Publication | Open Access
Comparison of Human Exploration Architecture and Campaign Approaches
13
Citations
4
References
2015
Year
EngineeringExploration StudiesSpace PolicyLeo ExplorationSocial SciencesSpace MissionNational AeronauticsSpace MissionsHuman Exploration ArchitectureDesignUser ExperienceMinimal Mars ArchitectureStrategyArchitectural DesignAerospace EngineeringSpacecraft ControlSpace Mission DesignSpace ArchitectureHuman-computer InteractionDeep Space Exploration
As part of an overall focus on space exploration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) continues to evaluate potential approaches for sending humans beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). In addition, various external organizations are studying options for beyond LEO exploration. Recent studies include NASA's Evolvable Mars Campaign and Design Reference Architecture (DRA) 5.0, JPL's Minimal Mars Architecture; the Inspiration Mars mission; the Mars One campaign; and the Global Exploration Roadmap (GER). Each of these potential exploration constructs applies unique methods, architectures, and philosophies for human exploration. It is beneficial to compare potential approaches in order to better understand the range of options available for exploration. Since most of these studies were conducted independently, the approaches, ground rules, and assumptions used to conduct the analysis differ. In addition, the outputs and metrics presented for each construct differ substantially. This paper will describe the results of an effort to compare and contrast the results of these different studies under a common set of metrics. The paper will first present a summary of each of the proposed constructs, including a description of the overall approach and philosophy for exploration. Utilizing a common set of metrics for comparison, the paper will present the results of an evaluation of the potential benefits, critical challenges, and uncertainties associated with each construct. The analysis framework will include a detailed evaluation of key characteristics of each construct. These will include but are not limited to: a description of the technology and capability developments required to enable the construct and the uncertainties associated with these developments; an analysis of significant operational and programmatic risks associated with that construct; and an evaluation of the extent to which exploration is enabled by the construct, including the destinations visited and the exploration capabilities provided at those destinations. Based upon the comparison of constructs, the paper will identify trends and lessons learned across all of the candidate studies.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1