Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Subject Matter Expert”

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 505 records · Page 28
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Menagerie: an Automated Approach to Launch Vehicle Design

The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)has been performing conceptual design of launch vehicles since the Space Transportation System Program. As part of its duties ACO has been tasked with investigating the effects of known and potential threats and opportunities to a myriad of launch vehicle concepts, launch sites, and mission profiles known as the launch space. As the launch space becomes more crowded and busy with launch providers and their vehicles, the legacy method of prescribing each design discipline to a single human Subject Matter Expert (SME) has become infeasible. Rapidly changing launch, economical, and political constraints require rapid evaluation of their effects. While moving into this future of rapid response does require streamlining of data and processes, it does not however lead directly to reinventing the wheel. Flight-validated analysis tools, procedures, and lessons learned can be effectively leveraged to bring the experience from decades of government and commercial flight programs to the new paradigm. In this publication we describe the aggregation of all previous launch vehicle design efforts of ACO into an automated and integrated toolchain called menagerie. The toolchain utilizes a suite of NASA, Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), and ACO-developed tools and processes to evaluate launch vehicle concepts, mission profiles, and trades in a fraction of the time previously required.

launch vehicle↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving the Fidelity of Capability & Resource Weighting in A Probalistic Risk Assessment Model for Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION NASA’s Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) tool uses Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to provide an evidence-based, data-driven estimate of how medical system capabilities affect mission outcomes. IMPACT maps condition incidence to available resources thereby facilitating the calculation of outcome metrics that allow the estimation of mission medical risk. Conditions can be nominally categorized as either treated or untreated depending on the availability of necessary diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. This categorization enables IMPACT to estimate the effect of various medical system configurations on mission outcomes such as crew mortality, disability, crew member down-time, return to duty/recovery, and need for evacuation. IMPACT currently employs an equal weighting, “partial credit” approach to define treatment in which each of the capabilities associated with a given condition contributes an equal amount to management of the condition. This feature enables IMPACT to report values in between “fully untreated” and “fully treated” based on the proportion of capabilities available within the model. However, as is normal in medical/clinical practice, not all individual capabilities contribute equally to medical care. For example, the ability to provide intramuscular epinephrine during an anaphylactic episode contributes more likelihood of overall management success than does the administration of oral diphenhydramine. We hypothesize that weighting the relative contribution of each capability to each specific condition will improve outcome prediction and therefore will better provide mission planners with more nuanced and accurate options when designing space medical systems. METHODS Using a five-point Fibonacci scaling sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8) subject matter experts from NASA’s Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) element assigned relative contribution weighting values to each identified capability within IMPACT. Since the relative importance of each capability varies depending on the specific condition, the resulting “partial” weighting was completed for more than 1,600 individual weighting assignments for 666 capabilities across 121 conditions. Each assignment required three-physician concurrence based on the overall importance of the capability to the diagnosis and management of the condition being considered and the difficulty with which it could be improvised by the crew. Once complete, 100,000 IMPACT simulations were run for a 6-month Lunar mission with a 30-day surface stay to evaluate the effect of this modification of the model. RESULTS Partial weighting significantly decreased predicted task time loss (TTL), evacuation, and loss of crew life without causing significant changes to the recommended medical system design. CONCLUSIONS The paucity of real-world referent data to support long-duration space missions of this type limits the ability to judge one predictive analytics method as superior to another. However, since the proposed method significantly reduces and optimizes outcome risks—without changing the medical system design—incorporating a partial weighting methodology is likely to provide a more accurate and operationally-relevant representation of medical risk without compromising IMPACTs ability to inform overarching medical system requirements.

