Results for “office” — Page 32

NASA NTRS2018

Curating Nasa's Future Extraterrestrial Sample Collections: the Role of Advanced Curation

The Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) (henceforth referred to herein as NASA Curation Office) is responsible for curating all of NASA's extraterrestrial samples. Under the governing document, NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 7100.10F "Curation of Extraterrestrial Materials," JSC is charged with "The curation of all extraterrestrial material under NASA control, including future NASA missions." The Directive goes on to define Curation as including "...documentation, preservation, preparation, and distribution of samples for re-search, education, and public outreach." Here we describe some of the ongoing efforts to ensure that the future activities of the NASA Curation Office are working towards a state of maximum proficiency.

McCubbin, Francis M.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Using X-Ray Computed Tomography as a Tool for Preliminary Examination Tool of Current and Future Extraterrestrial Sample Return Missions

The Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at the Johnson Space Center is the past, present, and future home of all of NASA’s astromaterials sample collections. The primary goals of the curation office are to maintain the long-term integrity of the samples and ensure that the samples are distributed for scientific study in a fair, timely, and responsible manner, thus maximizing the return on each sample. Part of the curation process is planning for the future. To this end, we perform fundamental research in advanced curation initiatives to better prepared for future sample return missions. Advanced Curation is tasked with developing procedures, technology, and data sets necessary for curating new sample collections, or getting new results from existing sample collections. As part of these advanced curation efforts, we have installed and are operating a Nikon XTH 320 X-ray Computed Tomography(XCT) system in the JSC curation office with four interchangeable X-ray sources, a large-area detector, and a heavy-duty stage. These instrument characteristics allow us exceptional flexibility to analyze a wide range of sample sizes, from sub-mm soil particles to rocks >10 cm in diameter. The penetrative nature of the XCT scans allows for astromaterials samples to be analyzed within sealed low-density containers (e.g., Teflon bags), preserving the pristinity of the samples. We have begun scanning of the Apollo and Antarctic Meteorite sample suites in order to non-destructively map out lithic clasts (and other features) within the samples. The data from these scans will be made available to scientists via the JSC curation website and the Astromaterials Curation Newsletter. We anticipate sample requests from these “new” lithic clasts identified in these “old” samples. We also anticipate that XCT analyses like these would be useful for future sample return missions, like the OSIRIS REx mission, as well as future sample return missions.

Zeigler, Ryan↗

NASA NTRS2020

History and Logic Model NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Instrument and Payload Systems Engineering Technical Performance Study

Historically, some NASA missions have exceeded schedule and cost commitments. Studies suggest technical performance is a contributor. The 1980 NASA Project Management Study concluded, "one of the most significant contributors to cost and schedule growth is inadequate definition of technical and management aspects of a program..." (as cited in GAO/NSIAD-93-97, p. 11). The 1991 NASA Roles and Missions Report identified a "need for increased emphasis on technological readiness and requirements on the front end of a program" (as cited in GAO/NSIAD-93-97, p. 11). The 1992 NASA Program Costs Report stated that NASA officials identified, among other things, "insufficient definition studies... [and] program redesigns and technical complexities" as reasons for cost and schedule overruns (GAO/NSAID-93-97, p. 11). The 2002 Task Force on Acquisition of National Security Space Programs found "requirements definition and control issues, unhealthy cost bias in proposal evaluation, widespread lack of budget reserves required to implement high risk programs on schedule, and an overall underappreciation of the importance of appropriately staffed and trained system engineering staff to manage the technologically demanding and unique aspects of space programs" (DoD, 2003, p.i.) In 2007, The NASA Office of the Chief Engineer chartered the NASA Instrument Capability Study (NICS) “to determine whether NASA instrument developers are facing challenges that impact the capability to design and build quality instruments or whether there are flaws in the acquisition strategy evidenced by schedule delays, cost overruns, and increased technical risk via design deficiencies. The... team was also chartered to determine if occurrences [are]... isolated cases or if there are generic issues... If the issues [are] found to be generic, the team [is] to offer solutions to recover such capability" (NICS Report, 2008, p. vi). The 2008 NICS Report, led by Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), identified challenges to instrument technical performance consistent with findings from previous reports. In 2017, the Instrument Project Division (IPD) Implementation Study was initiated to determine if there was a change in meeting schedule and cost commitments after implementing certain NICS recommendations. In 2018, the Instrument Technical Performance Study was initiated to determine the current state of Instrument Technical Performance in the GSFC Payload & Instrument Systems Engineering Branch. The purpose of the combined studies is to answer the question, "Is there a relationship between meeting NASA scientific instrument technical success and meeting schedule and cost commitments? If yes, what is the relationship?" References Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. (2003). The report of the defense science board/ air force scientific advisory board joint task force on acquisition of national security space programs. Washington DC. Government Accounting Office. (1992). NASA program costs: Space missions require substantially more funding than initially estimated. GAO/NSIAD-93-97. Washington DC. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, Department of Defense. (2008). The NASA instrument capability study final report. NP-2008-11-058-GSFC. Washington DC.

