Search Results

Space suits for advanced missions have baselined radiators as the primary means of heat rejection in order to minimize consumables and logistics requirements. While radiators have been used in the active thermal control system for spacecraft since Gemini, the use of radiators in spacesuits introduces many unique requirements. These include the ability to reduce the amount of heat rejection when overcooling or overheating of the crew member is a concern. Overcooling can occur with low metabolic rates, cold environments or a combination of the two, and overheating can occur with high metabolic rates in a warm environment. The main goal of the Radiator Advanced Demonstrator (RAD) program is to build and fly a radiator on the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) in order to verify thermal performance capabilities in actual flight conditions. The RAD incorporates an aluminum plate separated from the primary water panel with a silicone gasket.

The Toxicology Laboratory at Johnson Space Center (JSC) had provided the combustion products analyzer (CPA) since the early 1990s to monitor the spacecraft atmosphere in real time if a thermodegradation event occurred aboard the Shuttle. However, as the operation of the International Space Station (ISS) grew near, an improved CPA was sought that would include a carbon monoxide sensor that did not have a cross-sensitivity to hydrogen. The Compound Specific Analyzer-Combustion Products (CSA-CP) was developed for use on the International Space Station (ISS). The CSA-CP measures three hazardous gases, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and hydrogen chloride, as well as oxygen. The levels of these compounds in the atmosphere following a thermodegradation event serve as markers to determine air quality. The first permanent ISS crew performed the CSA-CP checkout operations and collected baseline data shortly after arrival aboard the ISS in December 2000.

Spacecraft that must operate in cold environments at reduced heat load are at risk of radiator freezing. For a vehicle that lands at the Lunar South Pole, the design thermal environment is 215 K, but the radiator working fluid must also be kept from freezing during the 0 K sink of transit. A radiator bypass flow setpoint control design such as those used on the Space Shuttle Orbiter and ISS would require more than 30% of the design heat load to avoid radiator freezing during transit - even with a very low freezing point working fluid. By changing the traditional active thermal control system (ATCS) architecture to include a regenerating heat exchanger inboard of the radiator and using a regenerator bypass flow control valve to maintain system setpoint, the required minimum system heat load can be reduced by more than half. This gives the spacecraft much more flexibility in design and operation. The present work describes the regenerator bypass ATCS setpoint control methodology.

The optimum radiator configuration in hot lunar thermal environments is one in which the radiator is parallel to the ground and has no view to the hot lunar surface. However, typical spacecraft configurations have limited real estate available for top-mounted radiators, resulting in a desire to use the spacecraft's vertically oriented sides. Vertically oriented, flat panel radiators will have a large view factor to the lunar surface, and thus will be subjected to significant incident lunar infrared heat. Consequently, radiator fluid temperatures will need to exceed ~325 K (assuming standard spacecraft radiator optical properties) in order to provide positive heat rejection at lunar noon. Such temperatures are too high for crewed spacecraft applications in which a heat pump is to be avoided.

The ability to use local resources to “live off the land”, commonly referred to as In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), is essential in establishing a long-term human presence and enabling the commercial development of space. The chief benefits of ISRU are that it can reduce the mass, cost, and risk of robotic and human exploration while providing capabilities that enable the commercial development of space. A key subset of ISRU which has significant cost and risk reduction benefits, and which requires a minimum of infrastructure, is In-Situ Consumable Production (ISCP). ISCP involves acquiring, manufacturing, and storing propellants, fuel cell reagents, and consumables for life support, scientific, and pneumatic equipment using resources available at the site of exploration. The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is currently coordinating and focusing the Agency’s development of ISCP technologies and systems for robotic and human exploration.

NASA has unique requirements for the development and application of air quality standards for human space flight. Such standards must take into account the continuous nature of exposures, the possibility of increased susceptibility of crewmembers to the adverse effects of air pollutants because of the stresses of space flight, and the recognition that rescue options may be severely limited in remote habitats. NASA has worked with the National Research Council Committee on Toxicology (NRCCOT) since the early 1990s to set and document appropriate standards. The process has evolved through 2 rounds. The first was to set standards for the space station era, and the second was to set standards for longer stays in space and update the original space station standards. The update was to be driven by new toxicological data and by new methods of risk assessment for predicting safe levels from available data. The last phase of this effort has been completed.

The Orion Crew and Service Modules are often compared to the Apollo Command and Service Modules due to their similarity in basic mission objective: both were dedicated to getting a crew to lunar orbit and safely returning them to Earth. Both spacecraft rely on the environmental control, life support and active thermal control systems (ECLS/ATCS) for the basic functions of providing and maintaining a breathable atmosphere, supplying adequate amount of potable water and maintaining the crew and avionics equipment within certified thermal limits. This assessment will evaluate the driving requirements for both programs and highlight similarities and differences. Further, a short comparison of the two system architectures will be examined including a side by side assessment of some selected system's hardware mass.