Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk Management Space Projects”

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 361 records · Page 20
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

High Resolution Nature Runs and the Big Data Challenge

NASA's Global Modeling and Assimilation Office at Goddard Space Flight Center is undertaking a series of very computationally intensive Nature Runs and a downscaled reanalysis. The nature runs use the GEOS-5 as an Atmospheric General Circulation Model (AGCM) while the reanalysis uses the GEOS-5 in Data Assimilation mode. This paper will present computational challenges from three runs, two of which are AGCM and one is downscaled reanalysis using the full DAS. The nature runs will be completed at two surface grid resolutions, 7 and 3 kilometers and 72 vertical levels. The 7 km run spanned 2 years (2005-2006) and produced 4 PB of data while the 3 km run will span one year and generate 4 BP of data. The downscaled reanalysis (MERRA-II Modern-Era Reanalysis for Research and Applications) will cover 15 years and generate 1 PB of data. Our efforts to address the big data challenges of climate science, we are moving toward a notion of Climate Analytics-as-a-Service (CAaaS), a specialization of the concept of business process-as-a-service that is an evolving extension of IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS enabled by cloud computing. In this presentation, we will describe two projects that demonstrate this shift. MERRA Analytic Services (MERRA/AS) is an example of cloud-enabled CAaaS. MERRA/AS enables MapReduce analytics over MERRA reanalysis data collection by bringing together the high-performance computing, scalable data management, and a domain-specific climate data services API. NASA's High-Performance Science Cloud (HPSC) is an example of the type of compute-storage fabric required to support CAaaS. The HPSC comprises a high speed Infinib and network, high performance file systems and object storage, and a virtual system environments specific for data intensive, science applications. These technologies are providing a new tier in the data and analytic services stack that helps connect earthbound, enterprise-level data and computational resources to new customers and new mobility-driven applications and modes of work. In our experience, CAaaS lowers the barriers and risk to organizational change, fosters innovation and experimentation, and provides the agility required to meet our customers' increasing and changing needs

big data analysis↗
NASA NTRS2014

Virtualization - A Key Cost Saver in NASA Multi-Mission Ground System Architecture

With science team budgets being slashed, and a lack of adequate facilities for science payload teams to operate their instruments, there is a strong need for innovative new ground systems that are able to provide necessary levels of capability processing power, system availability and redundancy while maintaining a small footprint in terms of physical space, power utilization and cooling.The ground system architecture being presented is based off of heritage from several other projects currently in development or operations at Goddard, but was designed and built specifically to meet the needs of the Science and Planetary Operations Control Center (SPOCC) as a low-cost payload command, control, planning and analysis operations center. However, this SPOCC architecture was designed to be generic enough to be re-used partially or in whole by other labs and missions (since its inception that has already happened in several cases!)The SPOCC architecture leverages a highly available VMware-based virtualization cluster with shared SAS Direct-Attached Storage (DAS) to provide an extremely high-performing, low-power-utilization and small-footprint compute environment that provides Virtual Machine resources shared among the various tenant missions in the SPOCC. The storage is also expandable, allowing future missions to chain up to 7 additional 2U chassis of storage at an extremely competitive cost if they require additional archive or virtual machine storage space.The software architecture provides a fully-redundant GMSEC-based message bus architecture based on the ActiveMQ middleware to track all health and safety status within the SPOCC ground system. All virtual machines utilize the GMSEC system agents to report system host health over the GMSEC bus, and spacecraft payload health is monitored using the Hammers Integrated Test and Operations System (ITOS) Galaxy Telemetry and Command (TC) system, which performs near-real-time limit checking and data processing on the downlinked data stream and injects messages into the GMSEC bus that are monitored to automatically page the on-call operator or Systems Administrator (SA) when an off-nominal condition is detected. This architecture, like the LTSP thin clients, are shared across all tenant missions.Other required IT security controls are implemented at the ground system level, including physical access controls, logical system-level authentication authorization management, auditing and reporting, network management and a NIST 800-53 FISMA-Moderate IT Security plan Risk Assessment Contingency Plan, helping multiple missions share the cost of compliance with agency-mandated directives.The SPOCC architecture provides science payload control centers and backup mission operations centers with a cost-effective, standardized approach to virtualizing and monitoring resources that were traditionally multiple racks full of physical machines. The increased agility in deploying new virtual systems and thin client workstations can provide significant savings in personnel costs for maintaining the ground system. The cost savings in procurement, power, rack footprint and cooling as well as the shared multi-mission design greatly reduces upfront cost for missions moving into the facility. Overall, the authors hope that this architecture will become a model for how future NASA operations centers are constructed!

