Operation Hermes �Journey of USC Artemis: Tribute to Apollo

Ulubilge Ulusoy

M.S. Astro Eng. Candidate

ulusoy@usc.edu

ASTE527 Astronautical Engineering Department

12/17/2019

INTRODUCTION

• Hermes
• God of Transportation
• Half sibling of Artemis and Apollo
• He is fast
• Divine Trickster

​

• Operation Hermes
• Be fast (Land on Moon before 2024)
• Trick the system (Use readily available products)

CONTEXT

Connecting the Dots

Operation HERMES

Mare Tranquillitatis Pit

Apollo 11 Landing Site

Apollo 17 Landing Site

TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS

Launch Elements

Traverse Elements

CONTEXT - WHY Hermes Mission ?

• Honor Apollo Astronauts and Engineers and Scientists
• US Preeminence in Human Space Flight
• Visit, Preserve and Protect Apollo Sites – 11 & 17
• Do it by 2024
• Use US Space Assets
• Inspire New Generation

TIMELINE

• 2.5 days 🡪 Earth to Moon
• Surface to ISS to LLO to Mare Tranquillitatis Pit
• 2 days 🡪 Lava tube (pit) exploration
• Exploration of the pit for future lunar base considerations
• 4 days 🡪 Traverse
• One-way manned trip to Apollo 11 landing site
• Approximately 450 km using fractal methods (x1.4)
• LROC Quick Map
• One-way robotic trip to Apollo 17 landing site
• Approximately 420 km using fractal methods (x1.4)
• LROC Quick Map
• 2 days 🡪 Apollo 11 and 17 sites
• Investigation and preservation of historic landing site(s)
• 2.5 days 🡪 Moon to Earth
• Return home from the Apollo landing site

LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

• Due to uncertainties of space transportation elements and short timeline to execute Artemis mission to land American astronauts on lunar surface by 2024.
• Artemis Phase I Mission Architecture includes:
• Artemis I mission – 2020 / 2021 (Un-crewed Exploration Mission I)
• Artemis II mission – 2022 (Crewed Exploration Mission II)
• Artemis III mission – 2024 (Landing Two People on the Moon)

​

• What are the uncertainties?
• SLS
• Lunar Descent/Ascent Element
• EVA Systems
• Pressurized Rover

​

• What are less likely to be problem?
• Orion

LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

• The policy (SPD-1) calls for the NASA administrator to “lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.”

LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

• Falcon Heavy (Already in discussion for Artemis I Mission if SLS is postponed again)

​

• New Glenn (Still in development)

​

• Delta IV Heavy (Not human rated but proposed earlier)

​

• SpaceX Starship (Still in development, proposed for Dear Moon Project)

LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

• In consideration of human rated rockets, the closest option is “Falcon 9 with Dragon Module”, in current situation.

​

• First crewed mission to ISS expected to be mid-2020

​

• That means United States will again be capable of sending astronauts to LEO from the US pretty soon.

​

• By considering above, why not send the Artemis astronauts directly from LEO.
• Falcon 9 and Dragon will carry astronauts, and Falcon Heavy will carry unmanned Orion Crew module and Service Module to ISS.

LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

1

2

5

ISS Utilization

3

4

LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

EXPLANATION

• Astronauts transported to ISS on Falcon 9 and Dragon Capsule.
• Dragon capsule will leave after astronauts enter the ISS.
• Orion Crew Module (CM), Service Module (SM) and Falcon 2nd Stage will head to ISS on Falcon Heavy after TBD time Dragon Capsule left the station.
• After CM+SM+2nd Stage docked the station, Artemis crew will enter the CM.

​

• They will undock from the station and head to Lunar orbit.
• It will need at least half full second stage to satisfy delta-v requirements.

LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

• No stage jettison. Reusability
• Translunar injection booster in Free Return Trajectory for reuse.
• Dock to ISS again to be refueled.
• Ready to use for next Artemis mission

LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

ADVANTAGES

• All elements are expected to be ready by mid-2020, nearly two years earlier than NASA manifest (Artemis Exploration Mission II – 2022).
• ISS performing similar crew operations for years.
• Launch vehicles (Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy) already flight proven.
• No need for additional architecture elements to perform this mission.
• No unexpected delays due to SLS.

​

​

• No need to wait for SLS to complete its launch vehicle readiness reviews and tests.

LAUNCH ARCHITECTURE

ADVANTAGES

• LEO assembly capability.
• Problem for updated Apollo LM in terms of proposed alternative launch architecture is vehicle’s full diameter.
• Ascent Stage Diameter: 4.29 m.
• Descent Stage Diameter: 4.29 m.
• Diameter with Legs: ≈ 6 m. (FH Fairing Diameter ≈ 5.2m)

​

Traverse

Earth’s Surface

Lunar Surface

LEO

LLO

LM-2

LM-1

LM-1

CM

CM

Dragon

2nd Stage

A11 LS

MTP LS

LM-2

LM-2

LM-1

2nd Stage

Traverse

USC Artemis Mission with Four Astronauts

​

​

​

​

Observe/Guide

Control

Manned Traverse (Phase 1)

- Manual plotting by two astronauts on ground (with autonomous option).