Robbins, Geraldine↗

NASA NTRS2021

NASA Strategy for Technology Development

At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), foresight is a coordinated, iterative, and continual process for making informed decisions. NASA faces diverse and relatively unique challenges and opportunities as the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration. To address these challenges and leverage opportunities, NASA uses foresight to strategically plan technology development across four mission directorates: Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, Space Technology Mission Directorate, Science Mission Directorate, and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. The mission directorates leverage a broad community of experts and partners to incorporate technology foresight into mission and program planning. Through this process NASA realizes tangible benefits to the agency’s science, technology, and exploration programs. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) serves as a trusted authority to inform technology strategy and advocacy at the agency, enabling future missions and advancing U.S. economic competitiveness. Specifically, OCT coordinates and uses inputs from abroad community of experts, both internal and external to NASA, to inform decision making for technology plans, investments, and partnerships. OCT develops the NASA Technology Taxonomy to standardize communication across the agency’s diverse technology portfolio and the related Strategic Technology Investment Plan that integrates priorities and informs technology investment. Through these efforts, OCT has refined elements of foresight-informed strategic planning that may be applicable to other technology-driven industries where foresight is essential for resilience. This chapter describes the processes of foresight for technology development at NASA and provides insight into the value the agency derives from these processes. The chapter further describes the role of OCT as an independent advisory office that supports NASA’s efforts to capitalize on foresight and strategic technology planning. We present these examples with consideration for how organizations in defense, security, and other technology-driven industries can operationalize foresight in their own strategic technology development.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRS2022

Atmospheric Research 2021 Technical Highlights

Welcome to the 2021 Atmospheres Highlights report. Here, we summarize research and scientific communication/outreach accomplishments from the portion of atmospheric science activities at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) that comprises the Earth Science Division’s Atmospheres organization. As in previous years, this report is intended for a broad audience, including colleagues within NASA, scientists outside the Agency, science graduate students, and members of the public. Organizationally, the report covers research activities under the Office of Deputy Director for Atmospheres (610AT), which is within Earth Sciences Division (Code 610) in the Sciences and Exploration Directorate (600). Laboratories and office within 610AT include: Mesoscale Atmospheric Processes Laboratory (612), Climate and Radiation Laboratory (613), Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory (614), and the Wallops Field Support Office (610.W). As of this writing, the 266 personnel in Code 610AT consist of 53 civil servants and 213 cooperative agreement associates, postdoctoral fellows and contractors.

Annual Report↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Connecting Federal Agencies to Satellite Earth Observations: NASA’s Satellite Needs Working Group Assessment Process

The Satellite Needs Working Group (SNWG), part of the U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO), surveys agencies across the U.S. Government to identify the satellite Earth observations each agency needs to fulfill its high-priority objectives and responsibilities. Around 20 civilian agencies participate in the SNWG survey every two years. After receiving the surveys, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducts an in-depth evaluation of each agency's needs in collaboration with fellow satellite Earth data providers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This assessment process, which takes place over an eight-month period, is divided into distinct phases. NASA first assembles an assessment team with the necessary subject matter expertise to evaluate each submitted need. An in-depth interview with each submitting agency then follows, featuring discussion of current and upcoming satellite missions as well as potential new activities that NASA, NOAA, and/or USGS could undertake to meet the agency's needs. The assessment teams then further evaluate these potential activities or solutions to identify how many agencies would benefit and estimate how much their level of satisfaction would increase. Solutions expected to have broad-reaching and significant agency benefits are proposed by NASA for funding. SNWG agencies receive an assessment report for each submitted need, in which the tri-agency assessment teams provide a detailed evaluation of the agency need, information on relevant satellite missions, and links to specific datasets or training resources. The SNWG Management Office at NASA’s Interagency Implementation and Advanced Concepts Team (IMPACT) contributes to NASA’s SNWG assessment in a variety of capacities, including statistical analysis of the survey responses to identify trends and similar needs across multiple agencies. The Management Office also provides analytics for the new proposed solutions, demonstrating and quantifying their potential value. For activities that receive funding, the Management Office manages the implementation process and works to maximize the benefit to SNWG agencies via a Stakeholder Engagement Program.

