SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CHP”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of A Crew Health and Performance System Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool: Proof-of-Concept Approach

The crew health and performance (CHP) system represents the span of technological interventions and tested processes and procedures that in combination address the human risk to space flight. The Human Research Program (HRP) mental model of the CHP system breaks the capabilities needed to meet NASA human flight systems standards into specific categories (i.e., countermeasures, behavioral health, medical intervention). These categories are further broken down into specific sub-groups generally associated with the human system risks that these capabilities seek to mitigate. Like the approach used to develop the Integrated Medical Model (IMM) and the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Analysis Tool (MEDPRAT), HRP tasked NASA GRC’s Cross-Cutting Computational Modeling Project with developing a CHP probabilistic risk assessment tool, the CHP-PRA. The CHP-PRA model seeks to quantify and relatively assess the human risk state within the crew health and performance domain, using a combination of knowledge about human system risks and technology and practices likely to be applied during space flight missions. This modeling system will incorporate customer and stakeholder feedback and be flexible enough to address multiple different questions about important low-level mission-specific parameters. This presentation will introduce the initial concept and development timeline for this tool and demonstrate proof-of-concept through an application addressing a specific human risk question posed within the Artemis program.

Risk analysis↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the moon and eventually enable a human Mars mission. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the crew health and performance (CHP) research and technology development (R&D) necessary to enable these future missions. These organizations include flight programs as well as other organizations such as the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), Human Research Program, Space Technology Mission Directorate, and System Capability Leadership Teams, each of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for the management of risks and strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA for identifying and prioritizing R&D needs. Alignment and evolution of these strategic planning constructs is ongoing and will allow for alignment and traceability between M2M objectives and R&D investments at a detailed level. While this reorganization is ongoing, and even after it is established, there is a recognized need among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&D priorities in a unified and digestible way that synthesizes the considerations and perspectives of the CHP community across NASA. To achieve this, the HMTA facilitated a series of group discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, which culminated in a product identifying the eight highest priority mission-enabling CHP capabilities for human missions to Mars, referred to as the “Top Human System Capability Needs for Mars”. The list includes Earth-Independent Human Operations; Mars Duration Food System; Mars Duration Effects on Human Physiology; Risks Mitigations for Vehicle Atmospheres; Computational Injury & Anthropometric Models; Exploration Exercise Countermeasures; Individual Variability in Responses to Spaceflight; and Sensorimotor Countermeasures. Existing strategic planning and risk management tools and processes were considered, as well as practicalities of technical, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&D risk mitigations and technology solutions. The product is not owned by any one organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. It is anticipated that this list will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&D progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRS2024

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the Moon and to eventually enable humans to explore Mars. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the research and technology development (R&TD) that will be necessary to enable crew health and performance (CHP) during these future missions. These organizations include flight programs, the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), the Human Research Program, the Space Technology Mission Directorate, System Capability Leadership Teams, and other organizations, many of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for managing risks and supporting strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA to identify and prioritize R&TD needs. These strategic planning constructs are evolving to allow M2M objectives and R&TD investments to be aligned and traced at a detailed level. A recognized need exists among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&TD priorities in a unified and digestible way that addresses the perspectives of NASA’s CHP community. To achieve this, the HMTA arranged a series of discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, during which the 8 highest priority CHP capabilities that will enable human missions to Mars, referred to as the “top human system capability needs for Mars”, were identified. The list includes Earth-independent human operations; Mars-duration food system; Mars-duration effects on human physiology; risk mitigations for vehicle atmospheres; computational injury and anthropometric models; exploration exercise countermeasures; individual variability in responses to spaceflight; and sensorimotor countermeasures. Existing tools and processes for strategic planning and risk management were evaluated, as well as the technical practicalities, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&TD investments in different capability need areas. This capability needs report is not owned by any one NASA organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. These top capability needs will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&TD progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

technology gaps↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

technology gaps↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis III and IV Crew Health and Performance System Model Development

To maintain Crew Health and Performance (CHP) during an Artemis mission, the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) and Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) element recognize the challenge that many different vehicles, habitats, and operational groups must come together to develop and implement cross program capabilities. To address this challenge, the ExMC team created the prototype 2023 Artemis CHP System Model to analyze how human system requirements are implemented throughout an Artemis mission and help understand the effects of changing an individual vehicle or habitat requirement on a full mission. Since presenting this work at the 2024 HRP Investigators’ Workshop, ExMC has continued this effort, now called the Artemis III and IV CHP System Model, to better support its operational end users within the NASA Human Health and Performance Directorate (HHPD) workforce. In this presentation, we will recapitulate how visualizing requirements and their relationships using a Model-Based Systems Engineering approach (MBSE) serves to improve understanding of an Artemis mission’s CHP capabilities along with discussion on updates made to the model to increase accessibility for users within HHPD so that it may be used in the development of cross program CHP capabilities at NASA.