Robotic Traverse (Phase 2)

- Manual plotting by two astronauts in CM (with autonomous option).

TRAVERSE

Mare Tranquillitatis Pit

Apollo 11 Landing Site

≈450 km

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 0

Command Module Ground Track 2-hr LLO

TRAVERSE

Mare Tranquillitatis Pit

Apollo 17 Landing Site

≈420 km

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 0

TRAVERSE

• Land LM-1 in proximity of Mare Tranquillitatis Pit.
• EVA operations around Mare Tranquillitatis Pit – 2 days
• Establish comms and cameras.
• Send Axel derived Rover into pit via skylight.
• Real time telerobotic exploration from crew Teleoperations Cabin(C-TOPS) on lander.

​

TRAVERSE

• One-way trip to Apollo 11 landing site from Mare Tranquillitatis Pit - 4 days
• Establish first lunar Freeway for Tourism and Science
• Digital Markers on Apollo Freeway (For future missions)
• Install solar powered camera towers every ~10 km

​

Notes on trip:

• Use scout rover , for safe Hermes rover traverse
• Use Crew Module (CM) orbiter to guide crew.
• Rover will be used by one of the crew members.
• Rover could be operated telerobotically during HERMES rover crew rest periods.
• Rover should carry rescue system as a 2nd back-up.(study in progress)
• If abort needed during trip, LM-2 will be ready to land near crew and ready to take-off.

TRAVERSE

• EVA operations around Apollo 11 landing site – 2 days
• Observe changes to lander and first extraterrestrial human footprints during past 50 year time period.
• Place cameras for continuous observation of site.
• Live Stream.
• Broadcast hi-res pictures of Artemis crew with Apollo 11 heritage.

​

TRAVERSE

• Return home from Apollo 11 landing site
• Land LM-2 to near proximity of Apollo 11 landing site for home return.
• Notes:
• LM-2 will be on orbit until Artemis crew reach to Apollo landing site proximity.

​

References

​

• Allender, E., Orgel, C., Almeida, N., Cook, J., Ende, J., Kamps, O., Mazrouei, S., Slezak, T., Soini, A. and Kring, D. (2019). Traverses for the ISECG-GER design reference mission for humans on the lunar surface.

​

• Board, Space Studies, and National Research Council. A scientific rationale for mobility in planetary environments. National Academies Press, 1999.

​

• Cintala, Mark J., Paul D. Spudis, and B. Ray Hawke. "Advanced geologic exploration supported by a lunar base-A traverse across the Imbrium-Procellarum region of the moon." In Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, pp. 223-237. 1985.https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_bases/LSBchapter04.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks&page=36

​

• Eckart, P. (1999). Lunar base handbook. McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Pub..

​

• Elfes, Alberto, Charles R. Weisbin, Hook Hua, Jeffrey H. Smith, Joseph Mrozinski, and Kacie Shelton. "The HURON task allocation and scheduling system: Planning human and robot activities for lunar missions." In 2008 World Automation Congress, pp. 1-8. IEEE, 2008.

​

• Mendell, Wendell W. "Lunar bases and space activities of the 21st century." (1985).https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_bases/

​

• Potts, N., Gullikson, A., Curran, N., Dhaliwal, J., Leader, M., Rege, R., Klaus, K. and Kring, D. (2019). Robotic traverse and sample return strategies for a lunar farside mission to the Schrödinger basin.

​

• Rodriguez, Guillermo, and Charles R. Weisbin. "A new method to evaluate human-robot system performance." Autonomous Robots 14, no. 2-3 (2003): 165-178.

​

• Schrunk, D., Sharpe, B., Cooper, B.L. and Thangavelu, M., 2007. The moon: Resources, future development and settlement. Springer Science & Business Media.

​

• Thangavelu, M., 2008, October. Critical Strategies for Return to the Moon: Altair Dust Mitigation and Real-Time Teleoperations Concepts. In Joint Annual Meeting of LEAG-ICEUM-SRR (Vol. 4056).

​

• Weisbin, Charles R., and David Lavery. "Nasa rover and telerobotics technology program." IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 1, no. 4 (1994): 14-21.

​

References Contd.

• SpaceX. (2019). Falcon Heavy. [online] Available at: https://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy [Accessed 16 Dec. 2019].

​

• SpaceX. (2019). Falcon 9. [online] Available at: https://www.spacex.com/falcon9 [Accessed 16 Dec. 2019].

​

• Nasa.gov. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/america_to_the_moon_2024_artemis_20190523.pdf [Accessed 16 Dec. 2019].

​

• History.nasa.gov. (2019). Apollo Diagrams. [online] Available at: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/diagrams/apollo/apollo-diagram.htm [Accessed 15 Dec. 2019].

​

• Quickmap.lroc.asu.edu. (2019). quickmap. [online] Available at: https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/ [Accessed 16 Dec. 2019].

​

• NTRS.nasa.gov. (2019). [online] Available at: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150022104.pdf [Accessed 16 Dec. 2019].

​

​

​

​