Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “SrP”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2008

Safety Review Panel (SRP) Special Topic Presentation on the Iodine Compatible Water Container (ICWC)

This viewgraph presentation reviews the safety requirements for the Iodine Compatible Water Container (ICWC). The topics include: 1) ICWC Team; 2) Purpose of presentation; 3) Background/Description of ICWC System; 4) Current status of ICWC Project; 5) HTV launch NCR Processing; 6) Tox 1 containment NCR processing; and 7) ISS on-orbit failure propagation and fault tolerance NCR processing.

Thomas, Evan A.↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 SRP Integration Transcript

HRP's mission is to reduce the risks to human health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. The HRP Integrated Research Plan (IRP) contains the research plans for the 32 risks that require research to characterize and mitigate. From its inception the "integrate" aspect of the IRP has denoted the integrated nature of risks to human health and performance. Even though each risk in the IRP has its own research plan and is tracked separately, the interrelated nature of health and performance requires that they be addressed in an integrative or holistic fashion so that the connectedness of physiological systems within the human body and the integrated response to spaceflight can be addressed. Common characteristics of the spaceflight environment include altered gravity, atmospheres, and light/dark cycles; space radiation; isolation; noise; and periods of high or low workload. Long-term exposure to this unique environment produces a suite of physiological effects such as stress; vision, neurocognitive, and anthropometric changes; circadian misalignment; fluid shifts; cardiovascular deconditioning; immune dysregulation; and altered nutritional requirements. Expanding cross-disciplinary integrative approaches that synthesize concepts or data from two or more disciplines would improve the identification and characterization risk factors, and enable the development of countermeasures relevant to multiple risks. Cross-disciplinary approaches might also help to illuminate problem areas that may arise when a countermeasure adversely impacts risks other than those which it was developed to mitigate, or to identify groupings of physiological changes that are likely to occur that may impact the overall risk posture. In 2014 HRP embarked on a pilot study that combined four SRPs (and 12 HRP risks) - Behavioral Health, Sensorimotor, Cardiovascular, and Bone/Muscle - specifically to discuss cross-disciplinary integration. The points outlined below were suggested to seed the discussion, within the bounding constraint that research plans must be feasible and relevant to the HRP mission. While these were suggested starting points, the overall guiding principle was to allow free discussion from panel members on any aspect of integrated research that they felt was important, Existing cross-disciplinary integration as documented in the IRP (HRR), Existing or needed integration already identified by HRP, but not yet well defined within the IRP, Areas of integration that are missing.

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 NTRS2015

2015 Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel Evidence and Status Review For: the Risk of Impaired Control of Spacecraft/Associated Systems and Decreased Mobility Due to Vestibular/Sensorimotor Alterations Associated with Spaceflight

The 2015 Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) participated in a WebEx/teleconference with members of the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element, representatives from the Human Research Program (HRP), NASA Headquarters, and NASA Research and Education Support Services (NRESS) on December 17, 2015 (list of participants is in Section VI of this report). The SRP reviewed the new Evidence Report for the Risk of Impaired Control of Spacecraft/Associated Systems and Decreased Mobility Due to Vestibular/Sensorimotor Alterations Associated with Spaceflight (from here on referred to as the 2015 Sensorimotor Evidence Report), and also received a status review of the Risk. The opening section of the 2015 Sensorimotor Evidence Report provides written descriptions of various incidents that have occurred during space missions. In most of these incidents, the main underlying contributing factors are not easy to identify unambiguously. For example, in section 1.9, a number of falls occurred while astronauts were walking on the moon. It is not clear to the SRP, however, why they fell. It is only possible to extrapolate from likely specific psychophysical or physiological abnormalities, but how these abnormalities were determined, and how they were directly responsible for the falls is unclear to the SRP. Section 2.1.2 on proprioception is very interesting, but the functional significance of the abnormalities detected is not clear. The SRP sees this as a problem throughout the report: a mapping between the component abnormalities identified and the holistic behaviors that are most relevant, for example, controlling the vehicle, and locomotion during egress, is generally lacking. The SRP thinks the cognitive section is too strongly focused on vestibular functioning. The SRP questions the notion that the main cognitive effects are mainly attributable to reversible vestibular changes induced by spaceflight. The SRP thinks that there can also be independent cognitive effects. The Functional Task Test (FTT) protocols and the Field Test are particularly valuable. The conclusion is that the unloading of major postural muscles experienced during spaceflight plays a central role in the alteration of functional task performance and balance control. This conclusion stands in contrast with the statements in other parts of the document that emphasize the role of vestibular changes on these functions. It would help to more fully integrate these two views on the predominant effects of spaceflight. Although the SRP thinks the countermeasures section is interesting, the proposed countermeasures are not well integrated with the abnormalities described in previous sections. The SRP thinks it would help enormously to have explicit links among each abnormality, its 2015 Sensorimotor Risk SRP Evidence Review Final Report 2 overall importance/impact on function, and the appropriate countermeasure that can be implemented to maintain adequate functioning.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