Crew Health and Performance↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Proof-of-Concept for a Long-Term Health Metric to Quantify End of Mission Health Status in Astronauts

NASA has long used Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) when high-stakes decisions need to be made about complex systems. For spaceflight medical risk, the Human Research Program’s Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) is a significant step towards robustly quantifying the risk to crew health during exploration missions. However, there remains a significant gap in the ability to comprehensively characterize and assess risk across the disparate functionalities and capabilities which comprise the entire Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system. To fill this gap, the Crew Health and Performance – Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) project aims to perform risk characterization for the CHP system by assessing performance risk in addition to medical risk. This effort also includes quantifying Long-Term Health (LTH) risk in addition to in-mission risk outcomes within the CHP-PRA results. LTH risk encompasses the timeframe from immediately post-flight, through the rest of an astronaut’s career, through retirement, and until death. A proof-of-concept LTH risk metric is based on medical condition end-state, as defined by the Evidence Library, capturing the spaceflight specific medical impacts persisting into post-flight[1]. Condition outcomes in the Evidence Library progress through three Clinical Phases (CP): the diagnostic phase (CP1), the treatment/convalescent phase (CP2), and the end-state phase (CP3) which represents the detrimental effects of the condition after the crew member has recovered to the maximal extent. Each CP has an associated Task Impairment (TI), defined as the degree of crew incapacity due to experiencing the condition, and is quantified with a 0-1 range. Conditions with an associated CP3 (e.g. Sepsis, Traumatic Hypovolemic Shock, Sudden Cardiac Arrest, etc.) typically have serious consequences that can cause an astronaut to be fully or partially debilitated throughout the remainder of the mission. Consequently, the Cumulative CP3 TI End-of-Mission Health Status Metric is developed by CHP-PRA to quantify the cumulative effects of all conditions which progressed to the CP3 state throughout the entirety of the mission. Hence, this End-of-Mission Health Status Metric attempts to serve as an indicator of an astronaut’s health state at the time of landing. The severity of the lingering effects of in-mission medical events are dependent on mission activities and the level of available in-mission medical care. This allows the associated cumulative TI metric to be used in comparison with the crew’s end of mission health status for different levels of in-mission resources. This presentation provides the strategy for using CP3 as an LTH metric component, as well as a proof-of-concept demonstration of LTH risk characterization using this component.

long term health↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sensorimotor Application of Proposed Methods to Combine the Effects of Multiple Countermeasures for PRisM

Risk associated with human systems is challenging to quantify but is critical for the mission planning and decision making required to enable future Lunar and Martian missions. To address this gap, the Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) project is developing an integrated computational model for CHP mission risk. Much like how MEDPRAT is designed to allow medical resource trades informed by medical risk, CHP-PRA will enable analogous trades in human system risks across multiple CHP functions and capabilities. Human performance is one component of the risk intended to be captured by CHP-PRA through the Performance Risk Model (PRisM). The sensorimotor risk area provides a good frame of reference for investigating the structure of a performance model because most tasks that astronauts are expected to perform require input from the sensory system and/or movement/motor control. Additionally, sensorimotor countermeasures are an area of particular concern for NASA’s Human Research Program because of the increased sensorimotor risk associated with surface operations in Lunar and Martian missions. Thus, a tool that can quickly compare risk reductions of potential countermeasures would be beneficial in guiding research and development of effective countermeasures. In this proof of concept, we present a systematic way to combine multiple performance data sets for humans subjected to different countermeasures such that we can predict the countermeasure(s) that optimize astronaut performance on relevant tasks. PRisM assumes that both the tests that are used to measure countermeasure effectiveness (input data) and the tasks we use to represent astronaut performance, can be broken down and represented as a function/vector of the human systems required to perform that test/task. Through mathematical combination, test data are used to predict performance on astronaut tasks that use similar systems. We propose that when combining countermeasures evaluated using the same test, that only one value should be used to represent their combined effectiveness. We start our analysis with the assumption that two countermeasures together will perform better than each countermeasure individually. Our initial implementation of this framework compares various space motion sickness countermeasures and the most up to date analysis will be demonstrated at the IWS.