Steller JG↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing Crew Medical Officer Preparedness for International Space Station Missions

INTRODUCTION Astronaut crew medical officers (CMO) undergo additional, specialized training to provide medical support onboard the International Space Station (ISS). CMO training focuses on utilizing resources on-station and optimizing communication with ground-based expertise to manage both common minor conditions as well as emergency/trauma situations. As NASA moves towards future Artemis and exploration class missions, we sought CMO perspectives on past, present, and future CMO training and medical resourcing to help inform mission planners regarding medical risk mitigation considerations. We present an interview-based qualitative assessment of CMO preparedness for the International Space Station with the aim to help iterate future training flows for Low Earth Orbit, Artemis, and exploration-class missions. METHODS A semi-structured interview tool was developed to assess CMO experience and their recommendations for future mission training considerations. Participants were recruited from former or current US astronauts who were designated as CMO and subsequently flew to the International Space Station. 10 former CMOs took part in the study. Interview transcripts were deidentified and evaluated for qualitative thematic analysis by two independent coders with NVivo Software suite (Lumivero, Denver, CO), and emergent themes were compiled. RESULTS Former CMO crew expressed appropriate preparedness for current ISS medical capabilities and requirements. They identified the role of the CMO as serving as a healthcare extender to ground-based flight surgeons for ISS and other LEO missions. Individuals with prior medical experience were preferred though not felt to be necessary for LEO missions. For exploration class missions with limitations in ground communication, a physician-as-CMO and more rigorous training curricula for both the CMO and astronaut crew were desired. DISCUSSION Former NASA astronaut crew were interviewed to retrospectively assess their preparedness as ISS crew medical officers and hypothesize future medical knowledge, skill, and ability needs. Along with medical operations subject matter expert opinion and advanced probabilistic risk assessment modeling, past CMO experience can help inform future CMO training considerations and responsibilities for future Artemis and exploration class missions.

M A Labarbera↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Roadmap to Cooperative Operating Practices for Strategic Conflict Detection and Resolution in the Upper Class E Traffic Management Concept

As the governing body of flight operations in the highly anticipated emergent area of Upper Class E airspace (60,000 ft and above), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has recognized the potential for a possible extensible traffic management system for new entrants into this domain. Following the successes with Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) and Advanced / Urban Air Mobility (AAM / UAM) Traffic Management programs, FAA put forth an initial concept of operations for supporting the start of the Upper Class E Traffic Management (ETM) concept. Like UTM and AAM / UAM, ETM is envisioned to also be a community-based, industry driven cooperative management concept. However, tailoring it to be adaptable to the atmospheric communication, navigation, and surveillance deficits, as well as the diverse vehicle and mission profiles operating in the ETM environment will be the challenge. As such, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center has been investigating several technologies that will help enable industry in the development of this new type of cooperative operating environment. These technologies are being prototyped and will be tested in a collaborative evaluation of an initial ETM system in late 2023. The evaluation will concentrate on building out ETM system technologies that will inform the participants regarding operational intent sharing, strategic conflict detection, and the resultant deconfliction process. In addition to the technical aspects, key roles and responsibilities will need to be defined. This will be done through exploring community-agreed upon Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs) that include procedures and capabilities to aid in timely, strategic conflict identification and resolution to be developed during the evaluation. As an initial step to the evaluation, the ETM research team at NASA Ames solicited industry feedback on various aspects of ETM operations from subject matter experts. A virtual tabletop walkthrough session was held over a two-day period to follow a roadmap through the functional steps needed to build COPs, focusing on strategic conflict detection and resolution.

Upper Class E Traffic Management (ETM)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Crew Seat for Human Exploration in Multiple Gravity Environments

