Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Steinberg, Susan

Publications and source records attributed to Steinberg, Susan.

51 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

2013 Immune Risk Standing Review Panel Research Plan Review for: The Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response

The 2013 Immune Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) participated in a meeting with representatives from the Human Research Program (HRP) Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element and HRP management on February 3-4, 2014 in Houston, TX to review the updated Research Plan for the Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response in the HRP Integrated Research Plan. The SRP is impressed with the work the immune discipline has done since the 2012 SRP review and agrees with the new wording of the Gaps, no longer questions, now statements. The SRP also likes the addition of adding targets for closing the Gaps, but it is not clear how they got to some of the interim stages (interval percentages). A major concern that the SRP has mentioned since the initial 2009 SRP meeting is that there is still not enough emphasis on the interdisciplinary aspect of the immune risk associated with other risks (i.e., nutrition, radiation, etc.). The SRP recommends that a "translational SRP" or advisory group be developed that is composed of members from all of the HRP SRPs. The SRP also thinks that the immune discipline should consider a more systems biology approach. Lastly, the SRP is concerned that the risks observed in research from low Earth orbit (LEO) missions may not accurately reflect all the risks of longer duration flight beyond LEO. Also, there does not seem to be a concern for immune responses that may occur when someone is in space longer than six months, for example, a Mars mission would take three years. The absence of disease in past and current flight scenarios does not mean the risk may not be there in future flight settings.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2014

2013 Immune Risk Standing Review Panel Evidence Review for: The Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response

The 2013 Immune Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on February 3-4, 2014. The SRP reviewed the new Evidence Report for the Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response (from here on referred to as the 2013 Immune Evidence Report), as well as the Research Plan for this Risk that is in the current version of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Integrated Research Plan (IRP).

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Decompression Sickness/Extravehicular Activity Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Decompression Sickness (DCS)/Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on November 4 - 5, 2014. The SRP reviewed the Research Plans for The Risk of Decompression Sickness and the Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations, as well as the Evidence Reports for both of these Risks. The SRP found that the NASA DCS/EVA team did an excellent job of presenting their research plans. The SRP considers it critical that NASA proceeds with the high priority tasks identified in this report (DCS1, DCS3, DCS5). The highest priority is to determine the acceptable DCS and hypoxia risk associated with the planned human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The risk of DCS is highly dependent upon the pressure within the exploration vehicle. If slightly more hypoxia is permitted then (even with the same percentage of oxygen) the pressure within the exploration vehicle can be lowered thus further mitigating the risk of DCS. The second highest priority is to test and validate the recommended 8.2psi/34% O2 atmosphere. Development of procedures and equipment for human exploration missions are very limited until the results of this testing are completed. The SRP also suggests that DCS7 be separated into two Gaps. Gap DCS7 should deal with DCS treatment while a new Gap should be created to deal with the long-term effects of DCS. The SRP also encourages NASA to increase collaboration with other organizations and pool resources where possible. The current NASA DCS/EVA team has the extensive expertise and a wealth of knowledge in this area. The SRP suggests that increased manpower for this team would be highly productive.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2011

Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan

Crew health and performance are critical to successful human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The Human Research Program (HRP) is essential to enabling extended periods of space exploration because it provides knowledge and tools to mitigate risks to human health and performance. Risks include physiological effects from radiation and hypogravity environments, as well as unique challenges in medical support, human factors, and behavioral or psychological factors. The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. Without HRP results, NASA will face unknown and unacceptable risks for mission success and post-mission crew health. This Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes (1) HRP's approach and research activities that are intended to address the needs of human space exploration and serve HRP customers and (2) the method of integration for risk mitigation. The scope of the IRP is limited to the activities that can be conducted with the resources available to the HRP; it does not contain activities that would be performed if additional resources were available. The timescale of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illustrates the program s research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of extended duration.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA 2010 Pharmacology Evidence Review

In 2008, the Institute of Medicine reviewed NASA's Human Research Program Evidence in assessing the Pharmacology risk identified in NASA's Human Research Program Requirements Document (PRD). Since this review there was a major reorganization of the Pharmacology discipline within the HRP, as well as a re-evaluation of the Pharmacology evidence. This panel is being asked to review the latest version of the Pharmacology Evidence Report. Specifically, this panel will: (1) Appraise the descriptions of the human health-related risk in the HRP PRD. (2) Assess the relevance and comprehensiveness of the evidence in identifying potential threats to long-term space missions. (3) Assess the associated gaps in knowledge and identify additional areas for research as necessary.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2011

