Search

We present a concept for a spacecraft that can controllably alter the trajectory of an Earth threatening asteroid using gravity as a towline. The spacecraft hovers near the asteroid with thrusters angled outward so the exhaust does not impinge on the surface. This deflection method is insensitive to the structure, surface properties, and rotation state of the asteroid., Comment: 4 pages, 1 figure - to be published in Nature

An apparatus, method, and system for controlling motion in six degrees of freedom is described. The apparatus includes a support structure, a first pedal and a second pedal. A first set of three independent articulating mechanisms is operatively connected to the support structure and the first pedal. The first set of three independent articulating mechanisms, in combination, enable motion of the first pedal in three control axes corresponding to three discrete degrees of freedom. A second set of three independent articulating mechanisms, operatively connected to the second pedal, enable motion, in combination, in three control axes corresponding to a discrete second set of three degrees of freedom. The apparatus may also include first and second sensors configured to detect the motion of the first and second pedals.

Rover trade study: As summarized recently, mission simulations at Black Point Lava Flow (Arizona) that included realistic extravehicular activity (EVA) tasking, accurate traverse timelines, and an in-loop science CAPCOM (or SciCOM) showed that a small pressurized rover (SPR) was a better mobility asset than an unpressurized rover (UPR). Traverses within the SPR were easier on crew than spending an entire day in a spacesuit, enhancing crew productivity at each station. The SPR, named Lunar Electric Rover (LER), and sometimes called the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), could also provide shelter during a suit malfunction, radiation event, or medical emergency that might occur on the Moon. Intravehicular activity (IVA) capabilities: From within the vehicle, crew could describe and photo-document distant features during drives between stations, as well as in the near-field, directly in front of the LER, providing an ability to begin EVA planning on approach to each outcrop prior to egress. The vehicle can rotate 360º without any lateral movement, providing views in all directions. It has high-visibility windows, a ForeCam, AftCam, port and starboard cameras, docking cameras, and a GigaPan camera. EVA capabilities: To reduce timeline, mass, and volumetric overhead, rapid egress and ingress were envisioned, replacing an airlock with lower cabin pressure than on the International Space Station and suit ports on the aft cabin wall [2]. When needed for closer inspection and sample collecting, crew could egress in about 10 minutes through suit ports. Crew use SuitCams for additional photo-documentation, transmit mobile observations verbally, and collect surface materials. Typical simulations involved 3 to 4 EVA stations/day and 2 to 3 hr/day of boots on the ground. This allowed crew to explore a far larger territory, with more complex geological and in situ resource utilization (ISRU) features, than would a single, longer-duration EVA at one location, while also minimizing crew time in a spacesuit. Additionally, the vehicle could be driven with crew locked into the suit ports. This approach could involve a driver in the cockpit with a suited crewmember in a suit port, or the vehicle could be driven from the aft deck with both crewmembers in their suit ports. This approach was used when distances between stops were short enough that vehicle ingress and egress were less efficient than remaining in the suits and driving. Utility of suit ports: The advantages of suit ports were clearly demonstrated in those field-based trade studies. To illustrate those advantages further, consider the consequences of a SPR without suit ports at the Apollo 17 landing site. At that site, the crew's second EVA was an approximately 18 km loop conducted in a UPR, called the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), in 7 hr 36 min 56 s. The traverse was composed of 5 formal stations, plus 8 additional LRV stations where crew made brief scientific stops. In a scenario involving a SPR without suit ports, crew would go EVA through an airlock and probably be limited to a single EVA per day. In that case, crew could drive the SPR ~9 km from the landing site to station 2, go EVA, and complete station 2 tasks. However, to conduct station 3 tasks, the crew would then need to walk approximately 3 km to station 3, while ground control in Houston tele-robotically drives the LER to station 3. A walk of approximately 3 km is possible, as that is what the Apollo 14 crew did before LRVs were deployed, but it is a lengthy and potentially grueling EVA. Assuming crew completes station 3 tasks, they would likely need to re-enter the SPR, ending the day's EVA, and return to the landing site. They would not be able to walk the additional distances to stations 4 and 5 (the latter being about 6 km from station 3). Thus, crew in an SPR without suit ports would require two days to accomplish the same tasks Apollo 17 crew completed in a single day. If a future crew is involved in long duration traverses on the lunar surface, the deployment of a vehicle with suit ports would probably be a better solution.