Ground System Architecture↗
NASA NTRS2013

Planetary Protection Bioburden Analysis Program

This program is a Microsoft Access program that performed statistical analysis of the colony counts from assays performed on the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) spacecraft to determine the bioburden density, 3-sigma biodensity, and the total bioburdens required for the MSL prelaunch reports. It also contains numerous tools that report the data in various ways to simplify the reports required. The program performs all the calculations directly in the MS Access program. Prior to this development, the data was exported to large Excel files that had to be cut and pasted to provide the desired results. The program contains a main menu and a number of submenus. Analyses can be performed by using either all the assays, or only the accountable assays that will be used in the final analysis. There are three options on the first menu: either calculate using (1) the old MER (Mars Exploration Rover) statistics, (2) the MSL statistics for all the assays, or This software implements penetration limit equations for common micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) shield configurations, windows, and thermal protection systems. Allowable MMOD risk is formulated in terms of the probability of penetration (PNP) of the spacecraft pressure hull. For calculating the risk, spacecraft geometry models, mission profiles, debris environment models, and penetration limit equations for installed shielding configurations are required. Risk assessment software such as NASA's BUMPERII is used to calculate mission PNP; however, they are unsuitable for use in shield design and preliminary analysis studies. The software defines a single equation for the design and performance evaluation of common MMOD shielding configurations, windows, and thermal protection systems, along with a description of their validity range and guidelines for their application. Recommendations are based on preliminary reviews of fundamental assumptions, and accuracy in predicting experimental impact test results. The software is programmed in Visual Basic for Applications for installation as a simple add-in for Microsoft Excel. The user is directed to a graphical user interface (GUI) that requires user inputs and provides solutions directly in Microsoft Excel workbooks. This work was done by Shannon Ryan of the USRA Lunar and Planetary Institute for Johnson Space Center. Further information is contained in a TSP (see page 1). MSC- 24582-1 Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Shield Ballistic Limit Analysis Program Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas Commercially, because it is so generic, Enigma can be used for almost any project that requires engineering visualization, model building, or animation. Models in Enigma can be exported to many other formats for use in other applications as well. Educationally, Enigma is being used to allow university students to visualize robotic algorithms in a simulation mode before using them with actual hardware. This work was done by David Shores and Sharon P. Goza of Johnson Space Center; Cheyenne McKeegan, Rick Easley, Janet Way, and Shonn Everett of MEI Technologies; Mark Manning of PTI; and Mark Guerra, Ray Kraesig, and William Leu of Tietronix Software, Inc. For further information, contact the JSC Innovation Partnerships Office at (281) 483-3809. MSC-24211-1 Spitzer Telemetry Processing System NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California The Spitzer Telemetry Processing System (SirtfTlmProc) was designed to address objectives of JPL's Multi-mission Image Processing Lab (MIPL) in processing spacecraft telemetry and distributing the resulting data to the science community. To minimize costs and maximize operability, the software design focused on automated error recovery, performance, and information management. The system processes telemetry from the Spitzer spacecraft and delivers Level 0 products to the Spitzer Science Center. SirtfTlmProc is a unique system with automated error notification and recovery, with a real-time continuous service that can go quiescent after periods of inactivity. The software can process 2 GB of telemetry and deliver Level 0 science products to the end user in four hours. It provides analysis tools so the operator can manage the system and troubleshoot problems. It automates telemetry processing in order to reduce staffing costs. This work was done by Alice Stanboli, Elmain M. Martinez, and James M. McAuley of Caltech for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. For more information, contact iaoffice @jpl.nasa.gov. This software is available for commercial licensing. Please contact Dan Broderick at Daniel.F. Broderick@jpl.nasa.gov. Refer to NPO-47803. NASA Tech Briefs, September 2013 29 This rapid response computer program predicts Orbiter Wing Leading Edge (WLE) damage caused by ice or foam impact during a Space Shuttle launch (Program "IMPACT2"). The program was developed after the Columbia accident in order to assess quickly WLE damage due to ice, foam, or metal impact (if any) during a Shuttle launch. IMPACT2 simulates an impact event in a few minutes for foam impactors, and in seconds for ice and metal impactors. The damage criterion is derived from results obtained from one sophisticated commercial program, which requires hours to carry out simulations of the same impact events. The program was designed to run much faster than the commercial program with prediction of projectile threshold velocities within 10 to 15% of commercial-program values. The mathematical model involves coupling of Orbiter wing normal modes of vibration to nonlinear or linear springmass models. IMPACT2 solves nonlinear or linear impact problems using classical normal modes of vibration of a target, and nonlinear/ linear time-domain equations for the projectile. Impact loads and stresses developed in the target are computed as functions of time. This model is novel because of its speed of execution. A typical model of foam, or other projectile characterized by material nonlinearities, impacting an RCC panel is executed in minutes instead of hours needed by the commercial programs. Target damage due to impact can be assessed quickly, provided that target vibration modes and allowable stress are known. This work was done by Robert Clark, Jr., Paul Cotter, and Constantine Michalopoulos of The Boeing Company for Johnson Space Center. For further information, contact the JSC Innovation Partnerships Office at (281) 483-3809. MSC-24988-1 Wing Leading Edge RCC Rapid Response Damage Prediction Tool (IMPACT2) Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas (3) the MSL statistics for only the accountable assays. Other options on the main menu include a data editing form and utility programs that produce various reports requested by the microbiologists and the project, and tools to generate the groupings for the final analyses. The analyses can be carried out in three ways: Each assay can be treated separately, the assays can be collectively treated for the whole zone as a group, or the assays can be collected in groups designated by the JPL Planetary Protection Manager. The latter approach was used to generate the final report because assays on the same equipment or similar equipment can be assumed to have been exposed to the same environment and cleaning. Thus, the statistics are improved by having a larger population, thereby reducing the standard deviation by the square root of N. For each method mentioned above, three reports are available. The first is a detailed report including all the data. This version was very useful in verifying the calculations. The second is a brief report that is similar to the full detailed report, but does not print out the data. The third is a grand total and summary report in which each assay requires only one line. For the first and second reports, most of the calculations are performed in the report section itself. For the third, all the calculations are performed directly in the query bound to the report. All the numerical results were verified by comparing them with Excel templates, then exporting the data from the Planetary Protection Analysis program to Excel.