Caroline R Austin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Future of Integrated Performance Modeling in the Crew Health and Performance – Probabilistic Risk Assessment Project

The NASA engineering community utilizes event-driven and fault-tree probabilistic techniques to classify risks in the space environment by taking advantage of the inherent knowledge of complex spaceflight system design and testing to quantify failure risk. In harmonizing the risk of human space flight, answering the question of ‘How do we balance health, performance and resource risks with other engineering risks on long duration space missions?’ remains a deeply challenging and largely qualitative practice. The Human Research Program’s Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) was a significant step forward in efforts to robustly quantify the risk to crew health for exploration missions. However, there remains a significant gap in the ability to comprehensively assess and characterize risk across the disparate functionalities and capabilities which comprise the Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system. The Crew Health and Performance – Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) project seeks to characterize CHP risks by expanding beyond the foundation established by its PRA predecessors like IMM and MEDPRAT, that simulate medical risk metrics like loss of crew life and evacuations. One of the new risk measures in the CHP-PRA system is embodied in our Performance Risk Model (PRisM). PRisM provides a novel way of assessing crew performance on mission tasks, using a generalized framework which relates back to NASA-STD-3001. This approach allows PRisM to capture and integrate data from a variety of different domains into a single, unified, reproducible representation of astronaut performance. In this presentation, we discuss the motivation for the CHP-PRA work and give a high level overview of the goals of the project, outline the forward work for PRisM, and discuss collaboration opportunities for the community who might explore if their domain knowledge and data could be represented, integrated, and quantified with these tools, whose outcomes are metrics useful for supporting operational mission planning and decision making.

Lauren McIntyre↗

NASA NTRS1999

Lidar Altimeter Measurements of Canopy Structure: Methods and Validation for Closed Canopy, Broadleaf Forests

Lidar altimeter observations of vegetated landscapes provide a time-resolved measure of laser pulse backscatter energy from canopy surfaces and the underlying ground. Airborne lidar altimeter data was acquired using the Scanning Lidar Imager of Canopies by Echo Recovery (SLICER) for a successional sequence of four, closed-canopy, deciduous forest stands in eastern Maryland. The four stands were selected so as to include a range of canopy structures of importance to forest ecosystem function, including variation in the height and roughness of the outer-most canopy surface and the vertical organization of canopy stories and gaps. The character of the SLICER backscatter signal is described and a method is developed that accounts for occlusion of the laser energy by canopy surfaces, transforming the backscatter signal to a canopy height profile (CHP) that quantitatively represents the relative vertical distribution of canopy surface area. The transformation applies an increased weighting to the backscatter amplitude as a function of closure through the canopy and assumes a horizontally random distribution of the canopy components. SLICER CHPs, averaged over areas of overlap where lidar ground tracks intersect, are shown to be highly reproducible. CHP transects across the four stands reveal spatial variations in vegetation, at the scale of the individual 10 m diameter laser footprints, within and between stands. Averaged SLICER CHPs are compared to analogous height profile results derived from ground-based sightings to plant intercepts measured on plots within the four stands. Tbe plots were located on the segments of the lidar ground tracks from which averaged SLICER CHPs were derived, and the ground observations were acquired within two weeks of the SLICER data acquisition to minimize temporal change. The differences in canopy structure between the four stands is similarly described by the SLICER and ground-based CHP results, however a Chi-square test of similarity documents differences that are statistically significant. The differences are discussed in terms of measurement properties that define the smoothness of the resulting CHPs and Lidar Altimeter Measurements of Canopy Structure - Harding et al. canopy properties that may vertically bias the CHP representations of canopy structure. The statistical differences are most likely due to the more noisy character of the ground-based CHPs, especially high in the canopy where ground-based sightings are rare resulting in an underestimate of canopy surface area and height, and to departures from the assumption of horizontal randomness which bias the CHPs toward the observer (upward for SLICER and downward for ground-based CHPs). The results demonstrate that the SLICER observations reliably provide a measure of canopy structure that reveals ecologically interesting structural variations such as those characterizing a successional sequence of closed-canopy, broadleaf forest stands.

