Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “exploration risk”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

EVA Systems Technology Gaps and Priorities 2017

Performance of Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVA) has been and will continue to be a critical capability for human space flight. Human exploration missions beyond LEO will require EVA capability for either contingency or nominal activities to support mission objectives and reduce mission risk. EVA systems encompass a wide array of products across pressure suits, life support systems, EVA tools and unique spacecraft interface hardware (i.e. EVA Translation Paths and EVA Worksites). In a fiscally limited environment with evolving transportation and habitation options, it is paramount that the EVA community's strategic planning and architecture integration products be reviewed and vetted for traceability between the mission needs far into the future to the known technology and knowledge gaps to the current investments across EVA systems. To ascertain EVA technology and knowledge gaps many things need to be brought together, assessed and analyzed. This includes an understanding of the destination environments, various mission concept of operations, current state of the art of EVA systems, EVA operational lessons learned, and reference advanced capabilities. A combined assessment of these inputs should result in well-defined list of gaps. This list can then be prioritized depending on the mission need dates and time scale of the technology or knowledge gap closure plan. This paper will summarize the current state of EVA related technology and knowledge gaps derived from NASA's Exploration EVA Reference Architecture and Operations Concept products. By linking these products and articulating NASA's approach to strategic development for EVA across all credible destinations an EVA could be done in, the identification of these gaps is then used to illustrate the tactical and strategic planning for the EVA technology development portfolio. Finally, this paper illustrates the various "touch points" with other human exploration risk identification areas including human health and performance.

Johnson, Brian J.↗
NASA NTRS2012

The International Space Station: Unique In-Space Testbed as Exploration Analog

Final assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) was completed in 2011. As articulated in the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan, the Agency's first goal is to extend and sustain human activities across the solar system. Thus, the emerging NASA vision is to launch a bold and ambitious new space initiative to enable human space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit to Lagrange points, the moon, near-Earth asteroids (NEAs), and Mars and its environs. To accomplish this vision, it is necessary to develop and validate innovative exploration technologies and operational concepts. With the extended life of the ISS to 2020 and possibly 2028, NASA has a mandate to maximize the potential of the Nation's newest National Laboratory. Exploration and ISS teams within NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) have initiated a cooperative effort: the ISS Testbed for Analog Research (ISTAR), a high-fidelity operational analog that complements existing NASA terrestrial laboratory and field testing. To maximize use of the ISS platform to evaluate new exploration technologies, capabilities, and operational concepts to better comprehend and mitigate human spaceflight risks, ISTAR seeks out and encourages investigations dubbed "exploration detailed test objectives" (xDTOs). These xDTOs, building blocks of ISTAR missions, develop and optimize the operations concepts and the use of new technologies that should reduce risks and challenges facing astronauts on long exploration spaceflight voyages. In this paper, we describe (1) the rationale behind ISTAR, (2) a five-year strategic plan, (3) the approach for mission formulation, development, integration, and execution, (4) concepts for near-term missions that implement a phased approach for using ISS as an exploration testbed, and (5) the planned Mars mission simulation using the ISS. This paper will also document several challenges ISTAR must address to execute its missions.

Analog Mission↗
NASA NTRS2005

ESMD Risk Management Workshop: Systems Engineering and Integration Risks

This report has been developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) Risk Management team in close coordination with the Systems Engineering Team. This document provides a point-in-time, cumulative, summary of key lessons learned derived from the SE RFP Development process. Lessons learned invariably address challenges and risks and the way in which these areas have been addressed. Accordingly the risk management thread is woven throughout the document.

Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2022 to 2023 Overview

Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. These hazards necessitate development of new technologies to protect crew health and performance during future long-duration missions to the moon and Mars. NASA’s System Capability Leads coordinate with agency experts, programs, and exploration architecture teams to identify and prioritize technology investments in support of future missions. This paper describes progress over the past year in CHP technology development, ground testbed development, ground-based testing, and in-flight technology demonstrations. Technology maturation progress and future plans are described in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures; spacesuit physiology and performance; food and nutrition; radiation protection; and exploration medical capabilities.

