Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “state fidelity”

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.

507 records · Page 29
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1999

Three-Dimensional, Transgenic Cell Models to Quantify Space Genotoxic Effects

The space environment contains radiation and chemical agents known to be mutagenic and carcinogenic to humans. Additionally, microgravity is a complicating factor that may modify or synergize induced genotoxic effects. Most in vitro models fail to use human cells (making risk extrapolation to humans more difficult), overlook the dynamic effect of tissue intercellular interactions on genotoxic damage, and lack the sensitivity required to measure low-dose effects. Currently a need exists for a model test system that simulates cellular interactions present in tissue, and can be used to quantify genotoxic damage induced by low levels of radiation and chemicals, and extrapolate assessed risk to humans. A state-of-the-art, three-dimensional, multicellular tissue equivalent cell culture model will be presented. It consists of mammalian cells genetically engineered to contain multiple copies of defined target genes for genotoxic assessment,. NASA-designed bioreactors were used to coculture mammalian cells into spheroids, The cells used were human mammary epithelial cells (H184135) and Stratagene's (Austin, Texas) Big Blue(TM) Rat 2 lambda fibroblasts. The fibroblasts were genetically engineered to contain -a high-density target gene for mutagenesis (60 copies of lacl/LacZ per cell). Tissue equivalent spheroids were routinely produced by inoculation of 2 to 7 X 10(exp 5) fibroblasts with Cytodex 3 beads (150 micrometers in diameter). at a 20:1 cell:bead ratio, into 50-ml HARV bioreactors (Synthecon, Inc.). Fibroblasts were cultured for 5 days, an equivalent number of epithelial cells added, and the fibroblast/epithelial cell coculture continued for 21 days. Three-dimensional spheroids with diameters ranging from 400 to 600 micrometers were obtained. Histological and immunohistochemical Characterization revealed i) both cell types present in the spheroids, with fibroblasts located primarily in the center, surrounded by epithelial cells; ii) synthesis of extracellular matrix; and iii,, mitotic cells located throughout the spheroids. Spheroidal integrity and cell viability were retained for the 30-day test period after removal of spheroids from the bioreactor. Potential utility of this three-dimensional, transgenic model for genotoxicity was initially assessed by exposure of spheroids to 0-2 Gy neon at dose rates of 0.3 to 1.5 Gy/min (National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Chiba, Japan). Quantification of mutation at the lacl gene revealed a linear dose response for mutation induction. Limited sequencing analysis of mutant clones revealed higher frequencies of deletions and multiple base sequence changes with increasing dose. These results suggest that our three-dimensional, transgenic model is applicable to a wide variety of studies involving the quantification, identification, and characterization of genotoxicity incurred in space and on Earth. This model uniquely allows investigation of the interaction of relevant factors, namely cell-to-cell interactions and the mechanistic interaction of microgravity with radiation insults and DNA repair. Using this three-dimensional model will allow us to obtain dual genotoxic information (i.e., mutation rate plus chromosome aberration data) from the same system so that one endpoint can be used to reference the other, thereby increasing the fidelity of the data set. Moreover, the tissue-equivalent nature of the three-dimensional model provides high confidence for relevance of risk assessment, i.e., the establishment of quality factors directly applicable to the microgravity environment.

Gonda, S. R.↗
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 NTRS2024

Qualitative Headspace GCMS Analysis of Lunar Regolith and Volatile Simulant Mixtures

