Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CoN”

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.

375 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Attitude Ground System: Recent Experiences in Attitude Sensor Calibration and Upcoming Mission Support for Momentum Unloading

A key component of the mission ground system used for supporting NASA Goddard Space Flight Center space missions, known as the Attitude Ground System (AGS), is used to perform operational and analytical support for the spacecraft attitude con-trol system (ACS). The AGS is comprised of a real-time attitude analysis and moni-toring system, and a tool for performing offline analysis of the ACS system using key sensor telemetry collected and stored onboard and transmitted to the mission operations center. The AGS performs numerous functions, including independent ground attitude determination, attitude slew planning and commanding, attitude sensor calibration, and real-time monitoring of the health and safety of the ACS. The AGS is developed in MATLAB using a core library of utility functions called the Multi-Mission Three-Axis Satellite System (MTASS). The MTASS library has been used to support mission operations for over thirty NASA missions starting in the late 1990s. It is customized for each mission to meet specific mission requirements. In this paper we describe recent operational experience using the AGS to support the launch and early orbit (L&EO) phase of the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud Ocean Ecosys-tem (PACE) and Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) missions. Our summary of L&EO support for PACE and JPSS includes ACS sensor calibration of the alignment and scale factors for the Star Trackers, Inertial Reference Unit, and Three-Axis Magnetometers. We will also describe new capabilities for planning and executing reaction wheel momentum unloading for the Roman Space Telescope (RST) During the spacecraft early orbit phase, the AGS is operated in the mission operations center by a team of subject matter experts that also develop and configure the AGS soft-ware. This unique approach, integrating system development and operation in a sin-gle engineering team, provides valuable expertise for quick assessment of ACS per-formance and safety; critical to anomaly resolution and mission success.

Guidance, Navigation, and Control↗
NASA NTRS1995

Design and construction of the X-2 two-stage free piston driven expansion tube

This report outlines the design and construction of the X-2 two-stage free piston driven expansion tube. The project has completed its construction phase and the facility has been installed in the new impulsive research laboratory where commissioning is about to take place. The X-2 uses a unique, two-stage driver design which allows a more compact and lower overall cost free piston compressor. The new facility has been constructed in order to examine the performance envelope of the two-stage driver and how well it couple to sub-orbital and super-orbital expansion tubes. Data obtained from these experiments will be used for the design of a much larger facility, X-3, utilizing the same free piston driver concept.

Doolan, Con↗
NASA NTRS2010

Countermeasures (iRED, ARED CEVIS, MEC, TVIS, T2, Periodic Fitness Evaluation, BP-ECG, HRM). Critical Readiness Review Increment 23 and 24

This slide presentation reviews attempts to counteract the effects of being in space. It includes information on the Resistive Exercise Device (RED), the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED), Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS), Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (TVIS) and periodic fitness evaluation with specific information on BP/ECG, heart rate monitor 2 and data distribution.

Toder, Carly↗
NASA NTRS2015

How to Directly Image a Habitable Planet Around Alpha Centauri with a 30-45 cm Space Telescope

Several mission concepts are being studied to directly image planets around nearby stars. It is commonly thought that directly imaging a potentially habitable exoplanet around a Sun-like star requires space telescopes with apertures of at least 1m. A notable exception to this is Alpha Centauri (A and B), which is an extreme outlier among FGKM stars in terms of apparent habitable zone size: the habitable zones are approximately 3x wider in apparent size than around any other FGKM star. This enables a approximately 30-45cm visible light space telescope equipped with a modern high performance coronagraph or star shade to resolve the habitable zone at high contrast and directly image any potentially habitable planet that may exist in the system. The raw contrast requirements for such an instrument can be relaxed to 1e-8 if the mission spends 2 years collecting tens of thousands of images on the same target, enabling a factor of 500-1000 speckle suppression in post processing using a new technique called Orbital Difference Imaging (ODI). The raw light leak from both stars is controllable with a special wave front control algorithm known as Multi-Star Wave front Control (MSWC), which independently suppresses diffraction and aberrations from both stars using independent modes on the deformable mirror. This paper will present an analysis of the challenges involved with direct imaging of Alpha Centauri with a small telescope and how the above technologies are used together to solve them. We also show an example of a small coronagraphic mission concepts to take advantage of this opportunity called "ACESat: Alpha Centauri Exoplanet Satellite" submitted to NASA's small Explorer (SMEX) program in December of 2014.

exoplanets↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight

Introduction: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS), including treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill, such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D). It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. Methods: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40) who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the treadmill with vibration isolation system 2 (T2), ergometry on the cycle ergometer with vibration isolation and stabilization device (CEVIS), and strength training on the advanced resistive exercise device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and following spaceflight. Results: Data collection for this study is currently in progress. Conclusions: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.