Harding, D. J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Exploration Crew Health and Performance System of the Future - A Shared Mental Model

The challenges involved in vehicle/habitat design and operation for long-duration deep space missions are complex, and the needs of a human crew must be considered in the context of all the system trades required to enable such missions. An exploration Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system complements all the other vehicle/habitat systems to achieve one specific and critical endpoint – ensuring that the astronauts can perform the job that they were sent into space to do. This includes accounting for all aspects of the physiological, psychological, medical, and environmental realities that the human crew must face in deep space. Along with this system complexity comes the additional need for increased autonomy of the crew due to the immense distance from Earth. The design of future systems must respect the real human capabilities and limitations within the context of a mission to the Moon or Mars. The NASA Moon to Mars Objectives document outlines the need for advanced CHP system designs: • Develop systems that monitor and maintain crew health and performance throughout all mission phases, including during communication delays to Earth, and in an environment that does not allow emergency evacuation or terrestrial medical assistance. • Evaluate and validate progressively Earth-independent crew health & performance systems and operations with mission durations representative of Mars-class missions. • Validate readiness of systems and operations to support crew health and performance for the initial human Mars exploration campaign. This presentation will outline the initial work that Exploration Medical Capability is leading on the development of a prototype design for an exploration Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system for future NASA human deep space long-duration missions. This effort will require commitment from all stakeholders to a shared mental model of what a future exploration CHP system should look like, one that will address the needs, goals, and objectives of the Agency and help to ensure mission success in deep space.

K R Lehnhardt↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Strategies for Quantifying Human Space Flight Performance in the Crew Health and Performance System

The Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) team at NASA Glenn Research Center is planning a customized approach to quantify human spaceflight performance changes with respect to changes to the CHP system functions and capabilities. Using the Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) initiated by NASA’s Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB) [1], the team is surveying potential candidate models and novel strategies that generate metrics suitable for supporting decision making related to how the CHP system may influence human system performance risk. One such investigation includes classic Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) models. Traditionally, HRA methods estimate the occurrence of human errors and their impact on the success of an activity when designing and operating a system. While humans perceive, interpret, decide on, and carry out a course of action, the factors affecting performance and error likelihood are commonly referred to as performance shaping factors (PSFs). Originally developed to alleviate safety concerns related to nuclear power plant operations, HRA methods such as THERP [2] and CREAM [3] dismantle an activity into tasks, requiring elemental steps to be executed, and assess their failure due to predefined PSFs. In this study, we compare generic HRA methods and those that incorporate some human spaceflight aspects, such as sleep conditions (SCREAM [4]), with respect to how they may be adopted to capture performance with an intention to mitigate detrimental outcomes elucidated by the HSRB DAGs. We suggest strategies to quantify astronaut performance specific to spaceflight activities and illustrate how such concepts may help in optimizing the CHP system capabilities with respect to Artemis missions.

dag↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Health and Performance Integrated Data System Platform Project Updates

Future human exploration missions introduce a new paradigm as crews move further from the resupply and near real-time ground support typical of Low Earth Orbit missions today. Without immediate support from ground-based personnel, exploration crews will be more reliant on inflight data and technology to respond to emergencies and anomalies. Today, in-flight data is often siloed, unsynchronized, and largely inaccessible in real time. Many data sets require manual entry and/or data transfer between vehicles and the ground. These issues contribute to risks in supporting crew autonomy for future exploration missions. An integrated data system platform is needed to mitigate these risks by supporting a new generation of technologies and employing advanced analytical and predictive modeling techniques to enable crew autonomy for future exploration missions. The Crew Health and Performance Integrated Data System Platform (CHP-IDSP) project is laying a foundation for future in-flight informatics by providing a back-end architecture for collecting, storing, and integrating multiple sources of data generated by and around the crew. This cohesive integration point will streamline the management of CHP data (e.g., environmental, exercise, medical, sleep, performance, etc.) and facilitate situation awareness and decision support required by the crew and remote support of exploration missions. This presentation will describe the ongoing development effort of the path-to-flight CHP-IDSP software and the demonstration of its core capabilities. This includes a brief history of the project, the human-centered process used to identify data needs and workflows feeding the development of scenarios and requirements, and current subsystem development status. Current integrations, including the Chiron exploration electronic health record application, will be discussed. Future work includes collaboration with additional CHP domains and a flight technology demonstration.