Andrew F.J. Abercromby↗
DOE OSTI2024

Coupling of the Electricity and Transportation Sectors - Part II: Risk Assessment

This comprehensive report explores the intricate interplay through “sector coupling” between the Transportation Sector, Energy Sector, and the critical infrastructure challenges faced by the United States. Aligned with the ambitious federal goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the report analyzes the present vulnerabilities in the fossil fuel supply chain, highlighting instances where the dependence on this industry has been susceptible to local and global disruptions. With a focus on risk assessment, this report establishes a framework to compare the fossil fuel-based transportation sector with the burgeoning electrified sector, considering the evolving technologies in electric vehicles (EVs) and the nascent charging infrastructure. This study delves into the historical reliability of fossil fuel-based transportation and identifies opportunities for strengthening sector coupling between transportation and the electric sector. Assessments of the gasoline-diesel supply chain provide insights into both opportunities and threats, offering a roadmap for creating a more reliable and resilient electrified transportation system. We modeled sectoral coupling scenarios for the current internal combustion engine (ICE)-based and future EV-dominant landscapes, leveraging qualitative sector attributes to identify relative strengths and weaknesses in Part 1 of the report. In this report (Part 2) we continue to understand the role of the electricity sector on transportation and develop a semi-quantitative methodology is employed to evaluate and compare the risks associated with the fossil fueled and electric transportation sector during emergency scenarios, drawing from real-world events like hurricanes and geopolitical disruptions. Different operational scenarios for the fossil fuel and electrified sectors have been developed to understand the risks associated with them. This report concludes with recommendations for the architectural designs of electric charging infrastructure, underlining the need for informed decisions in the transition towards a sustainable and resilient transportation future.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS2003

Requirements, architectures and risks

We advocate the use of risk-based reasoning to help make good architectural decisions. We explore the adaptation of a risk management process and tool to this purpose.

risk requirements architectures↗
NASA NTRS2013

Fifteen-minute Extravehicular Activity Prebreathe Protocol Using NASA's Exploration Atmosphere (8.2 psia/ 34% 02)

A TBDM DCS probability model based on an existing biophysical model of inert gas bubble growth provides significant prediction and goodness-of-fit with 84 cases of DCS in 668 human altitude exposures. 2. Model predictions suggest that 15-minute O2 prebreathe protocols used in conjunction with suit ports and an 8.2 psi, 34% O2, 66% N2 atmosphere may enable rapid EVA capability for future exploration missions with the risk of DCS ≤ 12%.  EVA could begin immediately at 6.0 psi, with crewmembers decreasing suit pressure to 4.3 psi after completing the 15-minute in-suit prebreathe. 3. Model predictions suggest that intermittent recompression during exploration EVA may reduce decompression stress by 1.8% to 2.3% for 6 hours of total EVA time. Savings in gas consumables and crew time may be accumulated by abbreviating the EVA suit N2 purge to 2 minutes (20% N2) compared with 8 minutes (5% N2) at the expense of an increase in estimated decompression risk of up to 2.4% for an 8-hour EVA.  Increased DCS risk could be offset by IR or by spending additional time at 6 psi at the beginning of the EVA.  Savings of 0.48 lb of gas and 6 minutes per person per EVA corresponds to more than 31 hours of crew time and 1800 lb of gas and tankage under the Constellation lunar architecture. 6. Further research is needed to characterize and optimize breathing mixtures and intermittent recompression across the range of environments and operational conditions in which astronauts will live and work during future exploration missions. 7. Development of exploration prebreathe protocols will begin with definition of acceptable risk, followed by development of protocols based on models such as ours, and, ultimately, validation of protocols through ground trials before operational implementation.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

The Space Medicine Exploration Medical Condition List

Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) is an element of NASA s Human Research Program (HRP). ExMC's goal is to address the risk of the "Inability to Adequately Recognize or Treat an Ill or Injured Crewmember." This poster highlights the approach ExMC has taken to address this risk. The Space Medicine Exploration Medical Condition List (SMEMCL) was created to define the set of medical conditions that are most likely to occur during exploration space flight missions. The list was derived from the International Space Station Medical Checklist, the Shuttle Medical Checklist, in-flight occurrence data from the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health, and NASA subject matter experts. The list of conditions was further prioritized for eight specific design reference missions with the assistance of the ExMC Advisory Group. The purpose of the SMEMCL is to serve as an evidence-based foundation for the conditions that could affect a crewmember during flight. This information is used to ensure that the appropriate medical capabilities are available for exploration missions.