This work attempts to develop a single crew seating solution that is applicable across a range of gravity environments encountered by spacecraft proposed in several conceptual spacecraft architectures. All of these spacecraft will need to provide some sort of stationary accommodation for the crew for performing various activities such as work in science laboratories, maintenance and repair facilities, medical care facilities, and spacecraft operations centers, as well as for basic habitation in crew quarters, entertainment / relaxation facilities, and crew dining facilities. Depending on the spacecraft or architecture, this stationary accommodation may be experienced continuously in microgravity, such as would be the case for the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle. Alternately, it could be in continuous lunar or Martian gravity, such as the Common Habitat base camps. It could experience fractional gravity, such as a Pressurized Rover for In-Space Missions at a Near Earth Asteroid or one of the Martian moons. It could alternate between artificial gravity and microgravity, such as the Nautilus-X. It could alternate between microgravity and lunar or Martian gravity, such as the SpaceX Starship Human Landing System or the Blue Origin Blue Moon Block 2 Human Landing System. Or it could be in continuous Earth gravity, such as ground trainer systems. Prior human spaceflight systems for stationary accommodation have been focused on microgravity applications. These systems have their own limitations and cannot be used in a gravity environment. A public crowdsourcing campaign generated dozens of ideas, which ultimately generated a Gecko Mobility Aids system for crew translation and the Multi-Gravity Crew Seat (MGCS) for stationary accommodation. The MGCS functions in gravity as a traditional terrestrial seat, performing functions of load for the overall body and forearms, as well as head and neck load relief while positioning the body within range of an intended task. In microgravity, the MGCS functions as a body restraint, securing the body against inadvertent drifting by applying a restraining pressure at the front and back of the thighs, shoulders, and back. The initial MGCS concept was developed in a NASA hackathon and was refined through a review of dozens of terrestrial seating styles. Additionally, a review of anthropometry and biomechanics data related to the neutral body posture was conducted to help inform the microgravity configuration of the MGCS. A series of CAD models were iteratively developed, with subject matter expert reviews leading to design improvements. A scale model was constructed and used with a humanoid model to demonstrate MGCS accommodation of a human-like body in both gravity and microgravity modes. Work to develop a full-scale protype of the MGCS is discussed, including design and fabrication of the headrest, arm rest, seat back, seat pan, seat base, and the conversion mechanisms. A 1-g human-in-the-loop evaluation of the prototype assessed the acceptability of performing seated activities in the MGCS, collecting data on the usability, comfort, and ease of ingress/egress. Based on the evaluation results, design modifications needed for reduced gravity testing are documented and initial work is indicated for a reduced gravity test plan.

Restraints and Mobility Aids↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Evaluation of Extended Reality Technologies for Use in Verification Testing at NASA 2024 HRP IWS Abstract

BACKGROUND At NASA, verification testing is the formal process of ensuring that a product conforms to requirements set by a project or program. Some verification methods, such as Demonstrations and Test, require either the end product or a mockup of the product with sufficient fidelity to stand-in for the product during the test. Traditionally, these mockups have been physical (e.g., foam-core and wood) but there is growing interest in exploring new methods for testing with these mockups. These methods include virtual reality (VR), mixed reality, and augmented reality which are collectively referred to as eXtended Reality (XR) technologies. VR has already been adopted and used by many in the aerospace industry as a tool for use in early design phases (e.g., developmental testing) and may have the most potential for use in verification tests. Benefits of using VR mockups offer cost effectiveness, ease of iteration, simulation of hazardous conditions (e.g., an egress through a hatch with smoke obscuring vision), and the ability to simulate microgravity conditions, which are challenging to do with physical mockups. However, the validity of test results obtained from VR mockup demonstrations or testing, compared to the current gold standard of physical mockups, remains uncertain. It is unlikely that there is one clean answer as there are many different types of verification outcomes and each XR technology must be evaluated on its own merits. This is not an issue during developmental testing as the design is still in flux and the total success of the design is not dependent upon the results of a developmental test. Verification tests, however, only happen once, assuming no change to the design, and the results are used to certify the product. Therefore, establishing the validity of XR mockup-based verification outcomes is essential before considering them for any use in verification tests. OBJECTIVE AND METHOD To address this concern, the Human Research Program has funded a project to explore and qualify how XR technologies might be used in verification demonstration and testing at NASA. Currently, we are conducting a review of the literature on the utilization of XR mockups for design activities, prototyping, and user testing. We are employing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis method to identify the pros, cons, and barriers to adoption of XR technologies for verification testing at NASA. Additionally, we are developing a framework to guide the deployment of XR mockups for verification tests. Building upon available evidence from the literature and subject-matter expert feedback, our goal for the framework is to provide guidelines for which forms of XR mockups are suitable for a given verification test, when only physical mockups should be employed and to highlight areas for which more evidence is needed. To further refine our framework and to contribute to the body of evidence, we are planning a lab-based experiment comparing a VR mockup to a physical twin for a set of select verification outcomes. ANTICIPATED RESULTS In this presentation, we will present the work we conducted to evaluate XR technologies for use in verification tests at NASA. We will summarize and report our findings from the SWOT analysis and our lab-based study, and we will present the current state of the XR Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project. Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project.