James Webb Space Telescope Navigation Optimization Challenges

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a NASA flagship mission launched on December 25, 2021. The early orbit phase was highlighted by three midcourse correction burns that were performed to maneuver the vehicle into a libration orbit at the second Sun-Earth-Moon (SEM) libration point (L2). During the coast to L2, the vehicle’s primary observatory and sunshield were deployed. Once the tennis-court-sized sunshield was unfurled and tensioned into place, the large area exposed to solar radiation pressure (SRP) dictated that the SRP force model would need to account for the vehicle’s geometry, reflective properties, and orientation relative to the Sun. Following the insertion of JWST into its L2 libration orbit on January 24, 2022, the commissioning phase for the vehicle’s observatory commenced along with the first cycle of routine station-keeping maneuvers. The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) provides navigation services for the JWST mission. The FDF serves as the prime or backup navigation operations center for more than 30 active missions spanning a wide array of flight regimes performing orbit determination, maneuver planning, trajectory optimization, and tracking data evaluation. Definitive orbit determination for JWST is performed by the FDF using an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) to estimate the vehicle’s trajectory and reflective properties using Deep Space Network (DSN) TRK-2-34 tracking data and spacecraft attitude telemetry. For the purposes of orbit prediction and station-keeping maneuver targeting, the sensitivity of the SRP force to the vehicle’s orientation requires that predictive attitude information must be incorporated to generate accurate orbit predictions and maneuver plans. Predictive attitude plans are provided to the FDF by the JWST Spacecraft Operations Center (SOC). Short-term (28 day) orbit predictions are propagated using a Short Range Attitude Plan (SRAP) to model the vehicle’s future attitude states for up to a week. SRAP attitude data is highly reliable, as it reflects finalized planned attitude states that the vehicle will be commanded to attain during the ensuing week. A Long Range Attitude Plan (LRAP) can be implemented to model predicted attitude states beyond one week, but these predictions are tentative and subject to revision due to changes in science operations plans. Instead, a conservative approach of applying a Sun-Pointing Neutral (SPN) attitude configuration is utilized for long-term (2 year) orbit predictions where reliable planned attitude data is not available. SPN attitude mode aligns the net SRP force along the JWST-to-Sun vector where it becomes independent of the vehicle’s angle of rotation about this vector, defined as the Sun yaw. Given the dynamic instability of the libration orbit, station-keeping thrust must be applied in either the sunward or anti-sunward direction to balance the resulting orbit. The attitude constraints of the vehicle also impose limits on the available pointing directions for station-keeping thrusters. The thrusters cannot be aligned with the optimal pointing direction for sunward maneuvers, rendering sunward maneuvers to be significantly less fuel efficient than anti-sunward maneuvers. Consequently, station-keeping maneuvers must be targeted to balance the orbit while ensuring that the next maneuver will also be performed in the anti-sunward direction to optimize propellant usage. When targeting a station-keeping maneuver, the attitude and SRP modeling configuration which is applied to the predicted post-maneuver trajectory will dictate the direction of the subsequent station-keeping maneuver, assuming nominal propulsion system performance. If the predicted post-maneuver attitude states result in an SRP model which under-predicts the cumulative SRP impact on the post-maneuver orbit, a targeted anti-sunward maneuver will be larger than necessary and the next maneuver will need to be executed sunward in order to compensate. In contrast, an anti-sunward maneuver which is targeted using an SRP model which over-predicts the cumulative SRP impact will achieve station-keeping while ensuring that the next maneuver will likewise be performed anti-sunward. For this reason, station-keeping maneuvers are targeted while applying the SPN attitude mode, as this mode entails the largest possible SRP area cross-section and therefore a larger modeled cumulative SRP impact. This paper documents the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s FDF support for JWST on-orbit operations and the analysis projects undertaken utilizing the experiences and data accumulated throughout the first full year of routine science operations. The results of these analysis efforts have been used to implement improvements to orbit prediction accuracy and maneuver efficiency which have the potential to prolong the lifespan of JWST to continue to conduct ground-breaking infrared astronomy for decades to come.