NASA is studying a "Proving Ground" near the Moon to conduct human space exploration missions in preparation for future flights to Mars. This paper describes a concept of operations ("conops") for activities in the Proving Ground, focusing on the construction and use of a mobile Cislunar Transit Habitat capable of months-long excursions within and beyond the Earth-Moon system. Key elements in the conops include the Orion spacecraft (with mission kits for docking and other specialized operations) and the Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket. Potential additions include commercial launch vehicles and logistics carriers, solar electric propulsion stages to move elements between different orbits and eventually take them on excursions to deep space, a node module with multiple docking ports, habitation and life support blocks, and international robotic and piloted lunar landers. The landers might include reusable ascent modules which could remain docked to in-space elements between lunar sorties. The architecture will include infrastructure for launch preparation, communication, mission control, and range safety. The conops describes "case studies" of notional missions chosen to guide the design of the architecture and its elements. One such mission is the delivery of a ~10-ton pressurized element, co-manifested with an Orion on a Block 1B Space Launch System rocket, to the Proving Ground. With a large solar electric propulsion stage, the architecture could enable a year-long mission to land humans on a near-Earth asteroid. In the last case, after returning to near-lunar space, two of the asteroid explorers could join two crewmembers freshly arrived from Earth for a Moon landing, helping to safely quantify the risk of landing deconditioned crews on Mars. The conops also discusses aborts and contingency operations. Early return to Earth may be difficult, especially during later Proving Ground missions. While adding risk, limited-abort conditions provide needed practice for Mars, from which early return is likely to be impossible.

Human exploration missions to the moons of Mars are being considered within NASA's Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC) as an intermediate step for eventual human exploration and pioneering of the surface of Mars. A range of mission architectures is being evaluated in which human crews would explore one or both moons for as little as 14 days or for as long as 500 days with a variety of orbital and surface habitation and mobility options being considered. Relatively little is known about the orbital, surface, or subsurface characteristics of either moon. This makes them interesting but challenging destinations for human exploration missions during which crewmembers must be able to effectively conduct scientific exploration without being exposed to undue risks due to radiation, dust, micrometeoroids, or other hazards. A robotic precursor mission to one or both moons will be required to provide data necessary for the design and operation of subsequent human systems and for the identification and prioritization of scientific exploration objectives. This paper identifies and discusses considerations for the design of such a precursor mission based on current human mission architectures. Objectives of a Mars' moon precursor in support of human missions are expected to include: 1) identifying hazards on the surface and the orbital environment at up to 50-km distant retrograde orbits; 2) collecting data on physical characteristics for planning of detailed human proximity and surface operations; 3) performing remote sensing and in situ science investigations to refine and focus future human scientific activities; and 4) prospecting for in situ resource utilization. These precursor objectives can be met through a combination or remote sensing (orbital) and in-situ (surface) measurements. Analysis of spacecraft downlink signals using radio science techniques would measure the moon's mass, mass distribution, and gravity field, which will be necessary to enable trajectory planning. Laser altimetry would precisely measure the moon's shape and improve the accuracy of radio science measurements. A telescopic imaging camera would map the moon at submeter resolution and photograph selected areas of interest at subcentimeter resolution and a visible and near-infrared (0.4-3.0 mm) imaging spectrograph would 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. Additional remote sensing capabilities could include a thermal infrared imager (heat flow, thermal inertia, and grain size distributions), a gamma-ray and neutron detector (atomic composition), a ground-penetrating radar (internal structure), and a magnetometer and Langmuir probe (magnetic properties and plasma field). Once on the surface of Phobos or Deimos, necessary instrumentation would include a penetrometer (regolith compressive strength), a motion-imagery camera (to observe the penetrometer tests before, during, and after contact), a dust-adhesion witness plate and camera (dust levitation), a microimager (dust particle sizes and shapes), and an alpha-proton-X-ray, X-ray fluorescence, Mossbauer, or Raman spectrometer (atomic and mineral composition of surface materials) and an optional temperature probe (regolith thermal properties). A variety of robotic mission design options to enable both orbital and surface measurements are being considered that include fully integrated and modular approaches. In-situ measurements from at least one surface location would be required, with additional measurement locations possible through use of multiple landers, through propulsive relocation of a single lander, or through electromechanical surface translation by a walking or hopping lander vehicle, which could also serve to evaluate such mobility capabilities for subsequent human missions. Preliminary orbital analysis suggests that remote sensing would likely be performed while in a distant retrograde orbit around the target moon. Mission design options to enable characterization of both Mars’ moons in a single mission are also being studied.