Extended Reality↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar Surface Position Determination using Perceived Signal Strength

The purpose of this project is to evaluate the feasibility of transmitters and receivers on the lunar surface for Position Determination (PD) without any form of lunar Global Positioning System (GPS). The early Artemis program may lack GPS satellites orbiting the Moon, and it is critical that activities with the lander, rover, and crew EVA identify their position on the lunar surface at all times. This project creates a prototype system that trilaterates user position based upon the perceived signal from at least 3 nearby transmission towers, called “Lunar Access Points”. The application of perceived signal strength for surface PD has historically been used in terrestrial systems such as Long Range Navigation (LORAN), which was popular with the maritime industry prior to the Global Positioning System (GPS). The ease of installing such a local system for early Artemis missions provides a critical resource until satellite-based position determination systems are deployed. A surface-based PD can also be used in GPS-denied environments such as deep craters or lava tubes where satellite visibility is compromised. By demonstrating the basic capability of surface PD, this student team has learned about issues with power, distance, thermal, dust, radiation, data processing, and communication problems applicable to the lunar surface. This knowledge can feed into future NASA requirements to improve the capability of a LunaNET implementation for the Artemis program. This project follows 10 years of successful collaboration between NASA JSC/ARES, Texas Space, Technology, Applications and Research (T STAR) and Texas A&M University in a Public, Private, Academic (PPA) Partnership. NASA funds T STAR to mentor undergraduate Capstone teams in the College of Engineering Department to design, built, and test prototypes meeting NASA requirements. TAMU faculty lead the student teams in their academic class, and NASA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) provide T STAR and students insight on requirements evolution, prior design projects, and future development goals.

Position Determination↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Mesh Networking for A Dynamic Lunar Internet of Things (Liot)

The purpose of this project is to evaluate the feasibility of an IEEE 802.11 mesh protocol for lunar surface computing. This standard for wireless networking boosts speed, dependability and range of wireless transmissions. The concept is to integrate sensors (such as deployed science instruments) or Astronaut tools (such as a handheld spectrometer) that communicate with a node on a common cell. The nodes can extend the range of the cell and can dynamically reconfigure the data routing in case of another node failure. All of the data in a cell pass through a modem that communicates with a distant base station across a 4G link. The application of mesh networking to a potential lunar surface network increases robustness and fault tolerance over a traditional single-point modem system. By demonstrating the basic capability of a mesh network, the student team has learned about issues with power, distance, thermal, dust, radiation, data processing, and communication problems applicable to the lunar surface. This knowledge can feed into future NASA requirements to improve the capability of a LunaNET implementation for the Artemis program. This project follows 10 years of successful collaboration between NASA ARES, Texas Space, Technology, Applications and Research (T STAR) and Texas A&M University in a Public, Private, Academic (PPA) Partnership. NASA funds T STAR to mentor undergraduate Capstone teams in the College of Engineering Department to design, built, and test prototypes meeting NASA requirements. TAMU faculty lead the student teams in their academic class, and NASA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) provide T STAR and students insight on requirements evolution, prior design projects, and future development goals.

Lunar Mesh Networking↗
NASA NTRS2024

Updates to NASA’s Break-in-Prebreathe Rules Due to Type II Decompression Sickness Risk Considerations