Katrina Virts↗

NASA NTRS2023

NASA Strategy for Technology Development

At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), foresight is a coordinated, iterative, and continual process for making informed decisions. NASA faces diverse and relatively unique challenges and opportunities as the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration. To address these challenges and leverage opportunities, NASA uses foresight to strategically plan technology development across four mission directorates: Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, Space Technology Mission Directorate, Science Mission Directorate, and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (recently separated into the new Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate and Space Operations Mission Directorate). The mission directorates leverage a broad community of experts and partners to incorporate technology foresight into mission and program planning. Through this process NASA realizes tangible benefits to the agency’s science, technology, and exploration programs. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides strategic advice, supported by independent assessments and rigorous analysis, to inform NASA senior leadership on key areas to align mission and agency-level activities. OTPS serves as a trusted authority to inform technology strategy at the agency to enable future missions. Specifically, OTPS coordinates and uses inputs from a broad community of experts, both internal and external to NASA, to inform decision making for technology plans, investments, and partnerships. OTPS develops and maintains the NASA Technology Taxonomy to standardize communication across the agency’s diverse technology portfolio and the related Strategic Technology Investment Plan that integrates priorities and informs technology investment. Through these efforts, OTPS has refined elements of foresight-informed strategic planning that may be applicable to other technology-driven industries where foresight is essential for resilience. This chapter describes the processes of foresight for technology development at NASA and provides insight into the value the agency derives from these processes. The chapter further describes the role of OTPS as an independent advisory office that supports NASA’s efforts to capitalize on foresight and strategic technology planning. We present these examples with consideration for how organizations in defense, security, and other technology-driven industries can operationalize foresight in their own strategic technology development.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cloud Computing Option for Modeling the Debris Environment

NASA’s Digital Transformation Initiative aims to promote the agency’s adoption of current and evolving digital technologies. Through agency-wide collaboration with other NASA teams, the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) has directed the Orbital Debris Program Office and the Meteoroid Environment Office to integrate cloud computing technologies in their publicly released software models: the Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM) and the Meteoroid Engineering Model (MEM). Decoupling the user interface from the backend processor was key for the software packages to run on a cloud computing framework. Benefits to this design include horizontal scaling of computing resources, user authentication and authorization, and automated deployment. Both models are hosted on a cloud computing platform supported by the NASA authorized IT security and compliance framework. This paper focuses on the new ORDEM web application, which includes the current features of the publicly released ORDEM software with an upgraded frontend design. The underlying ORDEM processor is run on a cloud container, allowing the user to run multiple spacecraft and telescope/radar mode simulations. Featuresexclusive to the ORDEM web application, such as importing multiple TLEs, auto-generated plotting, and the ability to check runtime progress are discussed. Comparisons between the current ORDEM software and the web application are summarized.

Andrew Vavrin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mission Overview and Status IGARSS Conference

The Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) mission is a strategic climate continuity mission that was defined in the 2010 document Responding to the Challenge of Climate and Environmental Change: NASA’s Plan for Climate-Centric Architecture for Earth Observations and Applications from Space (referred to as the “Climate Initiative”). Scheduled for launch in January 2024, the PACE mission represents NASA’s next investment in ocean biology, clouds, and aerosol data records [1]. PACE will extend the high quality ocean ecological, ocean biogeochemical, cloud, and aerosol particle data records begun by NASA in the 1990s, building on the exceptional heritages of the Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS), the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR), and the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). The PACE project office at NASA’s GSFC is responsible for the satellite development, launch and operations. The NASA Headquarters PACE Program Science office is responsible for supporting the science data processing system and assembling competed community science teams, which will include field-based vicarious calibration and data product validation efforts to support the PACE Project Science team. The mission is planned for launch into a Sun synchronous polar orbit at 676.5 km with an inclination of 98 degrees and a 1 pm local ascending node crossing time. The PACE observatory is comprised of three instruments, an Ocean Color Instrument (OCI) and two polarimeters, the Hyper-Angular Rainbow Polarimeter 2 (HARP2) and the Spectro-Polarimeter for Exploration (SPEXone). The OCI is the primary instrument on the observatory and is being developed at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). The OCI is a hyperspectral scanning radiometer designed to measure spectral radiances from the ultraviolet to shortwave infrared (SWIR) to enable advanced ocean color and heritage cloud and atmospheric aerosol science [2]. The HARP2 and SPEXone are complimentary instruments on the PACE observatory, acquired outside of GSFC. The HARP2 is multi-spectral, wide swath (supporting atmospheric correction of OCI), and hyper-angular, with capabilities for cloud science that exceed what is capable from OCI alone. The SPEXone is narrow swath, multi-angular, and hyperspectral, with capabilities for atmospheric aerosol science that exceed what can be accomplished with OCI. NASA Headquarters directed the mission development to be guided by a Design-to-Cost (DTC) process. All elements of the mission, other than the cost, are in the DTC trade space. At the heart of the DTC process are the mission studies, performed across all the mission elements. The mission studies were used to define appropriate approaches within and across elements while maximizing science capabilities at a high cost confidence. Mission baseline requirements development is also embedded within the DTC process, as these requirements were not established at the onset of the mission concept development. Baseline mission requirements are a product of the mission studies and are defined by the project office as part of the DTC process. At the time of this writing, OCI, HARP2 and SPEXone are integrated onto the PACE spacecraft, creating the PACE observatory. The instruments and spacecraft subsystems are undergoing combined functional performance testing in preparation for observatory-level environmental testing prior to shipment to the launch site. Here, we will provide an update on science capabilities and observatory readiness for its early 2024 launch.