Flight Dynamics↗
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 NTRS2024

Parameterizing Spectral Surface Reflectance Relationships for the Dark Target Aerosol Algorithm Applied to A Geostationary Imager

Originally developed for the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) in polar, sun-synchronous low-earth orbit (LEO), the Dark Target (DT) aerosol retrieval algorithm relies on the assumption of a Surface Reflectance Parameterization (SRP) over land surfaces. Specifically for vegetated and dark-soiled surfaces, values of surface reflectance in blue and red visible-wavelength bands are assumed to be nearly linearly related to each other and to the value in a shortwave infrared (SWIR) wavelength band. This SRP also includes dependencies on scattering angle and a normalized difference vegetation index computed from two SWIR bands (NDVISWIR). As the DT retrieval algorithm is being ported to new sensors to continue and expand the aerosol data record, we assess whether the MODIS-assumed SRP can be used for these sensors. Here, we specifically assess SRP for the Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) aboard, the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-16/East (ABIE). First, we find that using MODIS-based SRP leads to higher biases and artificial diurnal signatures in aerosol optical depth (AOD)retrievals from ABIE. The primary reason appears to be that geostationary orbit (GEO) encounters an entirely different set of observation geometry than does LEO, primarily with regards to solar angles coupled with fixed view angles. Therefore, we have developed a new SRP for GEO that draws the angular shape of the surface bidirectional reflectance. We also introduce modifications to the parametrization of both red-SWIR and blue-red spectral relationships to include additional information.The revised Red-SWIR SRP includes solar zenith angle, NDVISWIR, and land-type percentage from an ancillary database. The blue-red SRP adds dependencies on the scattering angle and NDVISWIR. The new SRPs improve the AOD retrieval of ABIE in terms of overall less bias and mitigation of the overestimation around local noon. The average bias of DT AOD compared to AERONET AOD shows a reduction from 0.08 to 0.03, while the bias of local solar noon decreases from 0.12 to 0.03.The agreement between DT and AERONET AOD is established through regression slope of 1.06 and y-intercept of 0.01with correlation coefficient is0.74. By using the new SRP, the percentage of data falling within the expected error range (±0.05 + 15%) is notably risen from 54% to 78%.

Mijin Kim↗
NASA NTRS2012

Supersonic Retropropulsion Technology Development in NASA's Entry, Descent, and Landing Project

NASA's Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) space technology roadmap calls for new technologies to achieve human exploration of Mars in the coming decades [1]. One of those technologies, termed Supersonic Retropropulsion (SRP), involves initiation of propulsive deceleration at supersonic Mach numbers. The potential benefits afforded by SRP to improve payload mass and landing precision make the technology attractive for future EDL missions. NASA's EDL project spent two years advancing the technological maturity of SRP for Mars exploration [2-15]. This paper summarizes the technical accomplishments from the project and highlights challenges and recommendations for future SRP technology development programs. These challenges include: developing sufficiently large SRP engines for use on human-scale entry systems; testing and computationally modelling complex and unsteady SRP fluid dynamics; understanding the effects of SRP on entry vehicle stability and controllability; and demonstrating sub-scale SRP entry systems in Earth's atmosphere.

Edquist, Karl T.↗
NASA NTRS2014

2013 Nutrition Risk Research Plan Review Final Report

The 2013 Nutrition Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) was impressed by the degree of progress the nutrition discipline has made with the research plan presented since the 2012 Nutrition Risk SRP WebEx/teleconference. The scientists and staff associated with the nutrition discipline have, in addition, continued their impressive publication track record. Specifically the SRP found that the novel and important progress in the ocular health research area (Gap N7.3) represents an important advance in understanding the etiology and potential countermeasures for this condition and thinks that the work will not only be valuable for vision, but may have implications for cardiovascular health, as well. The SRP also considered the bone countermeasure data presented a potentially valuable tool for investigating bone metabolism under the unique conditions of space travel, specifically the innovation of variable use of stable Ca isotopes for bone synthesis and equal contribution for bone to investigate bone metabolism, as well as, the impact of the advanced resistive exercise device (ARED) on body composition during spaceflight. Finally, the SRP considers the planned Integrated Nutrition task to be an important and necessary strategic part of the research plan. The SRP is concerned that the risks observed in previous research on Low Earth Orbit (LEO) may not capture all the risks of longer duration flight beyond LEO. In particular, the SRP believes that there may be a much greater likelihood of an intensified chronic inflammatory response compared to the very minimal evidence seen to date and that modest effects seen in LEO, such as the reduction in appetite, may not predict an absence in longer duration flight out of LEO. The added complications of longer duration flight, greater bio-behavioral stress, radiation exposure, poorer communication, and inability to respond to unforeseen exigencies may create different risks. Thus, preparation for potential anticipated problems on long duration missions should be considered now while countermeasures can be developed even in the absence of sure knowledge as to their likelihood. Overall, the SRP thinks that all the Gaps presently in the research plan are appropriate and relevant, but there are a few missing Gaps that will help expand the research plan.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2015