Beaudet, Robert A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Communication Delays in Cislunar Space: A Lab Study Examining Human System Integration Architecture (HSIA) and Team Risk Concerns

BACKGROUND: Communication delays are an inherent challenge of space missions to the Moon and beyond. Past research studies showed that 50+ second delays adversely affected individual well-being, team cohesion, and overall task performance (Kintz et al., 2016; Larson et al., 2019). However, there is a dearth of research on the effects of shorter delays (on the order of 4-12 seconds one-way) that may present a more immediate challenge during the upcoming Artemis missions. Even these shorter delays could make it difficult or infeasible for ground control to provide real-time support to Artemis astronauts, especially in complex and time-critical tasks such as extra-vehicular activities (EVAs). Results from studies on longer or Mars-like delays cannot be directly applied to Artemis-like delays, due to the large differences in delay magnitude and task types between these mission categories. For example, real-time oversight and guidance from ground control is impossible under Mars-like delays but may be performed under Artemis-like delays, albeit with potentially high workload and communication difficulty. Thus, a better understanding of the effects of Artemis-like communication delays on collaborative task performance is needed. Additionally, there is a need to develop reliable task paradigms that can be used in future studies on communication delays. METHODS: This project will study the effects of Artemis-like communication delays on collaborative task performance in a simulated space-to-ground team task via a lunar Gateway-like interface prototype. Teams of two astronaut-like participants - one serving as “crewmember” and one as “flight controller” - will perform a spaceflight-relevant task under six delay conditions (i.e., 0, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 seconds). Audio, video, texting, and file transfer will be delayed between the participants to mimic lunar-like communication delays. Measures related to workload, situation awareness, system usability, task performance, team cohesion, well-being, and communication strategies will be collected. These measures will be compared across delay levels, participant roles, and off-nominal and nominal tasks. Participants will be given the choice to use any combination of video and text communication in order to study preferences in interaction modality. RESEARCH AIMS: One aim is to identify a delay level or range of levels at which there may be significant decrements in individual and team-based measures. Identifying such ranges may help design novel workload management or communication countermeasures for future space missions. Also, the spaceflight-relevant research tasks and corresponding communication delay technology developed as part of this effort may be used for future studies on communication delays. Results from this work are also expected to inform study scenarios in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaign.

S Upasani↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Engineering the Interface: Advanced Surface Technologies for Lunar Dust Management and Equipment Longevity

Through the Artemis program, NASA intends to develop a sustainable human foothold on the Moon, ultimately paving the way for crewed exploration of Mars. The Moon's hostile environment poses numerous obstacles, including exposure to radiation, temperature extremes, micrometeoroid threats, and particularly the persistent problem of lunar dust. Lunar dust impacts nearly every aspect of surface operations through adhesion and abrasion mechanisms, with contamination from anthropogenic activities (landing, rovers) far outweighing natural phenomena. Multiple adhesion pathways contribute to surface contamination in the lunar environment, including van der Waals forces, electrostatic forces, chemical reaction, and magnetic forces from elemental iron deposits. Sharp asperities from micrometeoroid bombardment and atmospheric absence increase interaction potential and enable mechanical interlocking. Low cohesion between dust particles exacerbates these challenges, as minimal interaction potential between dust and nearby surfaces overcomes particle cohesion, causing contamination. Lunar dust adhesion mitigation technologies can be categorized as either active, requiring external energy, or passive, relying on intrinsic material properties. Ultrasonic and electrodynamic technologies have been developed to the highest technology readiness level for active approaches. Passive strategies primarily focus on surface chemistry and topography modifications. At NASA Langley Research Center, approaches include surface migration agents to reduce surface energy, topographical modification using laser ablation patterning, and tailored surface conductivity to reduce intrinsic adhesion force. Performance has been evaluated using custom-built ultrasonic and centrifuge instruments. Plume-surface interactions from lunar landers can propel micrometer-sized particles at velocities up to 1000 m s-1.8 These particles pose risks to landers, habitats and infrastructure, leading to erosion, degradation, and reduced component lifespan. A panel recovered from Surveyor III was determined to have been severely abraded because of lunar dust displaced from the Apollo 12 lunar module that landed 160 m away. The performance of metallic surfaces has been evaluated via high velocity single particle impact using the laser-induced project impact test (LIPIT) facility at the University of Utah. Peridynamics modeling, a form of continuum mechanics that uses a nonlocal approach enabling greater simulation capabilities of crack initiation and fracture, has also been utilized to gain greater insight into material response during impact events. Lunar dust contamination challenges extend to power generation systems and moving equipment. Cables, rotation stages, and other mechanisms may experience limited range of motion and reduced lifetime due to dust infiltration. NASA Langley Research Center has evaluated traditional aerospace alloys, softgoods, wear resistant ceramics, and several polymer and polymer composite materials. Test methods have included traditional techniques like Taber abrasion testing, as well as designed test configurations developed in the DUSTE (dust, ultraviolet radiation, and space thermal environmental) chamber that reproduce mechanism functions in operational environment. Beyond laboratory experiments, several flight experiments have been conducted. Materials were exposed to the low Earth orbit environment on the Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) and to the lunar surface environment through the Aegis Aerospace Regolith Adherence Characterization (RAC) payload and the Honeybee Robotics PlanetVac payload. Determining lunar dust's impact on surface exploration and habitation requires comprehensive experimental and computational capabilities combined with lessons learned from initial lunar activities. Identifying the greatest environmental challenges and developing mitigation technologies provides the clearest path toward successfully, expeditiously, and efficaciously completing NASA's mission. This presentation will discuss ongoing efforts at NASA Langley Research Center and collaborator contributions to these critical objectives.