INTRODUCTION. Investigation of a central neurological decompression sickness (DCS) case during ground testing at Johnson Space Center identified a break-in-prebreathe (BIP) 13 minutes prior to depressurization as the leading credible cause despite applicable prebreathe payback rules being followed. Applicable NASA rules, for ground and flight, directed 2:1 payback of breaks up to 10 mins in duration, regardless of when a break occurs relative to depress. Full restart of prebreathe is directed following breaks > 10 min. The adequacy of NASA’s BIP rules was evaluated prior to resuming hypobaric ground testing or ISS extravehicular activities. METHODS. The following information sources were reviewed prior to formulating recommendations: i) Type II DCS case report and investigation findings; ii) documented rationale for existing flight rules, iii) consultations with subject matter experts involved in definition of existing flight rules (several of whom had since left NASA), iv) relevant published literature, v) model estimates of tissue on-gassing and off-gassing, and vi) NASA’s operational experience with late breaks in prebreathe. RESULTS. NASA’s nominal prebreathe protocols are validated via extensive ground testing to ensure DCS risk is reduced to within acceptable limits. Conversely, there exists a paucity of data, no validated models, and limited documentation regarding BIP risk for NASA prebreathe protocols. Flight rules implemented for shuttle and later ISS are based primarily on expert opinion and an assumption of symmetric on-gassing and off-gassing, which would make 2:1 payback a conservative mitigation for a BIP. Assumption of exponential gas kinetics makes late breaks higher risk, or require greater payback, than earlier breaks. Two BIPs have occurred using the current ISS prebreathe protocol, each of which was followed by greater than 2:1 payback and at least 59 minutes of 100% O2 pre-depress. No DCS cases have been reported during shuttle or ISS EVA operations. DISCUSSION. Interim changes were implemented to protect against late breaks during ground and flight prebreathes by ensuring negligible difference in conservatively modeled ppN2 pre-depress compared to nominal validated protocols. Additional documentation and literature review as well as chamber test planning are ongoing with the objective of further ground and flight rule updates and validation of a BIP risk model.

Prebreathe↗
NASA NTRS2023

Progressively Enabling Earth Independent Medical Operations (EIMO)

This panel presents the findings from a series of Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) hosted by the Exploration Medical Capability Element (ExMC) in NASA’s Human Research Program. The topics for the TIMs were derived from a 2-day conference of senior leaders and subject matters experts that collectively outlined a multi-faceted strategy designed to optimize crew health and performance through an increasingly autonomous medical approach. The first abstract in this panel outlines the scope of issues related to data collection, usage, transmission and computing capacity to facilitate EIMO. The second presentation provides an overview of the challenges in developing curricula and advanced training tools to baseline knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA), verify clinical competency and assure retention during prolonged durations inherent in exploration-class missions. An overview of the complicated medical supply and resource chain necessary to facilitate EIMO is provided in the third presentation of this panel. The final presentation in this EIMO panel surveys the breadth and depth of demands on cognitive load expected to be experienced by crew on an exploration mission and proposes strategies to mitigate the prospect of cognitive overload through methods to shift task load from the crew to multi-modal artificial intelligence based medical support systems. Taken together, these presentations summarize the challenges to be expected and potential solution spaces to be explored and developed to progressively enable increasing autonomous medical operations to support crewed missions beyond low earth orbit. Through EIMO focused pre-mission planning, integrated data architecture design, innovative training development and AI-assisted task load management, the gradual transition of medical care and decision making from terrestrial to space-based assets enabling support of astronaut health and performance and reducing overall mission risk is achievable.

Jay Lemery↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Progressively Enabling Earth Independent Medical Operations (EIMO)

This panel presents the findings from a series of Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) hosted by the Exploration Medical Capability Element (ExMC) in NASA’s Human Research Program. The topics for the TIMs were derived from a 2-day conference of senior leaders and subject matters experts that collectively outlined a multi-faceted strategy designed to optimize crew health and performance through an increasingly autonomous medical approach. The first abstract in this panel outlines the scope of issues related to data collection, usage, transmission and computing capacity to facilitate EIMO. The second presentation provides an overview of the challenges in developing curricula and advanced training tools to baseline knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA), verify clinical competency and assure retention during prolonged durations inherent in exploration-class missions. An overview of the complicated medical supply and resource chain necessary to facilitate EIMO is provided in the third presentation of this panel. The final presentation in this EIMO panel surveys the breadth and depth of demands on cognitive load expected to be experienced by crew on an exploration mission and proposes strategies to mitigate the prospect of cognitive overload through methods to shift task load from the crew to multi-modal artificial intelligence based medical support systems. Taken together, these presentations summarize the challenges to be expected and potential solution spaces to be explored and developed to progressively enable increasing autonomous medical operations to support crewed missions beyond low earth orbit. Through EIMO focused pre-mission planning, integrated data architecture design, innovative training development and AI-assisted task load management, the gradual transition of medical care and decision making from terrestrial to space-based assets enabling support of astronaut health and performance and reducing overall mission risk is achievable.