2015 Advanced Environmental Health/Advanced Food Technology Standing Review Panel

The 2015 Advanced Environmental Health/Advanced Food Technology (AEH/AFT) Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 14 - 15, 2015. The SRP met with representatives from the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) Element and members of the Human Research Program (HRP) to review the updated research plans for the Risk of Adverse Health Effects Due to Host-Microorganism Interactions (MicroHost Risk) and the Risk of Performance Decrement and Crew Illness due to an Inadequate Food System (Food Risk). During the meeting, the SRP also met with the vehicle engineers to discuss possible food storage options. The SRP would like to commend Dr. Oubre and Dr. Douglas for their detailed presentations, as well the frank, refreshing, and comprehensive engineering presentation. This gave much needed perspective to the food storage issues and reassured the committee about NASA's approach to the problem. In terms of critiques, the SRP remains unconvinced about the rationale for probiotic use other than for specific applications supported by the literature. It is not clear what gap or problem is being addressed by the use of probiotics, and the rationale for their use needs to be clearly rooted in the available literature. The SRP thinks that if low-Earth orbit is associated with immune system impairment, then there may additional risks linked with the use of probiotics. It is not clear to the SRP how NASA will determine if probiotics are having their intended beneficial effect. A similar concern is raised as to what gaps or problems are being addressed by "functional foods". Mixed infections, rather than single species infections, which can augment severity of disease, also represent a significant concern. Overall, the SRP considers this to be a strong program that is well-organized, well-coordinated and generates valuable data.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS1989

A nonlinear high temperature fracture mechanics basis for strainrange partitioning

A direct link was established between Strainrange Partitioning (SRP) and high temperature fracture mechanics by deriving the general SRP inelastic strain range versus cyclic life relationships from high temperature, nonlinear, fracture mechanics considerations. The derived SRP life relationships are in reasonable agreement based on the experience of the SRP behavior of many high temperature alloys. In addition, fracture mechanics has served as a basis for derivation of the Ductility-Normalized SRP life equations, as well as for examination of SRP relations that are applicable to thermal fatigue life prediction. Areas of additional links between nonlinear fracture mechanics and SRP were identified for future exploration. These include effects of multiaxiality as well as low strain, nominally elastic, long life creep fatigue interaction.

Kitamura, Takayuki↗
NASA NTRS2014

2013 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel Status Review for: The Risk of Acute and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure, The Risk of Acute Radiation Syndromes Due to Solar Particle Events (SPEs), The Risk Of Degenerative Tissue Or Other Health Effects From Radiation Exposure, and The Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis

The Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) was impressed with the strong research program presented by the scientists and staff associated with NASA's Space Radiation Program Element and National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI). The presentations given on-site and the reports of ongoing research that were provided in advance indicated the potential Risk of Acute and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure (CNS) and were extensively discussed by the SRP. This new data leads the SRP to recommend that a higher priority should be placed on research designed to identify and understand these risks at the mechanistic level. To support this effort the SRP feels that a shift of emphasis from Acute Radiation Syndromes (ARS) and carcinogenesis to CNS-related endpoints is justified at this point. However, these research efforts need to focus on mechanisms, should follow pace with advances in the field of CNS in general and should consider the specific comments and suggestions made by the SRP as outlined below. The SRP further recommends that the Space Radiation Program Element continue with its efforts to fill the vacant positions (Element Scientist, CNS Risk Discipline Lead) as soon as possible. The SRP also strongly recommends that NASA should continue the NASA Space Radiation Summer School. In addition to these broad recommendations, there are specific comments/recommendations noted for each risk, described in detail below.

