equivalent), phobos mobility system, suit ports, hab landing gear ( probably from ARM) – Phobos draws heavily from the Cis Lunar ARM mission ( SEP, suit ports, microgravity geology, landing legs etc.) • Mars surface builds heavily on Phobos investment but requires: – 9 Mars surface specific developments in addition to the Phobos investments: aero shell, MAV, surface habitat, lander, SPR chassis/UPR, ISRU, nuclear power, offloading systems, power cable management system, robotic rover. – Many of these are expensive low TRL developments i.e. MAV, Lander, Aero shell, Nuclear power etc. • Within a Evolvable Mars Campaign that starts with ARM and Cislunar infrastructure, Phobos is viable human target that is a sensible and relatively affordable step to Mars surface. – provides meaningful science return – Enhances and possibly enables the Human Mars surface mission via low latency telerobotics
- 41. Robotic Precursor Missions for Phobos and Deimos Stan Love,Paul Abell, Mike Gernhardt David Lee, Andrew Abercromby, Steve Chappell, Bill Harris, Scott Howe, and Brian Wilcox Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos
- 42. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Rationale “A human mission to the Phobos/Deimos surface would require a precursor mission that would land on one or both moons.” -- Finding #2 of the Precursor Strategy Analysis Group
- 43. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Objectives 1.Characterize the gravitational field ( for GNC, traverse planning, consumable estimates) 2.Identify regions of scientific interest and hazards 3.Characterize the soil mechanics for analysis of hopper efficiency and dust environment. 4.Identify and characterize any useful materials that could be used for in situ resource utilization. 5.To the extent possible incorporate assets that have residual value to the human mission
- 44. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Strategic Knowledge Gap (P-SAG, 2012) Relevant Measurements (Murchie et al, 2014) A3‐1. Orbital particulate environment Particle size‐frequency and distribution of dust belts C1‐1. Surface composition and potential for ISRU (C, H) Elemental composition, including C and H Mineral composition, including hydrous phases Global spectral imaging, or elemental abundance mapping, for geological context C2‐1. Charged particle environment Near‐surface total dose and energy measurements C2‐2. Gravitational fields Overall mass and mass distributions/concentrations from radio science Global shape through stereo imaging and/or lidar measurements C2‐3. Regolith geotechnical properties Thickness and rock abundance from imaging and/or radar Particle size distribution, μm to cm scale structure Regolith mechanical properties experiment
- 45. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Science Questions 1. What is the composition of both moons? 2. What are their origins? Are they related to Mars? 3. Are Phobos and Deimos related to each other? And if so how? 4. How have these bodies evolved over time? 5. What are the internal structures of Phobos and Deimos?
- 46. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Which Moon? Phobos and Deimos are equally interesting from a science perspective. There's no compelling reason to prefer one or the other for close study. Phobos offers more area (1500 km2) to explore, plus scientifically interesting linear grooves, some spectrally diverse terrains, and a large crater (Stickney). Deimos is smaller (500 km2), but less well studied which increases its priority for reconnaissance. Both moons have the potential to contain material from Mars in their regoliths. Given only what we know to date, Phobos would be the preferred target from an exploration perspective. Note that with additional information on both moons, this situation could change.
- 47. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Remote Sensing (Measurements made from orbit) Radio science is needed to measure the moon's mass, mass distribution, and gravity field for trajectory planning. No dedicated instrument needed; these measurements come for "free" by analyzing the spacecraft's downlink signal. A laser altimeter is needed to precisely measure the moon's shape and add range data that helps with radio science measurements. TRL 9, moderate power, low data rate. A telescopic imaging camera is needed to map the entire moon at sub-meter resolution and photograph selected areas of interest at sub-centimeter resolution. TRL 9, moderate power, high data rate.
- 48. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Remote Sensing (Continued) A visible and near-infrared (0.4-3.0 mm) imaging spectrograph is needed to produce a global map of mineral composition variations at a resolution of tens of meters, and maps of selected areas of interest at meter resolution. TRL 9, moderate power, high data rate. A thermal infrared imager is desired to measure heat flow, thermal inertia, and grain size distributions at a resolution of tens of meters.TRL 9, low power, moderate data rate. A gamma-ray and neutron detector is desired to measure atomic composition at a resolution of hundreds of meters. TRL 9, low power, low data rate. A magnetometer and a Langmuir probe would be nice to map the magnetic properties and plasma field of the moon. TRL 9, low power, low data rate.