Human Research Program 2010 Chair Standing Review Panel Meeting

The 13 Human Research Program (HRP) Standing Review Panel (SRP) Chairs, and in some cases one or two additional panel members (see section XIV, roster) referred to as the Chair (+1) SRP throughout this document, met at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) on December 7, 2010 to allow the HRP Elements and Projects to report on their progress over the past year, their current status, and their plans for the upcoming year based on NASA's current goals and objectives for human space exploration. A large focus of the meeting was also used to discuss integration across the HRP scientific disciplines based on a recommendation from the 2009 HRP SRP review. During the one-day meeting, each of the HRP Elements and Projects presented the changes they made to the HRP Integrated Research Plan (IRP Rev. B) over the last year, and what their top three areas of integration are between other HRP Elements/Projects. The Chair (+1) SRP spent sufficient time addressing the panel charge, either as a group or in a separate closed session, and the Chair (+1) SRP and the HRP presenters and observers, in most cases, had sufficient time to discuss during and after the presentations. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist, Dr. John B. Charles, prior to the close of the meeting on December 7, 2010. Overall, the Chair (+1) SRP concluded that most of the HRP Elements/Projects did a commendable job during the past year in addressing integration across the HRP scientific disciplines with the available resources. The Chair (+1) SRP agreed that the idea of integration between HRP Elements/Projects is noble, but believes all parties involved should have the same definition of integration, in order to be successful. The Chair (+1) SRP also believes that a key to successful integration is communication among the HRP Elements/Projects which may present a challenge. The Chair (+1) SRP recommends that the HRP have a workshop on program integration (with HRP Element/Project representatives and maybe outside experts), to interpret the several meanings of integration and how they best can be implemented for the HRP. Another suggestion regarding integration between HRP Elements/Projects is that the HRP convene a meeting of scientists who have a good record of pursuing multidisciplinary/integrative research in the general areas that are relevant to the HRP; identify those that are of high priority; and then support research on those, giving priority to multidisciplinary/integrative teams in which all relevant HRP disciplines are represented. Some of these teams may be already established and functioning within the HRP; others might be organized in response to NASA's research announcements. Lastly, the Chair (+1) SRP felt that there were two overarching issues that spanned across all of the HRP Elements/Projects. The first, which was discussed in great detail, is access to the astronaut medical records, psychological as well as physical. New research will not be useful unless one has access to what has been done, what has worked, and what has not worked. Second is access to records of what medications are being taken by the astronauts while in-flight. The Chair (+1) SRP feels that there needs to be good medical reconciliation to know beginning to end what is happening healthwise to the astronauts.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2011

DCS: A Case Study of Identification of Knowledge and Disposition Gaps Using Principles of Continuous Risk Management

The Human Research Program (HRP) is formulated around the program architecture of Evidence-Risk-Gap-Task-Deliverable. Review of accumulated evidence forms the basis for identification of high priority risks to human health and performance in space exploration. Gaps in knowledge or disposition are identified for each risk, and a portfolio of research tasks is developed to fill them. Deliverables from the tasks inform the evidence base with the ultimate goal of defining the level of risk and reducing it to an acceptable level. A comprehensive framework for gap identification, focus, and metrics has been developed based on principles of continuous risk management and clinical care. Research towards knowledge gaps improves understanding of the likelihood, consequence or timeframe of the risk. Disposition gaps include development of standards or requirements for risk acceptance, development of countermeasures or technology to mitigate the risk, and yearly technology assessment related to watching developments related to the risk. Standard concepts from clinical care: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, rehabilitation, and surveillance, can be used to focus gaps dealing with risk mitigation. The research plan for the new HRP Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS) used the framework to identify one disposition gap related to establishment of a DCS standard for acceptable risk, two knowledge gaps related to DCS phenomenon and mission attributes, and three mitigation gaps focused on prediction, prevention, and new technology watch. These gaps were organized in this manner primarily based on target for closure and ease of organizing interim metrics so that gap status could be quantified. Additional considerations for the knowledge gaps were that one was highly design reference mission specific and the other gap was focused on DCS phenomenon.

Norcross, Jason↗
NASA NTRS2010

Human System Drivers for Exploration Missions

Evaluation of DRM4 in terms of the human system includes the ability to meet NASA standards, the inclusion of the human system in the design trade space, preparation for future missions and consideration of a robotic precursor mission. Ensuring both the safety and the performance capability of the human system depends upon satisfying NASA Space Flight Human System Standards.1 These standards in turn drive the development of program-specific requirements for Near-earth Object (NEO) missions. In evaluating DRM4 in terms of these human system standards, the currently existing risk models, technologies and biological countermeasures were used. A summary of this evaluation is provided below in a structure that supports a mission architecture planning activities. 1. Unacceptable Level of Risk The duration of the DRM4 mission leads to an unacceptable level of risk for two aspects of human system health: A. The permissible exposure limit for space flight radiation exposure (a human system standard) would be exceeded by DRM4. B. The risk of visual alterations and abnormally high intracranial pressure would be too high. 1

Kundrot, Craig E.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Human Health and Performance Considerations for Exploration of Near-Earth Asteroids

This presentation will describe the human health and performance issues that are anticipated for the human exploration of near-Earth asteroids (NEA). Humans are considered a system in the design of any such deep-space exploration mission, and exploration of NEA presents unique challenges for the human system. Key factors that define the mission are those that are strongly affected by distance and duration. The most critical of these is deep-space radiation exposure without even the temporary shielding of a nearby large planetary body. The current space radiation permissible exposure limits (PEL) restrict mission duration to 3-10 months depending on age and gender of crewmembers and stage of the solar cycle. Factors that affect mission architecture include medical capability; countermeasures for bone, muscle, and cardiovascular atrophy during continuous weightlessness; restricted food supplies; and limited habitable volume. The design of a habitat that can maintain the physical and psychological health of the crew and support mission operations with limited intervention from Earth will require an integrated research and development effort by NASA s Human Research Program, engineering, and human factors groups. Limited abort and return options for an NEA mission are anticipated to have important effects on crew psychology as well as influence medical supplies and training requirements of the crew. Other important factors are those related to isolation, confinement, communication delays, autonomous operations, task design, small crew size, and even the unchanging view outside the windows for most of the mission. Geological properties of the NEA will influence design of sample handling and containment, and extravehicular activity capabilities including suit ports and tools. A robotic precursor mission that collects basic information on NEA surface properties would reduce uncertainty about these aspects of the mission as well as aid in design of mission architecture and exploration tasks.

Kundrot, Craig↗