Surface Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2019

The Value Proposition of Multi-Megawatt Electric Power/Propulsion for the Human Exploration of Mars

NASA and other space agencies have been offering stakeholders an architecture for the human exploration of Mars that has remained essentially unchanged since the 1960's. The mission duration and launch mass are the two first order figures of merit that drive the total cost of such an architecture. The options studied to date center on the "conjunction class" or "Long Stay" mission, in which surface infrastructure elements are sent ahead on uncrewed, slow trajectories requiring a minimum amount of propellant, and the crewed elements are sent at the synotic cycle's shortest trajectory, stay on Mars until the next close alignment, and then return to Earth. Total crewed mission durations for these architectures range from 900 to 1100 days, with variations driven primarily by trades between the amount of propellant launched and the effective specific mass of the propulsion technology assumed (e.g., chemical, nuclear thermal, solar electric, nuclear electric). Mars transit propulsion systems assumed in mission architectures studied to date have all resulted in architectural figures of merit that drive the cost to a level of "too much." However, nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) technology offers a "knob" that might be turned to enable a radically different Mars architecture, whose launch mass and mission duration may enable a value proposition more palatable to mission stakeholders. Mars architectures studied to date have assumed an NEP system providing 2.5 MWe at a specific mass of no less than 20 kg/kWe. This has often been seen as obtainable with a moderately high temperature fission reactor. An NEP system providing 15 MWe at specific mass of ~1 kg/kWe, though, could enable a short stay (30 days on surface) Mars mission, requiring only two or three SLS-class launch vehicles and a total mission duration of under one calendar year. However, turning this NEP "knob" would require a high risk development program driving innovation on the order of that delivered by the Manhattan Project, but for a fraction of the cost. Any technology option that might offer such a capability at such a development cost now stands at a low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3, would be based on a nuclear energy source (likely fusion), and would require an extremely high risk (and rapid) development effort. The aggressive, parallel path project management paradigm exemplified by the original Manhattan Project might have the best chance of success. An energy source developed in this manner may also have a major impact on the terrestrial power industry.

power↗
NASA NTRS2007

The X-43A Flight Research Program: Lessons Learned on the Road to Mach 10

During an aerospace engineer's undergraduate studies, he or she will attend classes in aerodynamics, thermodynamics, structures, stability and control, dynamics, design, propulsion, and computer science, along with the related courses in mathematics, physics, statistics, and chemistry required to understand the material. Upon graduation, the new engineer will have acquired a basic knowledge of how to build an aerospace vehicle. What only comes through experience, however, is the understanding of the inevitable imperfect process through which an aerospace vehicle is built. This is the adventure of turning a basic concept into functional hardware. Engineers working on a project must often deal with ambiguous situations. They are routinely asked by management to provide risk assessments of a project, yet even after careful analysis uncertainties remain. The project must be accomplished within finite limits of time and money. The question an engineer answers is whether the solution to potential problem is worth the cost and schedule delay, or if the solution might actually be worse than the problem it is meant to solve. Review protocols are established to ensure that an unknown has not been overlooked. But these cannot protect against an unknown unknown. Examples of these situations can be found in the history of the X-43A Hyper-X (Hypersonic Experiment) program. In this NASA project, a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) engine was flight tested on a subscale vehicle. The X-43A Hyper-X Research Vehicle (HXRV) was launched from a B-52B mothership, then boosted to the test speed by a modified Pegasus rocket first stage, called the Hyper-X Launch Vehicle (HXLV). Once at the proper speed and altitude, the X-43A separated from the booster, stabilized itself, and then the engine test began. Although wind-tunnel scramjet engine tests had begun in the late 1950s, before the Hyper-X program there had never been an actual in-flight test of such an engine integrated with an appropriate airframe. Thus, while the scramjet had successfully operated in the artificial airflow of wind tunnels, the concept had yet to be proven in real air. These conditions meant changes in density and temperature, as well as changes in angle of attack and sideslip of a free-flying vehicle. A wind tunnel is limited in its ability to simulate these subtle factures, which have a major impact on almost any vehicle, but especially that of a scramjet's performance. The Hyper-X project was to provide a real-world benchmark of the ground test data. The full scale X-43A engine would be operated in the wind tunnel, and then flown, and the data from its operation would then be compared with projections. If these matched, the wind tunnel data would be considered a reliable design tool for future scramjet. If there were significant differences, the reasons for these would have to be identified. Until such information was available, scramjets would lack the technological maturity to be considered for future space launch or high-speed atmospheric flight vehicles.