Watkins, Sharmi↗
NASA NTRS2009

Developing a Gap Taxonomy to Address Crew Health Risks in NASA's Human Research Program

The mission of NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) is to understand and reduce the risk to crew health and performance in exploration missions. The HRP addresses 27 specific risks by identifying and then filling gaps in understanding the risks and in the ability to disposition the risks. The primary bases for identifying gaps have been past experience and requirements definition. This approach has been very effective in identifying some important, relevant gaps, but may be inadequate for identifying gaps outside the past experience base. We are exploring the use of a gap taxonomy as a comprehensive, underlying conceptual framework that allows a more systematic identification of gaps. The taxonomy is based on these stages in medical care: prediction, prevention, detection/diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, rehabilitation, and lifetime surveillance. This gap taxonomy approach identifies new gaps in HRP health risks. Many of the new gaps suggest risk reduction approaches that are more cost effective than present approaches. A major benefit of the gap taxonomy approach is to identify new, economical approaches that reduce the likelihood and/or consequence of a risk.

Kundrot, Craig E.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Work-Rest Cycles

BHP Program Element Goal: Identify, characterize, and prevent or reduce behavioral health and performance risks associated with space travel, exploration and return to terrestrial life. BHP Requirements: a) Characterize and assess risks (e.g., likelihood and consequences). b) Develop tools and technologies to prevent, monitor, and treat adverse outcomes. c) Inform standards. d) Develop technologies to: 1) reduce risks and human systems resource requirements (e.g., crew time, mass, volume, power) and 2) ensure effective human-system integration across exploration mission.

Leveton, Lauren B.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Risk of Bone Fracture due to Spaceflight-induced Changes to Bone

The Human Research Program (HRP) is taking a biomechanical approach to assessing subsequent fracture risk in active astronauts as a consequence of spaceflight exposure. Triennial testing of active and retired astronauts continues as Space Medicine monitors for a premature diagnosis of primary osteoporosis, which is associated with age-related bone loss and skeletal fragility. This updated 2023 Fracture Evidence Report has expanded the description of skeletal changes to capture the full effects of spaceflight on bone: • Recent analysis of fractures from health records of the full astronaut cohort, suggests an increased incidence rate of hip and spine fractures in astronauts following longer spaceflight duration flights compared to incident rates found in shorter duration flights. • Routine preflight-to-postflight surveillance by DXA (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) does not provide the full detection of loss and recovery in the long-duration (LD) astronaut nor the full recovery of hip trabecular bone. • The inclusion of hip quantitative computed tomography (QCT) in flight studies delineates effects of spaceflight, of countermeasures, and of post-flight recovery on cortical and trabecular bone parameters—some of which are verified predictors of hip fracture in the aged. • QCT detects and compares the distinct countermeasure effects of the pharmaceutical alendronate and of resistive exercise (on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device, ARED) in specific cortical and trabecular bone sub-regions during spaceflight. • A published comparison of QCT-determined loss rates of hip trabecular bone in LD astronauts compared to terrestrial cohorts suggest that accelerated loss rates in trabecular volumetric BMD (vBMD) during spaceflight might be analogous to skeletal effects of accelerated loss rates in females due to menopause, potentially leading to disruptions in trabecular microarchitecture. • A dataset of finite element (FE) estimates of hip bone strength in aging terrestrial cohorts (spanning astronaut age-range) provides comparative context for changes in the FE of hip bone strength in LD astronauts, including comparison (force unit of newton) to percentiles (50th, 75th, and 100th) of sex-matched aged humans with hip fractures. • Risk of fracture, due to the mechanical overloading of bones, is being updated with IMPACT, the next-generation tool suite for probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for exploration missions being created by the Exploration and Medical Capability Element (ExMC) at NASA. IMPACT is currently in development and will not be included in this 2024 update. The risk for fracture necessitates understanding the relationship between applied loads to bone and the biomechanical competence of bone. The Risk for Early Onset Osteoporosis focuses on the weakened condition of bone (including development of new technologies, measurements of novel skeletal attributes, translation of multiple measures to an index of bone fragility, and interpretations of data used to reflect a weakened bone), while the Risk for Fracture assesses factors that influence the probability an astronaut would encounter applied loads exceeding the biomechanical competence of bones, resulting in fracture. This Evidence Report combines the research gaps and tasks associated with both risks.