Introduction: Future Artemis missions aim to return the volatile-bearing samples collected near lunar polar craters. We, as advanced curation scientists, are responsible for developing techniques and methodologies for preserving the integrity of returned samples and the science value those samples contain. The extent to which that preservation is possible, and the trade-offs preservation requires (e.g. monetary costs, sample volume limitations) all must be considered. Even less-than pristine volatile-bearing samples will be of tremendous value to the scientific community seeking to unravel the history of lunar surface volatiles and, more broadly, volatiles in the solar system. A sample collected on the lunar surface will experience at least five distinctive periods during which any changes here referred to as “alteration” will certainly occur at some scale: collection on the lunar surface; transportation back to Earth; long-term storage; curatorial processing; and allocation/distribution. The Planetary Exploration and Astromaterials Research Lab (PEARL) seeks to understand temperature and pressure effects on returned volatile samples by working with high-fidelity volatile-containing regolith simulants, setting the foundation for the future of cold curation. This abstract is focused on gas-surface interactions between LCROSS volatiles and readily available lunar regolith simulants. Experiments involved analyzing differences in headspace gas composition for various combinations of volatile and regolith simulants using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Experimental Procedure: The volatile simulants were chosen based on the molecules detected during the LCROSS mission.1 Stock solutions of condensed lunar volatile analytes were: methanol, 7 N ammonia in methanol, and 0.4% hydrogen sulfide in water. The regolith simulants used were primarily JSC-1A and NU-LHT-4M. Additional regolith simulant control studies were conducted with <150 μm sieved sand and KBr. A nested vial sample preparation approach separated the liquid stock solutions from the regolith, eliminating potential matrix effects between liquid and solid phases. Fifteen microliter aliquots of liquid volatile simulants were added to a 2 mL liquid GC vial and capped in atmosphere. An 18G needle punctured the 2 mL GC vial immediately before being transferred and sealed in a 20 mL GC vial containing 0-0.3 g of regolith simulant, see Figure 1. Separating the analytes ensures any changes observed in the total headspace gases is a result of gas-surface and/or gas-gas interactions. Equipment and Method: Initial GC/MS method development for the separation and identification of relevant headspace gases can be found in Amick, et al. 2023.2 The only hardware change is a different column: a TG-1701MS 30 m × 0.25 mm × 1.00 μm column. The vials were sampled at 10°C, room temperature (~25°C) and 50°C. Low temperature samples were kept in a chilled autosampler stage for at least 1 hour prior to sampling. High temperature samples were agitated at 50°C for 5 minutes immediately prior to injection onto the column. Headspace chromatograms were collected for each combination of temperature, regolith, and volatile simulant, including controls without one or both types of analytes, in triplicate. The chromatogram elution window for each analyte or significant atmospheric gas was identified using the peak mass spectrum cross-referenced with Figure 1.Picture of the nested vial set-up. a NIST MS library search. Each analyte peak was integrated after filtering the mass spectrum trace for the parent or most unique mass-to-charge ratio. For example, the mass-to-charge ratio used to identify, filter for, and integrate the carbon dioxide peak was centered around 44 m/z. Results: Figure 2 shows the integrated peak area for hydrogen sulfide in all combinations of regolith simulants, temperatures, and the addition of ammonia in methanol solution. Multiple repeat experiments with H2S and regolith simulants have confirmed hydrogen sulfide is removed from the headspace within 1 hour when exposed to JSC-1A, NU-LHT-4M and sand (not pictured). The consumption of H2S by lunar regolith simulants at different temperatures indicates surface chemistry will be an integral component in sample integrity and preservation. It is important to note that while the effect of surface chemistry on gaseous hydrogen sulfide is intriguing, further investigation into more chemically accurate regolith simulants is necessary and ongoing. The sulfur in hydrogen sulfide is in its most reduced state while off-the-shelf, terrestrially sourced JSC-1A and NU-LHT-4M are more oxidized than most lunar materials,3which likely leads to different oxidation-reduction reactions than would be expected in lunar regolith. Figure 3 shows the integrated peak area of carbon dioxide for each sample combination that contained ammonia in methanol solution. The addition of ammonia to the GC vials results in a consistent and reproducible decrease in carbon dioxide gas, even at 50°C. The effect became more pronounced when JSC-1A or NU-LHT-4M were present. This set of experiments demonstrated that the sample composition will affect the chemical and physical state of each component present. Future spectroscopic and microscopy experiments will be geared towards identifying the cause for the CO2(g) concentration decrease and the consumption of hydrogen sulfide. As cold and volatile curation scientists, this information provides necessary insight on how to appropriately handle and analyze volatile bearing returned samples, as well as predict the effect chemical composition has on the various sample phases we will analyze upon return to Earth. Unlike traditional curation of geologic materials, the molecules in a sample cannot be identified or processed using the naked eye or even an optical microscope. Volatile curation will require a combination of analytical techniques, including but not limited to highly sensitive gas and solid/condensed phase spectroscopy. This set of experiments has demonstrated the need for more detailed studies of volatile mixtures with mineralogically and geochemically analogous lunar regolith simulants to prepare for the curation of volatile-rich lunar samples from the south polar region of the Moon. References: [1] Colaprete, A., et al. (2010) Science, 330, (463-468). [2] Amick, C. L., et al.(2023) Houston, Texas, [3] Heiken, G. H., et al.(1991) (778-778)

Cecilia L Amick↗