Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Ruthan Lewis

Publications and source records attributed to Ruthan Lewis.

11 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Trade Space Analyses: Balancing Crew and Mission Design Parameters

In 2020, the Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations and the Agency’s Federated Board requested an assessment to develop a methodology for trade space analysis comparing crew size for Mars missions against mission design parameters. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conducted an assessment to develop a methodology for systematic, repeatable trade space analysis for crew size and developed an initial set of human performance models and a list of candidate crew tasks for NASA’s first mission to Mars. This report contains the results of the NESC assessment.

Humans to Mars↗
NASA NTRS2024

Assessing the Number of Crew for Mars Against Trade Space Parameters

Missions to Mars will differ from all previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner given the long communication delays on Mars missions. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk in that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, the crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise in the Mission Control Central (MCC) team on which NASA has come to rely. We present a framework for trade space analysis along with results from human-performance models developed in IMPRINT. We discuss the implications of model results on the trade space for number of crew for missions to Mars. This work was funded by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) with support from NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP).

Donna Dempsey↗
NASA NTRS2023

Assessing the Relocation of Artemis Foundational Lunar Surface Concepts

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has defined a functionally based Moon to Mars (M2M) architecture consisting of four key human exploration segments: human lunar return (HLR), foundational exploration (FE), sustained lunar evolution (SLE), and humans to Mars (H2M). These segments are portions of the architecture which represent a stepwise increase in complexity and achievement of M2M objectives [1]. As systems are deployed during the FE segment, it may be desired or even necessary to relocate these elements on the lunar surface as the architecture transitions into the SLE segment. While some Artemis elements under development, such as rovers, are being designed for mobility during both crewed and uncrewed/dormant periods, other architectural concepts do not currently carry a mobility capability. In preparation for the Agency’s 2023 Architecture Concept Review (ACR), a team was assembled to establish a methodology for assessing the relocation feasibility of normally stationary elements. Such a capability could be applied locally or regionally, and might allow for re-purposing previously occupied terrain, expansion of exploration range, aggregation of habitation elements, or retiring systems at the end of their useful service life. The assembled NASA team investigated the relocation trade space through defining a representative concept of operations (ConOps) and assessing possible system impacts. The team focused predominately on the relocation of medium and large surface habitat architectural concepts through surface-based traverses utilizing separable mobility platforms (SMP). A representative mobility platform model was placed through simulation to analyze the possible energy requirements and dynamic illumination impacts. Preliminary assessment indicated that element relocation might be achievable, however significant system and architectural-level risks still need to be quantified. Future analysis will assist in determining what degree of element relocation provides the greatest benefit to achieving a sustained lunar presence. [1] NASA. (2022). Moon to Mars Objectives. Retrieved from: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/m2m-objectives-exec-summary.pdf

Artemis↗
NASA NTRS2021

Understanding Pilot Breathing – A Case Study in Systems Engineering

This position paper assesses the Pilot Breathing Assessment’s driving requirement to collect missing data on pilot breathing pressure, flow, rate, oxygen and CO2, simultaneously with aircraft data. Repeat measures data were collected over a 2-year period from 5 NASA test-pilots flying 8 flight profiles on NASA F-15 and F/A-18 (A, B) aircraft. This Pilot Breathing Assessment Systems Engineering (PiBASE) position paper serves as a case-study of systems engineering that accommodates the human as a distinct part of the whole. It acknowledges that a successful machine design intended for human use must include human systems biology/physiology as an integral part of planning, design, and implementation.

Pilot Breathing Assessment Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Replication of Segments of STS-94 as a Lunar Surface Mission

The Artemis exploration plan will progress from initial Commercial Lunar Payloads Services (CLPS) landers to human landings to an established surface infrastructure supporting four crew for surface missions of a month or greater. NASA teams are currently working with partners to define the surface assets that will comprise this infrastructure, including habitation and laboratory facilities. However, design engineers often have limited insight into the laboratory capabilities needed inside a pressurized habitat or the demands such a facility will place upon crew availability. The Space Shuttle STS-94 Microgravity Science Laboratory (MSL-1) mission is used as an intravehicular activity science analog for the Surface Habitat. The STS-94 primary physical science instruments and crew activity in support of physical science investigations will be examined. Based on recent reference concepts for the Surface Habitat, options for incorporating the instruments and options for dividing physical science tasks among the Surface Habitat crew are discussed, based on STS94 crew tasks and assumptions for Surface Habitat operations. Crew size considerations are raised along with recommendations to reassess some of the current assumptions. Having shown that STS-94’s physical science investigations can be applied to a lunar surface mission, recommendations are made for increased attention to pressurized laboratory objectives, capabilities, and crew size.

Surface Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing the Relocation of Artemis Foundational Lunar Surface Concepts

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has defined a functionally based Moon to Mars (M2M) architecture consisting of four key human exploration segments: human lunar return (HLR), foundational exploration (FE), sustained lunar evolution (SLE), and humans to Mars (H2M). These segments are portions of the architecture which represent a stepwise increase in complexity and achievement of M2M objectives [1]. As systems are deployed during the FE segment, it may be desired or even necessary to relocate these elements on the lunar surface as the architecture transitions into the SLE segment. While some Artemis elements under development, such as rovers, are being designed for mobility during both crewed and uncrewed/dormant periods, other architectural concepts do not currently carry a mobility capability. In preparation for the Agency’s 2023 Architecture Concept Review (ACR), a team was assembled to establish a methodology for assessing the relocation feasibility of normally stationary elements. Such a capability could be applied locally or regionally, and might allow for re-purposing previously occupied terrain, expansion of exploration range, aggregation of habitation elements, or retiring systems at the end of their useful service life. The assembled NASA team investigated the relocation trade space through defining a representative concept of operations (ConOps) and assessing possible system impacts. The team focused predominately on the relocation of medium and large surface habitat architectural concepts through surface-based traverses utilizing separable mobility platforms (SMP). A representative mobility platform model was placed through simulation to analyze the possible energy requirements and dynamic illumination impacts. Preliminary assessment indicated that element relocation might be achievable, however significant system and architectural-level risks still need to be quantified. Future analysis will assist in determining what degree of element relocation provides the greatest benefit to achieving a sustained lunar presence. [1] NASA. (2022). Moon to Mars Objectives. Retrieved from: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/m2m-objectives-exec-summary.pdf

Artemis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Humans to Mars, but How Many? Using Training Requirements Modeling to Inform Crew Size

Missions to Mars will differ from previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner due to the long communication delays. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, that crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise of the Mission Control Central (MCC) team NASA currently relies upon. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is developing a methodology for assessing the trade space of factors that affect the number of crew for future missions. This methodology includes the consideration of results from three human performance models developed using the Improved Performance Research and Integration Tool (IMPRINT) modeling platform as well as a custom-built model on expertise trained within the crew. The IMPRINT results will be presented in the modeling and simulation sub-tag. Here we present results of a model based on NASA’s crew qualification and responsibility matrix (CQRM), a tool used to identify the crew qualifications for each area of responsibility (operation, system, and payload) for a mission. The model outputs an optimized allocation of training assignments along with a flight-assigned CQRM that can be used to consider the expertise that can be trained within a crew of a given size. We discuss the CQRM model result implications on the trade space for Mars mission crew size.

Mars↗