Source record↗
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 NTRS2015

2014 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) participated in a WebEx/teleconference with members of the Space Radiation Program Element, representatives from the Human Research Program (HRP), the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), and NASA Headquarters on November 21, 2014 (list of participants is in Section XI of this report). The SRP reviewed the updated Research Plan for the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Other Degenerative Tissue Effects from Radiation Exposure (Degen Risk). The SRP also received a status update on the Risk of Acute and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure (CNS Risk), the Risk of Acute Radiation Syndromes Due to Solar Particle Events (ARS Risk), and the Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis (Cancer Risk). The SRP thought the teleconference was very informative and that the Space Radiation Program Element did a great job of outlining where the Element is with respect to our state of knowledge on the risks of carcinogenesis, central nervous system effects, and the risk of cardiovascular disease and other degenerative tissue effects from exposure to space radiation. The SRP was impressed with the quality of research that is being conducted and the progress the Space Radiation Program Element has made in the past year. While much work has been done, the SRP had a few remaining questions regarding the broad applicability of these findings to a manned deep space mission (in terms of cognitive function, the paradigms were still hippocampal based and also using Alzheimer disease models). The SRP believes that NASA should consider developing an approach to follow astronauts long-term (beyond retirement) for potential side-effects/risks of space exposure that may be unknown. Radiation toxicities often occur decades after exposure, and potential consequences would be missed if intensified exams stop after retirement of the astronauts. In addition, while cancer is one consequence of radiation exposure that is monitored, potential other side effects (CNS, Alzheimer Disease, loss of cognitive function, etc.) are not included in long-term studies and would be missed. Inclusion of long-term data would be of benefit to the astronauts themselves who have given their service to the corps but also to future astronauts and the future of space exploration.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2015

2015 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel

The 2015 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 8 - 9, 2015. The SRP met with representatives from the Space Radiation Element and members of the Human Research Program (HRP) to review the updated research plan for the Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis Cancer Risk. The SRP also reviewed the newly revised Evidence Reports for the Risk of Acute Radiation Syndromes Due to Solar Particle Events (SPEs) (Acute Risk), the Risk of Acute (In-flight) and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure (CNS Risk), and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Other Degenerative Tissue Effects from Radiation (Degen Risk), as well as a status update on these Risks. The SRP would like to commend Dr. Simonsen, Dr. Huff, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Patel for their detailed presentations. The Space Radiation Element did a great job presenting a very large volume of material. The SRP considers it to be a strong program that is well-organized, well-coordinated and generates valuable data. The SRP commended the tissue sharing protocols, working groups, systems biology analysis, and standardization of models. In several of the discussed areas the SRP suggested improvements of the research plans in the future. These include the following: It is important that the team has expanded efforts examining immunology and inflammation as important components of the space radiation biological response. This is an overarching and important focus that is likely to apply to all aspects of the program including acute, CVD, CNS, cancer and others. Given that the area of immunology/inflammation is highly complex (and especially so as it relates to radiation), it warrants the expansion of investigators expertise in immunology and inflammation to work with the individual research projects and also the NASA Specialized Center of Research (NSCORs). Historical data on radiation injury to be entered into the Watson “big data” study must be used with caution. The general scientific issues of reproducibility, details of experimental methods and data analysis from preclinical and basic research laboratories have been raised broadly over the last few years (not specific to this work) and indicate that caution must be applied in the ways these data are used. This pertains to preclinical data and also to phase 3 clinical trials in radiation oncology and medical oncology. Of course, appropriate use and analysis of these “big-data” sets also offer the potential of pinpointing limitations and extracting remaining useful information. Emphasis should be placed on the latter possibility. A key target is risk reduction from radiation exposure. Progress of the entire space program, now moving towards the Mars mission, requires timely answers to key components of human risk, which are known to be complex. Periodic review of progress should be conducted with additional resources directed into achieving critical milestones. Turning the long red bars to yellow and green (or for some risks such as CNS possibly to grey) must be high priority. That such progress will require new science and not engineering means that it should be viewed in a knowledge-based light. The technology-based aspects of engineering issues are certainly as important, however, science and knowledge-based problems are solved in a different way than engineering. Timelines for engineering are more predictable, while for science, progress can be methodical with occasional major incremental findings that can rapidly change the rate of progress. As opportunities for rapid incremental changes arise, periodic enhancement of investment is strongly recommended to enable such new knowledge to be quickly and efficiently exploited. Collaborations and linkages with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are in place and more are encouraged, where possible, with the radiation injury and medical countermeasure studies. This could include utilizing some of their animal model testing contracts to facilitate obtaining results using common platforms. Such approach will facilitate the comparison of results among laboratories, and will facilitate and accelerate the development of medical countermeasures. It is particularly noteworthy that the NASA Space Radiation Element is reaching out to the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI) platform coordinating low dose radiation risk research, and to other international agencies that are studying low dose radiation effects in an effort to fill the void generated by the cancelation of the Department of Energy (DOE) low dose radiation program. While NASA is working actively with NIAID and BARDA to integrate their relevant findings of radiation mitigator investigations to NASA programs, the committee notes its disappointment that the United States currently lacks a dedicated low dose radiation program with clear mechanistic orientation and aimed at the quantification and mitigation of human radiation risk on Earth. This void gives to the NASA Space Radiation Program Element special societal value, but also makes its overall design more challenging.

Steinberg, Susan↗