- 49. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Remote Sensing (Continued) A ground-penetrating radar would be nice to measure the depth of the regolith and to map the moon's internal structure. TRL 7, high power, high data rate.
- 50. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos In-Situ Investigations (Measurements made after landing) A penetrometer is needed to measure the compressive strength of the regolith under loads of a few pounds. TRL 7, very low power, low data rate. A motion-imagery camera is needed to observe the penetrometer tests, recording imagery before, during, and after contact. Its resolution should be less than 1 mm. TRL 9, low power, high data rate. A dust-adhesion witness plate and camera are needed to characterize any dust raised by surface contact and thruster firings. This experiment could use the same camera as the penetrometer. TRL 9, low power, high data rate. A microimager is needed to assess the sizes and shapes of dust particles, and thus their threat to human health. TRL 9, low power, moderate data rate.
- 51. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos In-Situ Investigations (Continued) An alpha-proton-X-ray, X-ray fluorescence, Mössbauer, or Raman spectrometer is needed to precisely measure the atomic and mineral composition of surface materials. TRL 8-9, low to moderate power, low data rate. A temperature probe would be nice to pinpoint the thermal properties of the regolith. TRL 9, very low power, very low data rate.
- 52. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 52NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos DRAFT Technical Data for Notional Remote Sensing Instruments Type Dimensions Mass Power Heritage (cm) (kg) (W) Laser altimeter* 28x17x12 12.6 34 LOLA on LRO + 45x51x36 Telescopic imager* 70x26x27 16.4 9.3 LROC on LRO Vis-IR imaging spectrograph* 30x30x30 10.3 6.3 Ralph on New Horizons Thermal IR imager* 10x20x30 4.5 4.4 Alice on New Horizons Gamma-neutron detector* 46x46x44 26.3 13 LEND on LRO Magnetometer 10x10x20 3.3 2.3 SWAP on New Horizons Langmuir probe 5x10x20 1.5 2.5 PEPSSI on New Horizons Ground-penetrating radar 400x400x100 41.4 108 RADAR on Cassini *Note that we should be able to leverage instruments from other small body missions such as Dawn, Hayabusa 1 & 2, and OSIRIS REx missions.
- 53. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 53NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos DRAFT Technical Data for Notional In Situ Instruments Type Dimensions Mass Power Heritage (cm) (kg) (W) Penetrometer 15x15x20 2.4 est. 1 Deep Space 2 Motion-imagery camera 10x10x10 est. 1 est. 5 MAHLI on MSL Dust-adhesion witness plate 1x20x20 est. 1 0 --- Micro-imager 10x10x10 est. 1 est. 5 MAHLI on MSL Alpha Particle X-ray detector 15x15x10 est. 1.5 est. 3 APXS on Mars Pathfinder Temperature probe est. 10x10x30 est. 3 est. 1 --- MINERVA rover 12x12x10 0.6 2 Hayabusa 1 & 2 (MIcro/Nano Experimental Robot Vehicle for Asteroid) 3 CCD cameras, 6 thermometers, 6 photodiodes MASCOT rover 29x20x28 10.8 20 Hayabusa 2 (Mobile Asteroid Surface Scout) MicroOmega – near-infrared imaging spectrometer/microscope MARA – radiometer MAG – magnetometer CAM – wide angle camera
- 54. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Orbiters or Landers? Option 1. All-in-one spacecraft that surveys the moon from orbit, then touches down in one or more places for in-situ investigations. Option 2. Separate orbiter and lander. Option 3. Orbiter plus a number of small landers or hoppers. Other possibilities? Good question.