Peebles, Curtis↗
NASA NTRS2009

Surface Habitat Systems

The Surface Habitat Systems (SHS) Focused Investment Group (FIG) is part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) effort to provide a focused direction and funding to the various projects that are working on human surface habitat designs and technologies for the planetary exploration missions. The overall SHS-FIG effort focuses on directing and guiding those projects that: 1) develop and demonstrate new surface habitat system concepts, innovations, and technologies to support human exploration missions, 2) improve environmental systems that interact with human habitats, 3) handle and emplace human surface habitats, and 4) focus on supporting humans living and working in habitats on planetary surfaces. The activity areas of the SHS FIG described herein are focused on the surface habitat project near-term objectives as described in this document. The SHS-FIG effort focuses on mitigating surface habitat risks (as identified by the Lunar Surface Systems Project Office (LSSPO) Surface Habitat Element Team; and concentrates on developing surface habitat technologies as identified in the FY08 gap analysis. The surface habitat gap assessment will be updated annually as the surface architecture and surface habitat definition continues to mature. These technologies are mapped to the SHS-FIG Strategic Development Roadmap. The Roadmap will bring to light the areas where additional innovative efforts are needed to support the development of habitat concepts and designs and the development of new technologies to support of the LSSPO Habitation Element development plan. Three specific areas of development that address Lunar Architecture Team (LAT)-2 and Constellation Architecture Team (CxAT) Lunar habitat design issues or risks will be focused on by the SHS-FIG. The SHS-FIG will establish four areas of development that will help the projects prepare in their planning for surface habitat systems development. Those development areas are the 1) surface habitat concept definition, 2) inflatable surface habitat development, and 3) autonomous habitat operations, and 4) cross-cutting / systems engineering. In subsequent years, the SHS-FIG will solicit a call for innovations and technologies that will support the development of these four development areas. The other development areas will be assessed yearly and identified on the SHS-FIG s Strategic Development Roadmap. Initial investment projects that are funded by the Constellation Program Office (CxPO), LSSPO, or the Exploration Technology Development Projects (ETDP) will also be included on the Roadmap. For example, in one or two years from now, the autonomous habitat operations and testbed would collaborations with the Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) and Automation for Operations ETDP projects, which will give the surface habitat projects an integrated habitat autonomy testbed to test software and systems. The SHS-FIG scope is to provide focused direction for multiple innovations, technologies and subsystems that are needed to support humans at a remote planetary surface habitat during the concept development, design definition, and integration phases of that project. Subsystems include: habitability, lightweight structures, power management, communications, autonomy, deployment, outfitting, life support, wireless connectivity, lighting, thermal and more.

Kennedy, Kriss J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO)

Introduction: NASA is preparing to land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon within the next decade, and ensuring the success of these missions will depend on our preparation on the ground in multiple ground-based lunar environment analogs. To achieve this, NASA has used full mission class analogs, of which NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) is the longest continuously running example. Discussion: NEEMO is NASA’s long-standing undersea high-fidelity spaceflight mission analog. It focuses on exploration science, EVA techniques and tools, and maturing ISS IVA flight hardware and operations concepts. NEEMO crews are composed of groups of US and International Partner (IP) astronauts, engineers and scientists who live, work and explore in a challenging environment analogous to the environment experienced currently on ISS and what is expected for future deep space exploration destinations. NEEMO missions are conducted at Aquarius Reef Base (ARB), which includes a shore base in Tavernier, FL, and the world's only undersea research station, the Aquarius habitat, which is located 5.4 miles (9 kilometers) off Key Largo in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. ARB is owned and operated by Florida International University (FIU). Aquarius was selected due to its remote and extreme location and its ability to provide the unique isolation and risk factors that spaceflight presents. NEEMO missions allow for evaluations of end-to-end EVA and Science exploration concepts of operations with a crew that is in situ in a true extreme environment. They also allow for evaluations of flight hardware and ops tools that are either pondered or destined for ISS or Gateway in the near future. NEEMO missions feature flight-like interactions between the crew and a Mission Control Center (MCC )and Science Team, which in turn allows evaluation of mission and science operations decision making and communications techniques. One reason NEEMO missions are of such high fidelity is that so many of the participants are experienced human space flight end operators. The majority of crewmembers are trained astronauts, and many of the MCC operators have credentials as current or former certified ISS MCC operators (e.g., CapCom, EVA Officer, etc.). Mission products are generated daily by the ground team and are modeled on ISS products (but modified as needed). A planning team manages the constantly evolving mission timelines in response to the ever-changing constraints and opportunities. During NEEMO missions, suited EVA crewmembers (using diving helmets) have clear voice communications with each other, the habitat, and the MCC and Science Team back on shore. Each EVA crewmember also sends helmet cam video to the habitat and MCC and Science Teams. Appropriate communications latencies are inserted for the destination being simulated as well. NEEMO missions are made possible by a broad collaboration of participants. Astronauts from all of the ISS partner agencies are eligible for crew assignment. Often the crew includes a NASA scientist, doctor or engineer with a particular skill to contribute. Sometimes crewmembers come from external entities–generally institutes or universities. Objectives come from a wide variety of sources as well, from within NASA, IPs, government agencies, academia, commercial companies and research institutes. A typical NEEMO mission is a collaboration between at least 5 NASA centers. To date, 23 NEEMO missions have been conducted since 2001, and NEEMO 24 is planned for 2022. Conclusion: NEEMO is a high-fidelity mission analog conducted in an extreme subsea environment. It features experienced end-operators in human spaceflight, from the astronaut crewmembers to key personnel staffing Mission Control. Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank FIU and NASA’s HEO SEI/Strategic Analysis and Exploration Integration and Science Directorate organizations for the continued support that makes the NEEMO Project possible.

