Single-Person Spacecraft Favored for Gateway EVA

B. Griffin, Robert A. Rashford
{"title":"Single-Person Spacecraft Favored for Gateway EVA","authors":"B. Griffin, Robert A. Rashford","doi":"10.2514/6.2018-5245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is assumed that astronauts need space suits to go outside. However, the Single-Person Spacecraft (SPS) allows extravehicular activity (EVA) not only without suits, but without an airlock. NASA is planning on building a Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway and most concepts include suited astronauts with an airlock. Is traditional suited EVA the only solution or is the SPS a credible alternative? To answer this question, an engineering tradeoff analysis was conducted comparing the two options. Findings reveal that the SPS is favored because it is safer, more efficient, weighs less, and significantly reduces the cost to the government. Furthermore, it requires fewer launches, has less of an impact on elements, and fulfills NASA’s stated objectives for the Gateway","PeriodicalId":366106,"journal":{"name":"2018 AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-5245","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

It is assumed that astronauts need space suits to go outside. However, the Single-Person Spacecraft (SPS) allows extravehicular activity (EVA) not only without suits, but without an airlock. NASA is planning on building a Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway and most concepts include suited astronauts with an airlock. Is traditional suited EVA the only solution or is the SPS a credible alternative? To answer this question, an engineering tradeoff analysis was conducted comparing the two options. Findings reveal that the SPS is favored because it is safer, more efficient, weighs less, and significantly reduces the cost to the government. Furthermore, it requires fewer launches, has less of an impact on elements, and fulfills NASA’s stated objectives for the Gateway
网关EVA的单人飞船
人们认为宇航员外出需要太空服。然而,单人航天器(SPS)允许舱外活动(EVA)不仅没有宇航服,而且没有气闸。美国国家航空航天局正计划建造一个月球轨道平台-门户,大多数概念都包括配备气闸的宇航员。传统的EVA是唯一的解决方案,还是SPS是一个可靠的替代方案?为了回答这个问题,对这两种方案进行了工程权衡分析。调查结果显示,SPS之所以受到青睐,是因为它更安全、更高效、重量更轻,并显著降低了政府的成本。此外,它需要更少的发射,对元件的影响更小,并实现了NASA对门户的既定目标
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信