Search

Sample return missions offer a greater science yield when compared to missions that only employ in situ experiments or remote sensing observations, since they allow the application of more complex technological and analytical methodologies in controlled terrestrial laboratories,that are both repeatable and can be independently verified. The successful return of extraterrestrial materials over the last four decades has contributed to our understanding of the solar system, but retrieval techniques have largely depended on the use of either soft-landing, or touch-and-go procedures that result in high V requirements, larger spacecraft mass ratios, and return yields typically limited to a few grams of surface materials that have experienced varying degrees of alteration from space weathering. Hard-landing methods using planetary penetrators offer an alternative for sample return that significantly reduce a mission's V and mass ratios,increase sample yields, and allow for the collection of subsurface materials, and lessons can be drawn from previous sample return missions. The following details progress in the design,development, and testing of penetrator/sampler technology capable of surviving subsonic and low, supersonic impact velocities (<700 m/s) that would enable the collection of geologic materials using tether technology to return the sample to a passing spacecraft. The testing of energy absorbing material for protecting the sample, design evolution and field testing of the penetrator, and dynamic modeling of tether behavior during sampling are discussed. It is shown through both modeling and field testing that penetrators at speeds between 300-600 m/s (~Mach 1-2) can penetrator into the ground to depths of 1-2 m with overall structural integrity attained.The first flight tests demonstrated the potential for survivability at these speeds. The second flight series demonstrated core sample collection with partial ejection of the sample return canister. The 3rd flight series demonstrated self-ejection of the sample return system fully intact and with the core retaining the full stratigraphy of the rock bed. The tether analysis shows that the forces on the tether during release and return of the sample to the main spacecraft are all at levels that can easily be handled by existing tether materials. The mass analysis of the requirements indicates that sample return form the asteroids could be handled with Discovery or New Frontier range of missions dependent on the number of samples to be returned to the Earth.

We propose an innovative approach to outer planet exploration using the Synergistic Multipayload Assistance with Rotating Tethers (SMART) concept invented by Gerald David Nordley. The basic concept can be implemented in many different ways to accomplish many different types of planetary missions, especially missions to the outer planets. Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.

The objectives of this study were as follows: 1) to measure human energy expenditure (EE) during spaceflight on a shuttle mission by using the doubly labeled water (DLW) method; 2) to determine whether the astronauts were in negative energy balance during spaceflight; 3) to use the comparison of change in body fat as measured by the intake DLW EE, 18O dilution, and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) to validate the DLW method for spaceflight; and 4) to compare EE during spaceflight against that found with bed rest. Two experiments were conducted: a flight experiment (n = 4) on the 16-day 1996 life and microgravity sciences shuttle mission and a 6 degrees head-down tilt bed rest study with controlled dietary intake (n = 8). The bed rest study was designed to simulate the flight experiment and included exercise. Two EE determinations were done before flight (bed rest), during flight (bed rest), and after flight (recovery). Energy intake and N balance were monitored for the entire period. Results were that body weight, water, fat, and energy balance were unchanged with bed rest. For the flight experiment, decreases in weight (2.6 +/- 0.4 kg, P < 0.05) and N retention (-2. 37 +/- 0.45 g N/day, P < 0.05) were found. Dietary intake for the four astronauts was reduced in flight (3,025 +/- 180 vs. 1,943 +/- 179 kcal/day, P < 0.05). EE in flight was 3,320 +/- 155 kcal/day, resulting in a negative energy balance of 1,355 +/- 80 kcal/day (-15. 7 +/- 1.0 kcal. kg-1. day-1, P < 0.05). This corresponded to a loss of 2.1 +/- 0.4 kg body fat, which was within experimental error of the fat loss determined by 18O dilution (-1.4 +/- 0.5 kg) and DEXA (-2.4 +/- 0.4 kg). All three methods showed no change in body fat with bed rest. In conclusion, 1) the DLW method for measuring EE during spaceflight is valid, 2) the astronauts were in severe negative energy balance and oxidized body fat, and 3) in-flight energy (E) requirements can be predicted from the equation: E = 1.40 x resting metabolic rate + exercise.