M L Reagan↗
NASA NTRS2015

Attitude Design for the LADEE Mission

The Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) satellite successfully completed its 148-day science investigation in a low-altitude, near-equatorial lunar orbit on April 18, 2014. The LADEE spacecraft was built, managed and operated by NASA's Ames Research Center (ARC). The Mission Operations Center (MOC) was located at Ames and was responsible for activity planning, command sequencing, trajectory and attitude design, orbit determination, and spacecraft operations. The Science Operations Center (SOC) was located at Goddard Space Flight Center and was responsible for science planning, data archiving and distribution. This paper details attitude design and operations support for the LADEE mission. LADEE's attitude design was shaped by a wide range of instrument pointing requirements that necessitated regular excursions from the baseline one revolution per orbit "Ram" attitude. Such attitude excursions were constrained by a number of flight rules levied to protect instruments from the Sun, avoid geometries that would result in simultaneous occlusion of LADEE's two star tracker heads, and maintain the spacecraft within its thermal and power operating limits. To satisfy LADEE's many attitude requirements and constraints, a set of rules and conventions was adopted to manage the complexity of this design challenge and facilitate the automation of ground software that generated pointing commands spanning multiple days of operations at a time. The resulting LADEE Flight Dynamics System (FDS) that was developed used Visual Basic scripts that generated instructions to AGI's Satellite Tool Kit (STK) in order to derive quaternion commands at regular intervals that satisfied LADEE's pointing requirements. These scripts relied heavily on the powerful "align and constrain" capability of STK's attitude module to construct LADEE's attitude profiles and the slews to get there. A description of the scripts and the attitude modeling they embodied is provided. One particular challenge analysts faced was in the design of LADEE maneuver attitudes. A flight rule requiring pre-maneuver verification of in-flight maneuver conditions by ground operators prior to burn execution resulted in the need to accommodate long periods in the maneuver attitude. This in turn complicated efforts to satisfy star tracker interference and communication constraints in lunar orbit. In response to this challenge, a graphical method was developed and used to survey candidate rotation angles about the thrust vector. This survey method is described and an example of its use on a particular LADEE maneuver is discussed. Finally, the software and methodology used to satisfy LADEE's attitude requirements are also discussed in the context of LADEE's overall activity planning effort. In particular, the way in which strategic schedules of instrument and engineering activities were translated into actual attitude profiles at the tactical level, then converted into precise quaternion commands to achieve those pointing goals is explained. In order to reduce the risk of time-consuming re-planning efforts, this process included the generation of long-term projections of constraint violation predictions for individual attitude profiles that could be used to establish keep-out time-frames for particular attitude profiles. The challenges experienced and overall efficacy of both the overall LADEE ground system and the attitude components of the Flight Dynamics System in meeting LADEE's varied pointing requirements are discussed.

LADEE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Geology of the One Earth Energy Site

The One Earth Energy site is one of two sites in the Illinois Storage Corridor (ISC) project. The objectives of the ISC project is to accelerate commercial deployment of carbon capture utilization and storage at two individual sites and receive approvals for Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI permits for construction at each site. At the One Earth Energy site, an extensive data collection program was undertaken, which included the drilling of a test well (One Earth Energy #1 [OEE #1]), four 2D seismic lines, and a small 3D seismic survey. The OEE #1 well was drilled in 2022 and acquired extensive core, log, and testing data to characterize the subsurface geology of the site. Coring was focused on the storage interval, the Mt. Simon Sandstone, and the confining interval, the Eau Claire Formation. The core and log data were used to evaluate the sedimentology and sequence stratigraphy, as well as to develop the conceptual geologic model. This report includes the geological summaries of the Mt. Simon Sandstone and the Eau Claire Formation. The extensive analysis of the log data is included in the petrophysical section, showing ranges of porosity, estimated pore size, and the mineral content of selected zones in the well. The separate petrographic technical report entitled “Petrographic and Advanced Geologic Characterization Report on One Earth Energy #1 (API# 1211325373)”, report number DOE-UIUC-0031892-04, details thin section point-counting analysis that includes mineralogical and pore space analysis, including grain size analysis, annotated thin section photomicrographs, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and statistics of grain size analysis on Mt. Simon thin sections from OEE #1. The final OEE #1 well data to be included in this geology report is the routine core analysis of both whole core plugs and rotary sidewall core plugs. In addition to the OEE #1 well, four 2D seismic lines and a small 3D survey were acquired as part of the overall subsurface geological characterization. This geology report references the seismic interpretation report, entitled “One Earth Energy Site Seismic Interpretation Task 5.0”, report number DOE-UIUC-0031892-07. This report details the stratigraphic and structural interpretation of the 2D and 3D seismic data acquired at the One Earth Energy site. The 2D seismic data was acquired in 2019 and 2021, and the 3D survey was acquired in 2022. The objectives of the seismic programs were to contribute to the subsurface characterization of the Mt. Simon-Eau Claire Storage Complex by evaluating the continuity of potential storage reservoirs and containment intervals across the project area, and to determine if any geologic features are present that would increase containment risk to the proposed carbon storage project.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
DOE OSTI2025