- 55. miniATHLETE Hopper Auger Anchor Stowed Solar cells (also on bottom) 165W capacity total each side Stereo cameras Limb with auger anchor stowed 1.0m (39”)
- 56. miniATHLETE Hopper Auger Anchor Deployed Solar cells (also on bottom) Stereo cameras symmetrical 4 DOF leg with identical motors, planetaries, and CSF20 harmonics
- 57. miniATHLETE Hopper Stowed Solar cells (also on bottom) 165W capacity total each side Stereo cameras Limb stowed 1.0m (39”)
- 58. miniATHLETE Hopper Deployed Solar cells (also on bottom) Stereo cameras symmetrical 4 DOF leg with identical motors, planetaries, and CSF20 harmonics
- 59. miniATHLETE Hopper Deployed Symmetrical limbs Solar cells (also on bottom) Stereo cameras symmetrical Hip-yaw Thigh Knee-roll Spring mechanism Foot pod
- 60. • Precursor mission requires extensive HEO/SMD coordination during Project formulation Phase • Phobos operation duration to be based upon statistically acceptable data Human mission design formulation requires definitive measurement of Martian / Phobos environment Continued Precursor operations based upon Human mission design needs Phobos Precursor Mission
- 61. 3-Burn Sequence at Mars Arrival Phobos’ Orbit Approach Direction Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI) / Periapsis Plane Change and Raise Periapsis Phobos Orbit Insertion
- 62. Earth-Phobos Transfer Opportunities: Optimized for Arrival 3-Burn Vs Optimized for TMI
- 63. ELV Injection Mass Capability as a Function of V- Infinity Falcon 9 v1.1 Atlas V 501 Atlas V 551 Atlas V 431 Atlas V 401 Data from NASA Launch Services Program Launch Vehicle Performance Website.
- 64. Example 3-Burn Sequence to Both Phobos and Deimos with Common Capture Maneuver (Burn 1)
- 65. Results/Conclusion • Performance requirements depend on which opportunities are selected • Very preliminary “All Opportunites” performance numbers might be roughly: – 4 km/s TMI V-infinity – 1.8 km/s Arrival 3-burn sequence – Should be taken as “ballpark” numbers • Current capability ELVs can inject over 4000 kg to 4 km/s V-infinity • Arrival 3-Burn sequence will require from 38% to 46% of initial vehicle mass in propellant – Assuming single stage and storable bipropellant or LOX/methane – A separate Capture stage or aerobraking may also be options • Sending probes to Phobos and Deimos on the same launch appears feasible from a trajectory standpoint. 3-burn sequences with common capture maneuvers have been modelled.
- 66. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Backup
- 67. Surface Hab Descent Motor Cutoff at Altitude to Minimize Surface Plume Contamination • During descent, the Surface Hab can terminate propulsive thrusting at a maximum altitude of 95 to 155 m to minimize surface plume contamination – Low gravity levels on Phobos allow acceptable touchdown velocities • Thrust vector during approach may be at an oblique angle to the surface, further minimizing contamination Kinematic analysis of landing gear motion yields touchdown velocity limit of about 1.08 m/s NExSyS simulation of Free-Fall in Phobos gravity yields max engine cutoff altitude of 95 to 155 m depending on location (~4.6 mins)
- 68. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Modular Phobos Habitat Trade Options Matthew Simon - LaRC 6/3/2015 68
- 69. Modular Phobos Habitat Trade Options Monolithic Pre-deployed Phobos Surface Habitat • 1 PEV (contingency EVA) and 2 PEV (No EVA) cases • 100, 250, 500, 500+500 day cases 69 Core Module Habitation Module(s) PEV PEV Monolithic Habitat PEV PEV Modular Phobos Surface Habitat: Core Module + Habitable Module +2 PEVs • Contingency EVA and no EVA cases • 100, 250, 500, 500+500 day cases PEV + ECLSS Module + Habitation Module • Water reclamation, filtration, and O2 Generation + access space ~ 1 m3) + inflatable module or core module structure derived module • EVA and suit maintenance from PEV • 100, 250, 500 day cases 2 Tuna Can Modular Case (in work) • Aim for <20 ton chunks • Maximize diameter use for launch vehicle utilization < 20 T Half-Habitat PEV PEV < 20 T Half-Habitat Habitation Module(s) PEV ECL SS
