The presentation explores human exploration of Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) key factors including challenges of supporting humans for long-durations in deep-space, incorporation of advanced technologies, mission design constraints, and how many launches are required to conduct a round trip human mission to a NEA. Topics include applied methodology, all chemical NEA mission operations, all nuclear thermal propulsion NEA mission operations, SEP only for deep space mission operations, and SEP/chemical hybrid mission operations. Examples of mass trends between datasets are provided as well as example sensitivity of delta-v and trip home, sensitivity of number of launches and trip home, and expected targets for various transportation architectures

Drake, Bret G.

NASA Technical Reports Server

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Architectures for Human 
Exploration of Near Earth       
Asteroids
February 22 2011  , 
Bret G. Drake
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110007146 2019-08-30T14:47:33+00:00Z
Human Exploration of NEAs Key Factors
 Challenges of supporting humans for long‐durations 
in deep‐space
• How short can the trip times be reduced in order                   
to reduce crew exposure to the deep‐space 
radiation and micro‐gravity environment?
 Incorporation of advanced technologies
• Are there options to conduct easy, early missions?
• What is the affect of infusion of advanced 
propulsion technologies on target availability 
Mars 
 Mission design constraints:
• When do the departure opportunities open up?  
• How frequent are they?   2. Arrive NEA3. Depart NEA
Orbit
Earth 
Orbit
• How long is the departure window
 How many launches are required to conduct a 
round trip human mission to a NEA
4. Arrive Earth
1. Depart Earth
NEA Orbit
Overview
 NHATS [Near‐Earth Asteroid (NEA) Human Space Flight (HSF) Accessible 
Targets Study ] trajectory scans by both the GSFC and JPL teams 
produced millions of potential trajectories to thousands targets             
 Of those millions of trajectories, thousands may represent “good” 
candidate mission opportunities
 Several different transportation technologies considered including        , 
• All chemical propulsion
• Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTR)
El t i P l i (S l El t i ) f th d ti f th i i• ec r c  ropu s on  o ar  ec r c   or  e  eep space por on o   e m ss on
• Hybrid Propulsion as characterized by chemical boost + Solar Electric
 Architecture mass estimated for each unique trajectory to help facilitate 
th t t i l ie s ra eg c p ann ng process
Due to time limitations and the sheer magnitude of number of simulations to be 
run, only parametric mass sizing was implemented.  Although the parametric results 
h b lid d i h l f d il d h l i d h i
CAUTION
!
ave  een va ate  w t  resu ts  rom more  eta e  assessments, t e resu ts conta ne   ere n 
should be used for comparative assessments only
Applied Methodology
Trajectory Scans Operational Concept Mission Payload Definition
Propulsion System 
Parametric Sizing Define Simulation VariablesTo account for early conceptual designs Simulation Results
 
700 
800 
Example Parametric Sizing
All Chemical Propulsion < 600 t
Chemical Expected (t)
10% Percentile (t)
90% Percentile (t)
90th Percentile
 
 
 
200 
300 
400 
500 
600 
T
o
t
a
l
 
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
 
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
M
a
s
s
 
i
n
 
L
E
O
 
(
t
)
   