In an era of shrinking buying power and reduced flight opportunities, NASA must extract the greatest possible value from all sources of insight into the future of human space exploration. Antarctica is one such source. The history of Antarctic exploration has many political and technical parallels with the development of space, and Antarctica's remoteness and harsh climate make it an excellent proxy for space (e.g., [1,2]). Links between exploration of space and of the Antarctic date back to the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958, which saw both the launch of Sputnik 1 and the establishment of a station at the South Pole. The Antarctic Search for Meteorites (ANSMET) is an annual expedition to the south polar plateau to collect meteorites. Although its intent is not to simulate a space mission, the handful of astronauts who have participated in ANSMET agree that it is very similar to a long-duration space flight. Independently, NASA and other space agencies have simulated deep space exploration missions in "analog" activities at remote field sites on Earth (e.g., [3]). These include NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) [4,5], Desert Research And Technology Studies (Desert RATS) [6,7], and the Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP or simply Pavilion Lake) [8]. This report focuses on NEEMO, Desert RATS, and PLRP because of the author's firsthand experience with them. Other noteworthy analogs, such as the arctic Haughton Mars Project and the European Space Agency's underground Cooperative Adventure for Valuing and Exercising human behavior and performance Skills (CAVES), are not treated here. NASA analogs often include fully staffed control centers, astronauts serving as crew, and realistic mission timelines lasting one to two weeks. Analogs have provided key insights into system architectures and operational concepts for the future human exploration of deep space. They have pioneered techniques for human communication with significant speed-of-light delays, for conducting spacewalks on natural objects with negligible surface gravity, and for empowering exploration crews to work with reduced dependence on a ground control center. They have field-tested dozens of emerging technologies including spacewalking tools and full-scale prototype vehicles and habitats. They have provided valuable experience for astronauts preparing for their first space flight, and for flown crewmembers who will take command roles on later flights. Some analogs, especially PLRP, have connected observers in the field with science teams in remotely located control centers to produce high-quality, publishable scientific results. The analogs have accomplished all of this at a tiny fraction of the cost of an actual space flight. This report treats ANSMET as space flight analog. The chapter following this introduction describes ANSMET in depth. The report then presents data on logistics and crew considerations that may be useful for developers of future human space exploration missions. It offers detailed comparisons between ANSMET and past, present, and future space flights on the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station (ISS), and a proposed Mars mission. Those comparisons are intended to complement the work of Eppler [2], who compares ANSMET to the Apollo moon flights. This report also compares ANSMET with the Desert RATS, NEEMO, and PLRP analogs. It then presents observations and makes recommendations related to ANSMET's value as a simulated space mission. The report ends with a short conclusion. The remainder of this introductory chapter provides background material to help readers interpret the rest of the report. It gives brief overviews of Space Shuttle and ISS missions along with information on a notional future human flight to Mars. It also presents the general features of three of NASA's space flight "analog" projects. With those points of reference in place, the chapter concludes with an overview of ANSMET.