John Lemery↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Open Science for Plants in Space: Data Sharing, Standards, and Informatics for Reuse and Knowledge Discovery

Upcoming deep space missions will rely on plants for crew and ecosystem health. Open access space biology data enables scientists to examine the biological responses of plants to ionizing radiation, altered gravity, low atmospheric pressure, elevated CO2, altered photoperiods and many other abiotic stressors. Open Science is the practice of making research available to all, while respecting diverse cultures, to foster collaborations with equity. NASA has declared 2023 as the ‘Year of Open Science’ and created a 5-year Transform to Open Science (TOPS) initiative designed to rapidly transform the agency toward an inclusive culture of open science. NASA’s Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) within the Biological and Physical Sciences Division provides access to data from space-relevant biological experiments. OSDR combines two databases, GeneLab and Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA) to maximize access to standardized ‘omics (e.g., transcriptomics, proteomics) and phenotypic data (e.g., microscopy, biomass), respectively. GeneLab started in 2014 with the creation of the first space-relevant FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) biological ‘omics repository, providing detailed metadata on investigation, sample, and assay levels. The addition of ALSDA to OSDR expands plant data analysis capabilities across both phenotypic and ‘omics data. Today, OSDR hosts 62+ plant datasets and has enabled 58 peer-reviewed publications. Most of these publications were collaboration efforts under the OSDR Analysis Working Groups (AWGs). AWGs provide great opportunities for investigators to collaborate with community members and set new standards for space-relevant data and metadata. The AWGs welcome any ASGSR members interested in contributing plant expertise for space biology, and to serve as subject matter experts as we establish the framework for modern plant data archiving. Investigators are encouraged to submit their space-relevant plant datasets to OSDR and visit the site to learn about the tools OSDR has to offer (osdr.nasa.gov/bio).

FAIR↗
NASA NTRS2024

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗
NASA NTRS2023

Modeling and Simulation Credibility Assessments of Whole-Body Finite Element Computational Models for Use in NASA Extravehicular Activity Applications

Computational finite element (FE) models are used in suited astronaut injury risk assessments; however, these models’ verification, validation, and credibility (VV&C) procedures for simulating injuries in altered gravity environments are limited. Our study conducts VV&C assessments of THUMS and Elemance whole-body FE models for predicting suited astronaut injury biomechanics using eight credibility factors, as per NASA-STD-7009A. Credibility factor ordinal scores are assigned by reviewing existing documentation describing VV&C practices, and credibility sufficiency thresholds are assigned based on input from subject matter experts. Our results show the FE models are credible for suited astronaut injury investigation in specific ranges of kinematic and kinetic conditions correlating to highway and contact sports events. Nevertheless, these models are deficient when applied outside these ranges. Several credibility elevation strategies are prescribed to improve models’ credibility for the NASA-centric application domain.

Finite Element↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Collaborative Host Facility for Lunar Operations

This project establishes a new collaborative simulation connectivity capability for JSC utilizing existing facilities. The principal collaborating organizations are Safety & Mission Assurance (Code NA) and Engineering Directorate (Code EA), but the capability is open for any JSC user. The core of the connectivity resides in Code ER7’s Concept Exploration Laboratory (CEL) and is part of ER7’s Systems Engineering Simulator (SES) complex. NA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) work proactively in situ with EA and commercial crew counterparts to evaluate Safety Review Panel (SRP) protocols for landers, habitation modules, and lunar roving systems using the same tools, terrain models and data as the designers. NA software initiated under two JSC Center Innovation Fund (CIF) and Innovation Charge account (ICA) funded projects will be used to configure the CEL to function as an EA maintained facility. Collaboration via the CEL with the U.S. Space Force (USSF) provides visibility for USSF. The potential for commercial crew and vehicle suppliers will require IT security and associated security architecture to be implemented in additional CIF based proposals.