127 total trajectoriesExpected Value
10th Percentile
 
‐
100 
2
0
0
9
 
U
Y
1
9
2
0
0
7
 
U
Y
1
2
0
0
9
 
U
Y
1
9
2
0
0
1
 
Q
J
1
4
2
2
0
0
1
 
C
Q
3
6
2
0
0
7
 
S
Q
6
A
p
o
p
h
i
s
2
0
0
9
 
T
P
2
0
0
7
 
P
S
9
2
0
0
1
 
Q
J
1
4
2
2
0
1
0
 
H
A
2
0
0
7
 
U
Y
1
2
0
0
1
 
C
Q
3
6
2
0
0
5
 
F
G
2
0
0
6
 
Y
P
1
9
9
9
 
R
A
3
2
2
0
0
6
 
F
H
3
6
2
0
0
9
 
U
Y
1
9
2
0
0
6
 
X
W
2
0
0
7
 
P
S
9
2
0
0
8
 
R
H
1
2
0
0
7
 
U
Y
1
1
9
9
9
 
R
Q
3
6
2
0
0
8
 
E
V
5
2
0
0
3
 
S
M
8
4
1
9
9
1
 
J
W
1
9
9
9
 
S
H
1
0
2
0
0
6
 
X
W
2
0
0
1
 
Q
J
1
4
2
2
0
1
0
 
H
A
2
0
0
9
 
U
Y
1
9
2
0
0
2
 
X
Y
3
8
2
0
0
9
 
T
P
2
0
0
7
 
U
W
1
2
0
0
1
 
Q
J
1
4
2
1
9
9
9
 
N
W
2
2
0
1
0
 
H
A
2
0
0
5
 
F
G
2
0
0
9
 
O
S
5
2
0
0
7
 
E
C
2
0
0
6
 
W
B
2
0
0
6
 
F
H
3
6
2
0
0
6
 
X
P
4
2
0
0
4
 
J
N
1
1
9
9
9
 
N
W
2
2
0
0
9
 
O
S
5
2
0
1
0
 
C
D
5
5
2
0
0
9
 
O
S
5
1
9
9
9
 
R
Q
3
6
2
0
0
5
 
C
D
6
9
2
0
0
7
 
U
W
1
2
0
0
6
 
G
B
2
0
0
6
 
F
H
3
6
2
0
0
1
 
K
M
2
0
2
0
0
7
 
U
Y
1
2
0
1
0
 
F
K
2
0
0
5
 
G
E
6
0
2
0
0
1
 
Q
J
1
4
2
2
0
0
2
 
A
W
2
0
0
6
 
S
Y
5
2
0
0
9
 
O
S
5
2
0
0
1
 
B
B
1
6
2
0
0
6
 
F
H
3
6
2
0
0
0
 
E
A
1
4
4
All Chemical NEA Mission Operations
NOI Stage(s)
NEO NEA Orbit Insertion
Trans‐Earth 
I j i
NEA Exploration
   
Expended SEV 
continues 
operations 
at NEO
n ect on
Trans‐NEA Coast
TEI Stage(s)
LEO
( f 400k i )
TNI Stages 
Trans‐Earth Coast
   
Expended
Trans‐NEA Deep Space re .  m c rc
Deep Space 
Habitat 
Expended
Expended
 
Injection Maneuver 
(if required)
Direct Entry
Moderate HLV 
Launches (# TBD)
Earth
 
Water Landing
5
All Nuclear Thermal Propulsion NEA Mission Operations
Drop Tanks
NEO NEA Orbit Insertion
NEA Exploration
   
Expended 
(as necessary)
Drop Tanks 
SEV 
continues 
operations 
at NEO
Trans‐Earth 
I j i
Trans‐NEA Coast
Expended 
(as necessary)
n ect on
LEO
( f 400k i )
Drop Tanks 
Expended 
(as necessary)Trans‐NEA Deep Space 
Trans‐Earth Coast
re .  m c rc
NTR &
Deep Space 
Habitat 
Expended
 
Injection Maneuver 
(if required)
Direct Entry
Moderate HLV 
Launches (# TBD)
Earth
 
Water Landing
6
SEP Only for Deep Space Mission Operations
30 d at NEONEA Exploration   
NEO
Lunar/Earth Gravity Assist (C3=1)
Utilized for Earth Departure
E-M L1
CTV 
Adapter
CPS 2
LEO 407 
km x 407 
km
CTV – A/E with Crew
CTV SM
DSH
SEV
Kick Stage
EDLBlock 1 CPS 2
1
0
0
t
SEP
Kick Stage
1
0
0
t
Moderate HLV Launches 
(# TBD)
H
L
L
V
 
-
Earth
7
H
L
L
V
 
-
SEP/Chemical Hybrid NEA Mission Operations
30 d at NEONEA Exploration   
NEO
SEP 1
CPS 1
Lunar/Earth Gravity Assist (C3=10)
Utilized for Earth Departure
E-M L1
CTV 
Adapter
CPS 2
LEO 407 
km x 407 
km
DSHSEV CTV – A/E with Crew
CTV SM
Kick StageSEP 1
EDLBlock 2 CPS 1 SEP 2
SM Derived
1
0
0
t
1
0
0
t
Block 1 CPS 2
1
0
0
t
H
L
L
V
 
-
1
H
L
L
V
 
-
H
L
L
V
 
-
Earth
8
Example Mass Trends Between Datasets
All Chemical Propulsion Architecture
JPL DatasetGSFC Dataset
1,400 
1,600 
1,800 
2,000 
b
i
t
 
(
t
)
Chemical Expected (t)
10th Percentile
90th Percentile
1,400 
1,600 
1,800 
2,000 
b
i
t
 
(
t
)
Chemical Expected Mass (t)
10th Percentile
90th Percentile
600
800 
1,000 
1,200 
a
l
 
M
a
s
s
 
i
n
 
E
a
r
t
h
 
O
r
b
600
800 
1,000 
1,200 
a
l
 
M
a
s
s
 
i
n
 
E
a
r
t
h
 
O
r
b
‐
200 
400 
 
T
o
t
a
‐
200 
400 
 
T
o
t
a
Typical reasonable mass limitTypical reasonable mass limit
9
Example Sensitivity of Delta‐v and Trip Time
Near Earth Asteroid 2009 HC
100
50 12
11
150
e
 