- 70. Phobos Habitat Baseline Assumptions BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS Structure and Mechanisms Power Metallic, cylindrical habitat: max 7.2 m diameter ~XX kWe end of life power provided by SEP 0.3 m for port extrusions, attachments, structure 120 V DC power management (92% efficient) Min.2.5 m barrel length for reasonable ceiling height PEVs provide own power ~25 m3/person habitable volume (BHP Expert Consensus 14) 3 Li-ion batteries (200 W-hr/kg) ~XX kW-hr storage Secondary structure 2.46 km/m2 of habitat surf area Environmental Control and Life Support Composite ringframes (~ 600 kg savings for 7.2 m diameter over metals) Scaled ISS level ECLSS (100% air, ~85% water) hardware for 380 days Launch integration 2% of habitat gross mass 10% mass for advanced diagnostics and maintainability Four 0.5 m diameter windows 30 days open loop contingency consumables 1 exterior hatch for airlock cases Crew Equipment & Accommodations 2 docking mechanisms, 2 docking tunnels Standard suite for 180-360 day deep-space Atmospheric pressure = 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi) Assume freezer for missions longer than 1-year Avionics Crew items, sink (spigot), freezer, microwave, Provide CC&DH, GN&C, communications washer, dryer, 2 vacuums, laptop, trash compactor, Power sized using NASA-RM-4992 (fixed at 180 days) printer, hand tools, test equipment, ergometer, Thermal Control photography, exercise, treadmill External fluid loop using Ammonia Logistics Internal fluid loop using 60% prop glycol/water Sized based upon ISS usage rates for N days + 30 days contingency Xx kW heat rejection using ISS-type radiators Each PEV delivered with 1 week’s provisions 20 layers multi-layer insulation Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) Maintenance and Spares 600 kg 6 m3 internal airlock, 1.5m x 1 m dedicated EVA hatch Sized using Monte Carlo simulation engine (EMAT) 2 person EVAs using shuttle-class internal airlock Reserves 2 spare per suit for every suit component Margin Growth Allowance: 20% of basic mass 1 EVA per 30 days (contingency) Project Manager’s Reserve: 10% of basic mass Utilization Protection 500 kg (1.8 m3) unallocated science payload MMOD protection 130 kg (2.34 m3) Valkyrie style IVA robot No additional radiation protection beyond logistics 70
- 71. Monolithic Cases PEVs Option Mass, kg Volume, m3 Diameter, m Length, m 1 Monolithic, 100, Contingency EVA* 19,820 137.7 7.20 4.13 Monolithic, 250, Contingency EVA 22,942 152.2 7.20 4.49 Monolithic, 500, Contingency EVA 28,261 176.9 7.20 5.09 Monolithic, 500+500, Contingency EVA 36,877 220.2 7.20 6.16 2 Monolithic, 100, No EVA* 16,817 120.8 6.90 3.95 Monolithic, 250, No EVA 20,084 135.3 7.20 4.07 Monolithic, 500, No EVA 25,393 160.0 7.20 4.68 Monolithic, 500+500, No EVA 34,009 203.4 7.20 5.74 71 * Overall 100 day estimates are likely overly conservative • Partially Closed ECLSS may be non-optimal for mission durations under 6 months in length. • Spares mass, may be greatly conservative for 100 days using regression • Maintenance mass conservatively held at 250 days value • Habitable volume maintained at long duration level since functionality hasn’t really changed 25-28T for 500 day Monolithic
- 72. Core + Habitable Cases New Assumptions Functionality Split: Core Module: • Add docking mechanism and docking tunnel to baseline assumptions (3 and 2) (1 active ~350 kg, 1 passive~120 kg) • No crew quarters • Supports Habitation/Logistics module in battery power • ECLSS supports both core and habitation modules • Independent thermal rejection system • Avionics power sized using NASA-RM-4992 (fixed at 180 days) Habitable Module: • 2 docking mechanisms (all passive), 2 docking tunnels, 1 external hatches without docking mechanism if EVA is included) • Removed all avionics since a second set is included in spares estimates on Core module (revisit assumption and location of avionics later) • Removed Batteries • Storage for all logistics and spares • Leveraged PEVs for crew quarters (only if PEV is located below habitat) • Independent thermal rejection system 72 Core Module Habitable Module • ECLSS and fluid storage • Thermal • Power (PMAD and storage) • Galley • Hygiene • Avionics • ECLSS (distribution) • Thermal • Power (PMAD) • Meeting areas • Crew Quarters • Exercise • Medical • Utilization • Spares • EVA