Future piloted space exploration missions will focus more on science than engineering, a change which will challenge existing concepts for flight crew tasking and demand that participants with contrasting skills, values, and backgrounds learn to cooperate as equals. In terrestrial space flight analogs such as Desert Research And Technology Studies, engineers, pilots, and scientists can practice working together, taking advantage of the full breadth of all team members training to produce harmonious, effective missions that maximize the time and attention the crew can devote to science. This paper presents, in a format usable as a reference by participants in the field, a successfully tested crew interaction model for such missions. The model builds upon the basic framework of a scientific field expedition by adding proven concepts from aviation and human spaceflight, including expeditionary behavior and cockpit resource management, cooperative crew tasking and adaptive leadership and followership, formal techniques for radio communication, and increased attention to operational considerations. The crews of future spaceflight analogs can use this model to demonstrate effective techniques, learn from each other, develop positive working relationships, and make their expeditions more successful, even if they have limited time to train together beforehand. This model can also inform the preparation and execution of actual future spaceflights.

Fifty years ago, NASA decided that the cockpit controls in spacecraft should be like the ones in airplanes. But controls based on the stick and rudder may not be best way to manually control a vehicle in space. A different method is based on submersible vehicles controlled with foot pedals. A new pilot can learn the sub's control scheme in minutes and drive it hands-free. We are building a pair of foot pedals for spacecraft control, and will test them in a spacecraft flight simulator.

We propose that these stony-iron meteorites formed when a 50-150 km diameter projectile disrupted a 200-400 km diameter asteroid with a molten core. Several mineralogical features of mesosiderites need reinterpreting if our model is correct. Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.

Numerous challenges exist with forming the igneous spheres found within chondrites via collision events in the early solar nebula. We explore these challenges and discuss potential methods to overcome them. Collision models should be received cautiously. Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.

Lightning in the protoplanetary nebula has been proposed as a mechanism for creating meteoritic chondrules: enigmatic mm-sized silicate spheres formed in the nebula by the brief melting of cold precursors.

We represent results of numerical simulations that show Earth's tidal forces can both distort and disrupt Earth-crossing asteriods (ECAs) that have weak rubble-pile structures. Building on previous studies, we consider more realistic asteriod shapes and trajectories, test a variety of spin and rates and axis orientations, and employ a dissipation algorithm to more accurately treat collisions between particles.

Until recently, most asteroids were thought to be solid bodies whose shapes were determined largely by collisions with other asteroids. It now seems that many asteroids are little more than rubble piles, held together by self-gravity; this means that their shapes may be strongly affected by tides during close encounters with planets.

For the Cepheid l Carinae, with a pulsation period of 35.5 days, we have studied the emission-line fluxes as a function of pulsational phase in order to find out whether we see chromospheric and transition-layer emission due to an outward-moving shock. All emission lines show a steep increase in flux shortly before maximum light, suggestive of a shock moving through the surface layers. The large ratio of C IV to C II line fluxes shows that these are not transition-layer lines. During maximum light the large ratio of the large ratio of the C IV to C II line fluxes also suggests that we see emission from a shock with velocities greater than 100 km/s such that C IV emission can be excited. With such velocities mass outflow appears possible. The variations seen in the MG II line profiles show that there is an external absorption over a broad velocity band independent of the pulsation phase. We attribute this absorption to a circumstellar 'shell.' This 'shell' appears to be seen also as spatially extended emission in the O I line at 1300 A, which is probably excited by resonance with Ly beta.

For the Cepheid (l) Carinae with a pulsation period of 35.5 days we have studied the emission line fluxes as a function of pulsational phase in order to find out whether we see chromosphere and transition layer emission or whether we see emission due to an outward moving shock. All emission lines show a steep increase in flux shortly before maximum light suggestive of a shock moving through the surface layers. The large ratio of the C IV to C II line fluxes shows that these are not transition layer lines. During maximum light the large ratio of the C IV to C II line fluxes also suggests that we see emission from a shock with velocities greater than 100 km/sec such that C IV emission can be excited. With such velocities mass outflow appears possible. The variations seen in the Mg II line profiles show that there is an internal absorption over a broad velocity band independent of the pulsational phase. We attribute this absorption to a circumstellar 'shell'. This 'shell' appears to be seen also as spatially extended emission in the O I line at 1300 angstrom, which is probably excited by resonance with Ly beta.