Collaborative Simulation Hosting↗
NASA NTRS2024

Autonomy to Enable NASA Missions from Aeronautics to Space

2024 ASCEND Call for Sessions Session Format: Panel Session Topic: Space Exploration and Infrastructure: Exploring, Living, and Working in Space (The panel must map to one of six Session Topics - https://www.ascend.events/presenters/call-for-sessions/#sessiontopics) Title: Autonomy to Enable NASA Missions from Aeronautics to Space Short Session Description: In this panel discussion the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will discuss the role that autonomy and Artificial Intelligence (AI) will play as humanity moves off-world. Recent advances in general autonomy tools are changing the way NASA and its partners leverage autonomy for its air and space initiatives, including Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) concepts and potential lunar and Martian operations. The panelists will consist of autonomy subject matter experts familiar with the current state of the art for autonomy across both aeronautical and space domains. They will discuss how those technologies could evolve as operations become more complex and which autonomy technologies can be used in both the space and aeronautical domains. For example, perhaps autonomy work originally developed for terrestrial applications, like Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), could be applied to off-world lunar and Martian applications and vice versa. Additionally, the panel will address common misconceptions of these technologies, obstacles to implementation, and possible solutions for overcoming those obstacles. Join NASA in exploring how research activities can align to streamline autonomy development efforts, advancing NASA's goals to expand humanity's reach beyond Earth for the benefit of all. Contact Information: • Dr. Adam Yingling • Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) • Adam.j.yingling@nasa.gov, 703-416-9129 Session Length: 1.25 hours, 75 minutes Extended Description: Moderator: Dr. Adam Yingling, NASA, Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy Panel Speakers: • Autonomy Forum Principals o Dr. Charles Norton, Deputy Chief Technologist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) o Dr. Carolyn Mercer, Chief Technologist, Space Mission Directorate (SMD) o Dr. Parimal Kopardekar (PK), Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Integration Manager o Danette Alan, NASA, Senior Leader for Autonomous Systems, Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) o Duane Armstrong, Intelligent Systems Lead, Autonomous Systems Laboratory (ASL) Panel Format: • Introduction (10 min): The panel moderator will provide a 10-minute session introduction that will include an overview NASA’s Moon to Mars architecture, AAM autonomy research, and an introduction of the principals as panel speakers. • Moderated Session Part 1 (30 min): There will be a 30-minute moderated session among the moderator and the five autonomy principals to discuss the current state of art for autonomy and how work developed in one domain may be applicable to other domains; including the merits and challenges for implementing those technologies. • Moderated Session Part 2 (25 min): The moderator will then ask the principals to consider how technologies developed across all the domains might be able to address the most salient challenges identified in the previous session. • Q&A (10 min): The session will conclude with 10-minutes of audience Q&A. Session Goals and Outcomes: The session goals are 1) to communicate the importance of autonomy for both aeronautical and space mission, 2) Investigate potential synergies across autonomy research efforts that will enable scalable operations, and 3) to receive community feedback as NASA leverages autonomy to evolve aviation on Earth and enable humanity to live and work off-world.

Aerospace↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗
NASA NTRS2023

Earth Independent Medical Operations (EIMO) Training Technical Interchange Meeting, 26th October 2023: Background and Summary of Discussion

On 26th October 2023, ExMC convened a panel of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from NASA, broadly representing Headquarters, the Human Research Program, Medical Operations, the Human Health and Performance Directorate at JSC, the Health and Medical Technical Authority, the Flight Operations Directorate, and representation from other Centers including: Ames Research Center (ARC), and Glenn Research Center (GRC). Representatives from the Canadian Space Agency also participated in this TIM. In addition, SMEs from industry included representation from the following entities: Axiom Space, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, Level Ex, Shiny Box Interactive. Additional SMEs from academia included: University of Houston, Touro University, Weill Cornell Medical College and the Translational Research Institute for Space Health at Baylor College of Medicine. This group of stakeholders discussed the training issues related to facilitating EIMO. Sub-topics for this discussion included the following: - Pre-launch medical curriculum development - Ground-based training on medical hardware - Dental health - Behavioral health - Telemedicine - Just-in-time training - Simulation-based training (extended reality)

CMO Training↗