Data integration↗

NASA NTRS1982

Heat transfer and flow characteristics of jets impinging on a concave hemispherical plate

The present study is concerned with an experimental investigation of the flow characteristics and heat transfer from turbulent air jets impinging normally on a concave hemispherical plate (CHP). It is found that the incompressible, turbulent jets impinging on a CHP are in many respects similar to the jets impinging on a flat plate. The observed differences are due to effects of curvature and to a slightly higher turbulence level inside of the CHP. Attention is given to the experimental apparatus, aspects of inner boundary layer development, the maximum velocity decay in a wall jet, the derivation of a maximum velocity decay formula, the influence of curvature on stagnation point heat transfer, and heat transfer calculations for a concave hemispherical plate.

Hrycak, P.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Systems Engineering to Develop an Integrated Crew Health and Performance System to Mitigate Risk for Human Exploration Missions

New space exploration missions are currently being designed to take humanity beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) to cis-lunar space, the lunar surface, and eventually to Mars. These missions carry increased risks due to a number of factors, including distance from Earth, exposure to deep space hazards, reduced capacity and ability to resupply and evacuate, and increased communication delays. As distance from Earth grows and mission length increases, a growing proportion of mission risk can be attributed to the “human system.” Almost twenty years ago, the Institute of Medicine in the United States recommended the early and complete integration of the human system into the spacecraft and mission design process to mitigate this increased risk inherent in exploration missions. Exploration missions will require increasing levels of crew self-sufficiency that will challenge the current operational paradigms established in LEO. Enabling progressive Earth independence requires management of the increasingly complex interactions among spacecraft systems and integration of all the data and functions that affect human health and performance into one coordinated system –the Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system. This system is a critical spacecraft system that is analogous to other systems such as propulsion, guidance and navigation, or avionics. Design and integration of the CHP system requires the evidence-based merger of typically disparate disciplines such as medicine, human factors, and life support system design, using systems engineering (SE) practices. SE provides traceability of spacecraft requirements and enables reliable and repeatable trade space analysis of the many competing options for hardware and software to be included in the mission architecture. The approach described here enables spacecraft and mission designers to align the scope of a CHP system with mission specific requirements, decrease risk to the crew, and increase the probability of mission success.

Kerry McGuire↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Systems Engineering to Develop an Integrated Crew Health and Performance System to Mitigate Risk for Human Exploration Missions

New space exploration missions are currently being designed to take humanity beyond Low EarthOrbit (LEO) to cis-lunar space, the lunar surface, and eventually to Mars. These missions carryincreased risks due to a number of factors, including distance from Earth, exposure to deep spacehazards, reduced capacity and ability to resupply and evacuate, and increased communication delays.As distance from Earth grows and mission length increases, a growing proportion of overall missionrisk can be attributed to the “human system.” Almost twenty years ago, the Institute of Medicine in theUnited States recommended the early and complete integration of the human system into thespacecraft and mission design process to mitigate this increased risk inherent in exploration missions.Exploration missions will require increasing levels of crew self-sufficiency that will challenge thecurrent operational paradigms established in LEO. Enabling progressive Earth independence requiresmanagement of the increasingly complex interactions among spacecraft systems and integration of allthe data and functions that affect human health and performance into one coordinated system – theCrew Health and Performance (CHP) system. This system is a critical spacecraft system that isanalogous to other systems such as propulsion, guidance and navigation, or avionics. Design andintegration of the CHP system requires the evidence-based merger of typically disparate disciplinessuch as medicine, human factors, and physiological support system design, using systems engineering(SE) practices. The approach described here enables spacecraft and mission designers to align thescope of a CHP system with mission specific requirements, decrease risk to the crew, and increase theprobability of mission success.

Kerry Mcguire↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 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. In many cases, research is required to characterize those risks and help identify risk mitigation strategies. Where new capabilities are necessary to maintain crew health and performance (CHP) during exploration missions, a multi-step process is followed: 1) a Capability Gap is defined; 2) a plan or “roadmap” to develop that capability is established based on agency priorities and anticipated mission development timelines; and 3) work defined on the roadmap is then initiated as resources allow, with the objective that the capability will be available in time to support the future mission. Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in CHP technology development, ground testbed development, ground-based testing, and in preparations for ISS technology demonstrations. This paper provides a development update in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures, EVA physiology and performance, food and nutrition, exploration medical capabilities, and radiation. Project overviews will include descriptions of CHP development activities over the past year, the human system risks and capability gaps being targeted, as well as planned follow-on activities and anticipated program infusion points.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