(
d
a
y
s
)
Regions of short mission duration 
but high mass (delta‐v) 10
9
a
s
i
n
g
 
M
a
s
s
a
s
i
n
g
 
M
a
s
s
(
k
m
/
s
)
(
k
m
/
s
)
200
250
d
t
r
i
p
 
F
l
i
g
h
t
 
T
i
m
e
Regions of lower mass (delta‐v) but 
longer mission duration 8
e
l
t
a
‐
v
 
=
 
I
n
c
r
e
a
e
l
t
a
‐
v
 
=
 
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
s
i
o
n
 
D
e
l
t
a
‐
v
 
(
s
s
i
o
n
 
D
e
l
t
a
‐
v
 
(
300
350
R
o
u
n 7
6
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
 
D
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
 
D
e
T
o
t
a
l
 
M
i
s
T
o
t
a
l
 
M
i
s
400
5
10
Earth Departure Date
Courtesy GSFC
Example Sensitivity of Number of Launches and Trip Time
All Chemical Propulsion Architecture
100
50 2 launches
3 launches
4 l h
Near Earth Asteroid 2009 HC
150
e
 
(
d
a
y
s
)
Based on mass only.  Volume and 
packaging not yet addressed.
  aunc es
5 launches
200
250
d
t
r
i
p
 
F
l
i
g
h
t
 
T
i
m
e
300
350
R
o
u
n
400
11
Earth Departure Date
Example # of Expected Targets for Various Transportation Architectures
Circa 2020‐2035, Asteroids > 30m, Approximately 3 Launches, < 1 Year Duration
All Chemical Architecture All NTR Architecture 
350 
400 
450 
500 
b
i
t
 
(
t
)
350 
400 
450 
500 
i
t
 
(
t
)
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
T
o
t
a
l
 
M
a
s
s
 
i
n
 
E
a
r
t
h
 
O
r
b
100
150 
200 
250 
300 
T
o
t
a
l
 
M
a
s
s
 
i
n
 
E
a
r
t
h
 
O
r
b
i
All SEP for Deep Space
‐
50 
18 21 24 27 29 32 35
Earth Departure Year
Mass estimated from parametric sizing only.
‐
50 
 
18 21 24 27 29 32 35
Earth Departure Year
Mass estimated from parametric sizing only.
SEP/Chemical Architecture       
350
400
450
500
O
r
b
i
t
 
(
t
)
350
400
450
500
O
r
b
i
t
 
(
t
)
 
100
150
200
250
300
T
o
t
a
l
 
M
a
s
s
 
i
n
 
E
a
r
t
h
 
O
100
150
200
250
300
T
o
t
a
l
 
M
a
s
s
 
i
n
 
E
a
r
t
h
 
O
0
50
18 21 24 27 29 32 35
Earth Departure Year
Mass estimated from parametric sizing only.
0
50
18 21 24 27 29 32 35
Earth Departure Year
Mass estimated from parametric sizing only.Results associated with the JPL data set
12
Summary
 Mission design and architectural assessments still under way
 No firm decisions yet on specific technologies or NEA targets have been 
made
 Key focus is on understanding the key capabilities and technologies 
required for a broad range of exploration architectures including human 
exploration of NEAs   
13
Contributors
 JPL NHATS Trajectory
• John D. Baker, JPL, Lead
• Bret Drake, NASA/JSC
h d
 GSFC NHATS Trajectory
• Ron Mink, NASA/GSFC
• Dave Folta, NASA/GSFC
l b ll /• Brent S erwoo , JPL
• Brian Muirhead, JPL
• Don Yeomans, JPL
• Damon Landau, JPL *
• Pau  A e , NASA JSC
• Brent Barbee, GSFC/ESTI
• Timothy Esposito, GSFC/ESTI
• Elfego Piňon III, GSFC/ESTI
• Nathan Strange, JPL
• Tim McElrath, JPL
• Jon Sims, JPL
• Joe Guinn, JPL
• Dan Adamo, JSC
 Mass Estimation
• Bret Drake, NASA/JSC
• Dennis Byrnes, JPL
• Jerry Condon, NASA/JSC/EG5
• Jacob Williams, JSC/ESCG
• Elizabeth Davis, JSC/ESCG
• Rob Falk, NASA/GRC
• Kurt Hack, NASA/GRC
• Steve Hoffman, JSC/SAIC
• D R Komar NASA/LaRC
• David Lee, NASA/JSC/EG5
• Kurt Hack, NASA/GRC
• Rob Falck, NASA/GRC
• Steve Chesley JPL
. .  , 
• Dan Mazanek, NASA/LaRC
• Steve Voels, JSC/SAIC
  , 
• Jon Giorgini, JPL
• Alan Chamberlain, JPL
14


Architectures for Human Exploration of Near Earth Asteroids

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server