A.N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight

Introduction: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS), including treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices (such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D]) that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill. It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. Methods: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40), who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), ergometry on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) device, and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), Results: Eight subjects (2 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 6 Control) have been recruited for this study. Data collection is currently in progress. Conclusions: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.

A.N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Teal Cycle Ergometer Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System Human-in-the-Loop Ground Evaluation for Long-Duration Spaceflight

Purpose: To counter the deleterious effects of weightlessness on the cardiopulmonary system, astronauts living on the International Space Station exercise on a variety of countermeasure equipment including the Cycle Ergometer Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System (CEVIS). Operational since 2001, the onboard CEVIS will be replaced by a new model, known as Teal CEVIS (TC). As a part of ground evaluation, TC hardware underwent human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing to verify the TC hardware produces workloads that elicit physiologic responses comparable to a laboratory cycle ergometer (LAB). Methods: Seven subjects (5 M/2 F) performed submaximal cycle ergometer testing with indirect calorimetry measures on TC and LAB on separate test days. Testing consisted of graded 30 watt increases in workload until subjects reached 85% of age-predicted max heart rate (HR). Exercise outcomes included rate of oxygen uptake (VO2; liters/min), rate of energy expenditure (REE; kcal/min), and HR (beats/min). Linear mixed models (LMM) were fitted to compare VO2, REE, and HR responses between devices across power outputs with fixed effects for power (P) and device (D) and with random effects for subject. LMM effect coefficients (β), std errors (SE), pseudo-partial R2 of effects (pR2), and model likelihood ratio statistics (χ2, Pr(> chisq); α<.05) are provided. Results: LMM main effects for P and D were observed for VO2 (βp=.0107, SE = .0002, pR2=0.97; βd = -0.075, SE = 0.019, pR2=0.14; χ2(1)= 13.57, p<.001), such that VO2 was higher across stages on TC. Main effects of P and D were observed for REE (βp= .0586, SE = 0.001, pR2= 0.97; βd = -0.33208, SE = 0.099, pR2= 0.056; χ2(1)=10.481, p < .01), such that REE was higher across power outputs on TC. A P x D interaction was observed for HR, along with main effects for P and D (βp x d =-0.048, SE = 0.02, pR2=0.048; βp= 0.42, SE = 0.016, pR2=0.87; χ2(1) = 5.398, p = 0.02), such that higher workloads elicited a greater difference in HR between devices. Conclusions: HITL results show, TC elicits greater physiologic responses across power outputs compared to LAB. However, pR2 for device effects show small differences between devices. Therefore, TC can be expected to provide appropriate physiological stimulus across workloads and be considered a reliable tool to mitigate the effects of weightlessness.

Cycle Ergometer Vibration and Isolation System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) include treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, which are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices (such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D]) that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill. It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. METHODS: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40), who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), ergometry on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) device, and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and following spaceflight. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects (3 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 10 Control) have been recruited for this study. Data collection is currently in progress. CONCLUSIONS: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.

A.N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) include treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, which are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices (such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D]) that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill. It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. METHODS: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40), who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), ergometry on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) device, and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and following spaceflight. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects (3 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 10 Control) have been recruited for this study. Data collection is currently in progress. CONCLUSIONS: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.

A.N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Pathway to a 21st Century NASA X-Plane Through Hampton Roads

A talk on how NASA Aeronautics is developing new X-Planes at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA. The talk draws connections between a spark of passion in science fiction to the process of advancing the science of flight from the lab to the sky.

QUESST↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight on Astronaut Health and Performance

INTRODUCTION Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) include treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, which are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis missions to the Moon and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices that provide both aerobic and resistive capabilities on one platform without including a treadmill. The European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D] is one such apparatus. It is critical to validate the efficacy of using exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of using nominal ISS exercise devices for an entire mission compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. METHODS Crewmembers are assigned to one of three groups: 1) Controls (n ≥ 40), who partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), cycling on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS), and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who exercise on the CEVIS and ARED only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who perform aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both Active groups are not permitted to perform treadmill exercise for the entirety of their flight. Health and performance markers, including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and after spaceflight. RESULTS Fifteen subjects (4 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 11 Control) have been recruited. Data collection is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS This study will assess the efficacy of using exploration exercise modalities, including removing the treadmill exercise capability or exclusively using the E4D, compared to the nominal ISS exercise regimen across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions. Supported by the NASA Human Research Program and NASA Exploration Capabilities

A N Varanoske↗