Fracture↗
NASA NTRS2014

Engineering Risk Assessment of Space Thruster Challenge Problem

The Engineering Risk Assessment (ERA) team at NASA Ames Research Center utilizes dynamic models with linked physics-of-failure analyses to produce quantitative risk assessments of space exploration missions. This paper applies the ERA approach to the baseline and extended versions of the PSAM Space Thruster Challenge Problem, which investigates mission risk for a deep space ion propulsion system with time-varying thruster requirements and operations schedules. The dynamic mission is modeled using a combination of discrete and continuous-time reliability elements within the commercially available GoldSim software. Loss-of-mission (LOM) probability results are generated via Monte Carlo sampling performed by the integrated model. Model convergence studies are presented to illustrate the sensitivity of integrated LOM results to the number of Monte Carlo trials. A deterministic risk model was also built for the three baseline and extended missions using the Ames Reliability Tool (ART), and results are compared to the simulation results to evaluate the relative importance of mission dynamics. The ART model did a reasonable job of matching the simulation models for the baseline case, while a hybrid approach using offline dynamic models was required for the extended missions. This study highlighted that state-of-the-art techniques can adequately adapt to a range of dynamic problems.

Assessment↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the $\textit{Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems}$ (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2010

Using Analog Field Tests To Link and Prepare Science and In-Situ Resource Utilization for Future Space Missions

A major goal of NASA s human exploration program is to learn how to use the resources of space, known as In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), to lower the cost and risk of human space exploration. Successful implementation of ISRU requires detailed knowledge of surface and subsurface materials, minerals, and volatiles that may be present. This same information is required to better understand the physical and geologic composition, structure, origin, and evolution of the Moon, Mars, and other extraterrestrial bodies of interest. It is also important to recognize that while ISRU and science objectives may be similar, the desired method or hardware to achieve the information desired may be drastically different. One method to promote understanding, coordination, and joint development of instruments and operations between Science and ISRU is the use of analog field demonstrations.

Sanders, Gerald B.↗
NASA NTRS2000

The Mars Project: Avoiding Decompression Sickness on a Distant Planet

A cost-effective approach for Mars exploration is to use available resources, such as water and atmospheric gases. Nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar) are available and could form the inert gas component of a habitat atmosphere at 8.0, 9.0, or 10.0 pounds per square inch (psia). The habitat and space suit are designed as an integrated system: a comfortable living environment about 85% of the time and a safe working environment about 15% of the time. A goal is to provide a system that permits unrestricted exploration of Mars, but the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) during the extravehicular activity in a 3.75-psia suit, after exposure to any of the three habitat conditions, may limit unrestricted exploration. I evaluate here the risk of DCS since a significant proportion of a trinary breathing gas in the habitat might contain Ar. I draw on past experience and published information to extrapolate into untested, multivariable conditions to evaluate risk. A rigorous assessment of risk as a probability of DCS for each habitat condition is not yet possible. Based on many assumptions about Ar in hypobaric decompressions, I conclude that the presence of Ar significantly increases the risk of DCS. The risk is significant even with the best habitat option: 2.56 psia oxygen, 3.41 psia N2, and 2.20 psia Ar. Several hours of prebreathing 100% 02, a higher suit pressure, or a combination of other important variables such as limited exposure time on the surface or exercise during prebreathe would be necessary to reduce the risk of DCS to an acceptable level. The acceptable level for DCS risk on Mars has not yet been determined. Mars is a great distance from Earth and therefore from primary medical care. The acceptable risk would necessarily be defined by the capability to treat DCS in the Rover vehicle, in the habitat, or both.

Conkin, Johnny↗
NASA NTRS2010

NASA's International Lunar Network Anchor Nodes and Robotic Lunar Lander Project Update

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory have been conducting mission studies and performing risk reduction activities for NASA's robotic lunar lander flight projects. Additional mission studies have been conducted to support other objectives of the lunar science and exploration community and extensive risk reduction design and testing has been performed to advance the design of the lander system and reduce development risk for flight projects.

Cohen, Barbara A.↗