- 73. Modular Core + Habitable Modules Cases (2 PEV) EVA Strategy Option Mass, kg Volume, m3 Diameter, m Length, m Contingency EVA Core Module, 100 days, Contingency EVA* 8,048 41.8 4.42 3.18 Habitable Module, 100 days, Contingency EVA* 13,661 87.7 6.04 3.69 Core Module, 250 days, Contingency EVA 8,889 43.3 4.49 3.20 Habitable Module, 250 days, Contingency EVA 16,262 101.1 6.41 3.80 Core Module, 500 days, Contingency EVA 9,663 44.6 4.55 3.22 Habitable Module, 500 days, Contingency EVA 21,220 124.8 6.99 3.98 Core Module, 500+500 days, Contingency EVA 9,802 44.6 4.55 3.22 Habitable Module, 500+500 days, Contingency EVA 29,796 168.2 7.20 4.88 No EVA Core Module, 100 days, No EVA* 8,025 41.8 4.42 3.18 Habitable Module, 100 days, No EVA* 11,275 81.7 5.87 3.63 Core Module, 250 days, No EVA 8,866 43.3 4.49 3.20 Habitable Module, 250 days, No EVA 13,959 95.1 6.25 3.75 Core Module, 500 days, No EVA 9,639 44.6 4.55 3.22 Habitable Module, 500 days, No EVA 18,918 118.8 6.85 3.94 Core Module, 500+500 days, No EVA 9,779 44.6 4.55 3.22 Habitable Module, 500+500 days, No EVA 27,564 162.1 7.20 4.73 73 * Overall 100 day estimates are likely overly conservative • Partially Closed ECLSS may be non-optimal for mission durations under 6 months in length. • Spares mass, may be greatly conservative for 100 days using regression • Maintenance mass conservatively held at 250 days value • Habitable volume maintained at long duration level since functionality hasn’t really changed 28-31T for 500 day Core + Habitation Module
- 74. ECLSS Module + 2 PEVs + Habitable Module Cases New Assumptions Functionality Split: ECLSS Module • 1 docking mechanism/suitport • 1m3 habitable volume • ECLSS supports both PEVs and habitation modules • Independent thermal rejection system • Assumes no Sabatier system available Habitation/Logistics Module: • 2 docking mechanisms (all passive), 2 docking tunnels, • Included Avionics since PEV avionics will probably be insufficient for stack control and comm • Added Batteries • Storage for all logistics and spares • Leveraged PEVs for crew quarters (only if PEV is located below habitat) • Independent thermal rejection system 74 ECLSS Module Habitable Module • Partially Closed Loop Water • O2 Generation • Water and O2 storage • Thermal including minimal air circulation • Power (PMAD) • Avionics • ECLSS (distribution) • Thermal • Power (PMAD and Storage) • Meeting areas • Exercise • Medical • Utilization • Spares PEV • Partially closed CO2 Removal • Fire Detection, Suppression • Thermal • Power (PMAD and Storage) • Hygiene • Crew Quarters • EVA and Suit Maintenance
- 75. ECLSS Module + Habitable Module Cases (2 PEV) Option Mass, kg Volume, m3 Diameter, m Length, m ECLSS Module, 100 day, No EVA 3,863 7.2 3.54 1.10 Habitable Module, 100 day, No EVA 13,640 114.2 6.74 3.90 ECLSS Module, 250 day, No EVA 4,611 8.7 3.77 1.18 Habitable Module, 250 day, No EVA 16,235 127.6 7.05 4.00 ECLSS Module, 500 day, No EVA 5,261 10.0 3.94 1.23 Habitable Module, 500 day, No EVA 20,996 151.3 7.20 4.47 75 * Assumes CO2 Removal contingency backups and resupply masses are carried by PEV (Spares are carried by Habitable Module) * ECLSS Module + 2 PEVs + Habitable module are required for full habitation capability (functionality semi-tradeable at shorter duration) * Overall 100 day estimates are likely overly conservative • Partially Closed ECLSS may be non-optimal for mission durations under 6 months in length. • Spares mass, may be greatly conservative for 100 days using regression • Maintenance mass conservatively held at 250 days value • Habitable volume maintained at long duration level since functionality hasn’t really changed 26T for 500 day Habitation Module + ECLSS Module
- 76. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 76NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution Comparison of Habitation Options (excluding PEV masses) 100 days 250 days 500 days 500 + 500 days Monolithic (1 PEV) 19820 22942 28261 36877 Monolithic (2 PEVs) 16817 20084 25393 34009 Core + Habitation (2 PEVs) 21709 25151 30883 39598 Habitation Mod. + ECLSS Mod. (2 PEVs) 17503 20846 26257 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Mass(kg) excludingPEVs
- 77. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 77NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution Comparison of Habitation Options (including PEV masses) 100 days 250 days 500 days 500 + 500 days Monolithic (1 PEV) 26320 29442 34761 43377 Monolithic (2 PEVs) 29817 33084 38393 47009 Core + Habitation (2 PEVs) 34709 38151 43883 52598 Habitation Mod. + ECLSS Mod. (2 PEVs) 30503 33846 39257 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Mass(kg) includingPEVs