Expansion of the Direct Feed High-Level Waste Glass Composition in the High Al Range

Baseline glass compositions have been developed and demonstrated for successful immobilization of Hanford high-level waste (HLW) prepared through a pretreatment process. Recent enhanced waste glass formulations have shown promise to increase the waste loading of pretreated sludge compositions from a broader range of HLW feeds. This project proposes to increase the loading of minimally pretreated Hanford HLW in glass by expanding the existing database and glass property-composition models. Estimated direct-feed high level waste (DFHLW) compositions were generated by the Hanford Tank Operations Contractor and used by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to determine target glass compositions. Gaps in existing data were identified including one high-priority gap in the high Al compositional region. This report summarizes the data collected during the characterization of the DFHLW High Al Glass Matrix. These glasses were intentionally designed with high aluminum concentrations (15 to 30 wt%) and a high likelihood of nepheline formation, which is known to negatively affect glass durability. Some glasses were expected to either fail or approach property constraints to fill data gaps in poorly understood regions of the compositional space due to lack of data. Out of the 50 glasses tested, 14 glasses formed nepheline, while the model predicted nepheline formation in 20 glasses. All quenched glasses met the product consistency test durability constraint; however, 8 glasses failed this constraint after undergoing the canister centerline cooling treatment. Additionally, 17 glasses did not meet the viscosity constraints, 4 failed the EC constraints, and 2 exceeded the allowable T2% for spinel crystal formation. All glasses satisfied the SO 3 solubility limit. The resulting dataset provides valuable information to improve model accuracy and reduce prediction uncertainty. These insights will ultimately support the development of more robust glass formulation strategies, enabling higher waste loadings, reducing operational risks, and expanding the processing envelope.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS2003

Design and Testing of Non-Toxic RCS Thrusters for Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle

The current NASA Space Shuttle auxiliary propulsion system utilizes nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) and monomethylhydrazine (MMH), hypergolic propellants. This use of these propellants has resulted in high levels of maintenance and precautions that contribute to costly launch operations. By employing alternate propellant combinations, those less toxic to humans, the hazards and time required between missions can be significantly reduced. Use of alternate propellants can thereby increase the efficiency and lower the cost in launch operations. In support of NASA's Space Launch Initiative (SLI), TRW proposed a three-phase project structured to significantly increase the technology readiness of a high-performance reaction control subsystem (RCS) thruster using non-toxic propellant for an operationally efficient and reusable auxiliary propulsion system (APS). The project enables the development of an integrated primary/vernier thruster capable of providing dual-thrust levels of both 1000-lbf class thrust and 25-lbf thrust. The intent of the project is to reduce the risk associated with the development of an improved RCS flight design that meets the primary NASA objectives of improved safety and reliability while reducing systems operations and maintenance costs. TRW proposed two non-toxic auxiliary propulsion engine designs, one using liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and the other using liquid oxygen and liquid ethanol, as candidates to meet the goals of reliability and affordability at the RCS level. Both of these propellant combinations offer the advantage of a safe environment for maintenance, while at the same time providing adequate to excellent performance for a conventional liquid propulsion systems. The key enabling technology incorporated in both TRW thrusters is the coaxial liquid on liquid pintle injector. This paper will concentrate on only the design and testing of one of the thrusters, the liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen (LH2) thruster. The LOX/LH2 thruster design includes a LOX-centered pintle injector, consisting of two rows of slots that create a radial spoke spray pattern in the combustion chamber. The main fuel injector creates a continuous sheet of LH2 originating upstream of the LOX pintle injector. The two propellants impinge at the pintle slots, where the resulting momentum ratio and spray pattern determines the combustion efficiency and thermal effects on the hardware. Another enabling technology used in the design of this thruster is fuel film cooling through a duct, lining the inner wall of the combustion chamber barrel section. The duct is also acts as a secondary fuel injection point. The variation in the amount of LH2 used for the duct allows for adjustments in the cooling capacity for the thruster. The Non-Toxic LOX-LH2 RCS Workhorse Thruster was tested at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center's Test Stand 500. Hot-fire tests were conducted between March 08, 2002 and April 05, 2002. All testing during the program base period were performed at sea-level conditions. During the test program, 7 configurations were tested, including 2 combustion chambers, 3 LOX injector pintle tips, and 4 LH2 injector stroke settings. The operating conditions that were surveyed varied thrust levels, mixture ratio and LH2 duct cooling flow. The copper heat sink chamber was used for 16 burns, each burn lasting from 0.4 to 10 seconds, totaling 51.4 seconds, followed by Haynes chamber testing ranging from 0.9 to 120 seconds, totaling 300.9 seconds. The total accumulated burn time for the test program is 352.3 seconds. C* efficiency was calculated and found to be within expectable limits for most operating conditions. The temperature on the Haynes combustion chamber remained below established material limits, with the exception of one localized hot spot. The test results demonstrate that both the coaxial liquid-on-liquid pintle injector design and fuel duct concepts are viable for the intended application. The thruster head-e design maintained cryogenic injection temperatures while firing, which validates the concept for minimal heat soak back. By injecting fuel into the duct, the throat temperatures were manageable, yet the split of fuel through the cooling duct does not compromise the overall combustion efficiency, which indicates that, provided proper design refinement, such a concept can be applied to a high-performance version of the thruster. These hot fire tests demonstrate the robustness of the duct design concept and good capability to withstand off-nominal operating conditions without adversely impacting the thermal response of the engine, a key design feature for a cryogenic thruster.