- 78. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 78NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution Pre-Deployed Mass Comparison of Habitation Options (including Pre-Deployed PEV masses) 100 days 250 days 500 days 500 + 500 days Monolithic (1 PEV) 19820 22942 28261 36877 Monolithic (2 PEVs) 23317 26584 31893 40509 Core + Habitation (2 PEVs) 28209 31651 37383 46098 Habitation Mod. + ECLSS Mod. (2 PEVs) 24003 27346 32757 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 Pre-DeployedMass(kg) 1 PEV pre-staged with these cases
- 79. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 79NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution Habitation Findings Monolithic habitats are most mass efficient: • 25T for Monolithic (500 days, No EVA) • 26T for ECLSS Module + Habitation Module - Largely closes ECLSS for whichever vehicle it is attached to - Flexibility to add capability after initial simpler semi-closed ECLSS for shorter duration missions - Saves ~5lb water/p/day does not pay for itself until > 250-400 day missions • 28T for Core Module + Habitation Module: gives options for mission appropriate sizing - Does not optimize launch packaging Minimizing core results in very small module which doesn’t fully utilize diameter of launch vehicle or provide a similar size as other modules in the architecture • Future Work: Trade a fixed volume, 2-module case which allocates functionality to arrive at roughly equal Core and Habitable Module masses and sizes (2 Tuna Cans) ECLSS Module estimates are approximate but appear comparable to Monolithic options • Should not introduce significant operational complexity but will add some weight vs. fully- integrating with other ECLSS • Benefit to decoupling logistics from habitation, particularly if habitat is to be resupplied and/or mission durations are variable or uncertain • Future work: Refine mass and volume estimates, packaging, interfaces, and further evaluate architectural, engineering, and operational implications including possibility of dual ECLSS modules
- 80. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 80NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution Habitation Findings With 27T Mars surface lander, smaller sizes provide options for landing systems on Mars with mobility For Mars surface ops, if hab is not mobile, presents challenges for docking with PEVs / crew transfer • Need mobile off-loading capability For steady-state Mars campaign, logistics resupply will be required, which may warrant an appropriately sized logistics module vs. sizing habs to incorporate 500 days of logistics • Volume estimates suggest possible commonality between ECLSS module, logistics module, rover cabin, lander cabin, MAV cabin, airlock, crew taxi cabin Could start a surface campaign with smaller, lower mass hab modules for shorter durations, then later deliver ECLSS module(s) and logistics module(s) to enable extended durations and increased redundancy
- 81. Human Spaceflight Architecture Team 81NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribution Straw Man Habitation Framework for Discussion Mars Transit Hab: • Hab module ~100m3 (optional ECLSS module) • Logistics module(s) as needed • Habitable Airlock (HAL); used for supplemental habitation and contingency EVA during transit phases (and also used at Phobos, as described below) Phobos Hab: • Hab module (same design as Mars Transit Hab module) • Logistics module(s) as needed (same design as Mars Transit Hab, optional ECLSS module) • HAL-Taxi from Mars Transit vehicle used with Service Module as crew taxi between HMO and Phobos - Can use HAL-taxi as habitable airlock for Phobos habitat - Option to include suitports and RCS sled to enable use as PEV for Phobos exploration Mars Surface: • Hab module (same design as above) • Logistics modules (same design) arrive with crew, right-sized for mission duration • ECLSS module(s) would make hab modules smaller and provide mass margin for mobility elements on early shorter duration missions, if desired • HAL-derived Pressurized Rovers
- 82. Exploration Assumptions & Concept Options • Combination of a mobile surface habitat with jetpacks and tethers to extend exploration range • Could be combined with other options (i.e. triangle booms) to provide further capability • Microspine and other anchoring technology for stabilization away from habitat JPL Microspine Anchoring Technology