Calvignac, Jacky↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS: Teams Risk

BACKGROUNDThe Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogsof the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.METHODSWe followed best practices for data harmonization. Characteristics of each research setting were assessed for harmonization potential, and we deemed NEK-SIRIUS 17 as inappropriate due to study aims, length, and data quality. Common variables of interest were identified. Study characteristics and key variables with which datafiles could be merged were defined as “meta-data.” HFBP-EM data from all settings were processed under a common format. We then created a harmonized team-level database designed to facilitate analyses that address HRP research gaps related to HRP’s Team risk. In this database, team cohesion, processes, performance, psychological safety, and group living were operationalized as the team mean of the crew responses for each data collection (e.g., on mission day 7). Data collected on the International Space Station (ISS) included a subset of scale items administered to participants. Data collected from ISS team members within +/- 7 days of the first data collection and every following 30 +/-4 days were aggregated to the team level. We generated figures that display the mean and variability of team constructs across research settings. We also generated plots of changes in team constructs with mission day and with percentage of the mission completed. Where possible, we compared data from spaceflight analogs with data from astronauts aboard the ISS. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe team-level harmonized database was structured such that each row represents data for a team on a specific mission day. Team constructs (e.g., team cohesion) were included as columns (i.e., wide format) with repeated measures across mission days given in rows (i.e., long format). The database included data from 18 crews: five, 4-person American crews in HERA C4, four 4-person American crews in HERA C5, one 6-person multinational crew in NEK-SIRIUS 19, and eight, 2–11-person multinational crews aboard the ISS. Results provide insights into mission and campaign differences in team functioning and performance. For example, between campaign differences were observed for team processes—the interdependent team actions that orchestrate taskwork in pursuit of the team’s goals [1]. Greater between-team variability on team processes was detected during HERA C4 than during C5, and a downward trend was observed over the duration of C4, but not C5 or SIRIUS 19. This may be due to the campaign-level differences such as the sleep deprivation implemented during C4. Responses on the subset of team process items administered on the ISS indicate between-crew variability more like those observed in C4 than C5 and NEK, with some, but not all ISS crews demonstrating a downward trend over time. Additional findings will be presented. REFERENCESMarks, M. A., et al (2001) Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

S T Bell↗
DOE OSTI2020

Choosing the Best Modeling Platform for Radiological Risk Assessment Models - 20468

Radiological risk assessments, in the form of performance or safety assessments, are often required under regulations or guidance for remediation of contaminated land, decommissioning of contaminated buildings or structures, and radioactive waste disposal. These risk assessments are usually supported by fate and transport models that address decay and ingrowth of radionuclides, as well as their movement through engineered systems and the natural environment. These models are often projected thousands, or more, years into the future, largely because the radioactive species change through decay and ingrowth, and hence the magnitude of the radioactive effect changes with time. There are many computer codes that are available to address this type of modeling. They range from addressing specific pathways or processes such as infiltration of water, groundwater, surface water, air, biota, diffusion and advection of water and gases, to those that try to couple all processes together to evaluate the impact of fate and transport through the entire system to places in space and time to which access is assumed. These different types of codes are sometimes separated with the monikers process-level and systems-level codes, although it is often not clear that this separation does justice to the capabilities of the many codes that are available to evaluate fate and transport of radionuclides. The focus of this paper is the latter group of modeling codes. Several systems level modeling codes exist and are used. There are differences between these codes in terms of utility, flexibility, complexity and cost. The purpose of this paper is to compare a few of these codes in the context of work currently being performed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Modeling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments (MODARIA) II Working Group 1 (WG1). The MODARIA II WG1's main focus is how stakeholder engaged decision analysis can, or should, be applied to radiological contamination problems so that better, longstanding, sustainable, solutions are reached. However, the WG1 also recognizes the potential impact of the modeling tools that are chosen to address radiological risk, which is often a primary objective of decision making for radiological problems. Other objectives might also be important, such as constraining costs, obtaining financing, minimizing impact on ecosystems, saving cultural resources, saving jobs, farmland, environmental justice, etc., in a full decision analysis for a given radiological contamination problem, but none of these other objectives have the same types of complex modeling needs as minimize radiological dose. Consequently, a further focus of WG1 is to evaluate the potential impacts on decision making of the choice of fate and transport, and risk assessment, modeling codes that are used to support decision making. The WG1 will produce a report at the end of 2020 that will focus on an approach to effective decision making and stakeholder engagement. The report will also consider the role that performance assessment modeling should play in the decision-making process, including the impact of the choice of modeling tools or computer codes on risk-informed decision making. Several sites around the World have been made available by Member States for these model comparisons, and several modeling tools have been considered. However, the focus of this paper is on two of the sites, one in Belgium and one in Ukraine, and on three of the tools: NORMALYSA (NORM And Legacy Site Assessment); GoldSim{sup C}, and AMBER{sup C}. The final report from this working group will also cover other modeling tools, including RESRAD, and PC-Cream{sup R}. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