remote sensing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

2023 Artemis Crew Health and Performance System Model Development

While the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) utilizes a Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System to represent all the Agency’s efforts to ensure the health and performance of NASA astronauts, there is no shared mental model of a CHP system at NASA. Some groups may consider a CHP system to be only a medical kit, while others may not be using the concept at all. To facilitate the integration of functions and capabilities to ensure astronaut health and performance during vehicle development, HRP has proposed a CHP Shared Mental Model derived from the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards (NASA-STD-3001 Vol.1/Vol.2). [1] Even though many vehicle, ground, and communication systems as well as mission operations are modeled for the Artemis Campaigns, no mission level CHP system model was created to achieve the intent of the HRP CHP Shared Mental Model. The lack of this model renders it difficult to visualize and understand how the many programs work together to provide the necessary cross program functions and capabilities to ensure the health and performance of the crew throughout an Artemis mission. For this purpose, the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element of HRP developed a CHP system model for the Artemis III and IV missions to provide a view of how each program contributes to and interacts with the overall CHP system. To develop the 2023 Artemis CHP system model, ExMC leveraged existing data and models from the Moon to Mars Program Office, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) and the Orion, Gateway, Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) and Human Landing System (HLS) programs. By using a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach, existing requirements, functions, and concepts of operations were combined to create a single system model focused on representing CHP from the launch to the return to Earth segments of the Artemis III and IV missions. Additionally, by incorporating the HRP Systems Platform for Aggregating and Relating Capabilities, or SPARC tool, the data from the programs was also related back to the 2nd volume of the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standard (NASA-STD-3001, Vol.2) and the human system risks identified by the Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The first version of the 2023 Artemis CHP system model was baselined in Fall of 2023 after the model was demonstrated to be a potentially useful tool for systems engineers integrating CHP capabilities in vehicle development as well as members of the Health and Medical Technical Authority providing oversight of those programs. The model may also be useful to any stakeholder of astronaut health and performance by providing insights on how an Artemis mission satisfies the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards as well as how they mitigate the HSRB Human System Risks. This presentation highlights how the model was developed and the possible benefits of the model. [1] NASA HRP (2022), Crew Health and Performance System Whitepaper

Systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2023

Cloud Computing Option for Modeling the Debris Environment

NASA’s Digital Transformation Initiative aims to promote the agency’s adoption of current and evolving digital technologies. Through agency-wide collaboration with other NASA teams, the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) has directed the Orbital Debris Program Office and the Meteoroid Environment Office to integrate cloud computing technologies into their publicly released software models: the Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM) and the Meteoroid Engineering Model (MEM). Decoupling the user interface from the backend processor was key for the software packages to run on a cloud computing framework. Benefits to this design include horizontal scaling of computing resources, user authentication and authorization, and automated deployment. Both models are hosted on a cloud computing platform supported by the NASA authorized IT security and compliance framework. This paper focuses on the new ORDEM web application, which includes the current features of the publicly released ORDEM software with an upgraded frontend design, although parallels between ORDEM and MEM are also discussed. The underlying ORDEM processor is run on a cloud container, allowing the user to run multiple spacecraft and telescope/radar mode simulations. Features exclusive to the ORDEM web application, such as importing multiple TLEs, auto-generated plotting, and the ability to check runtime progress are discussed. Comparisons between the current ORDEM software and the web application are summarized.

Andrew Vavrin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗

NASA NTRS2024

2023 Artemis Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Model Development

While the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) utilizes a Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System to represent all the Agency’s efforts to ensure the health and performance of NASA astronauts, there is no shared mental model of a CHP system at NASA. Some groups may consider a CHP system to be only a medical kit, while others may not be using the concept at all. To facilitate the integration of functions and capabilities to ensure astronaut health and performance during vehicle development, HRP has proposed a CHP Shared Mental Model derived from the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards (NASA-STD-3001 Vol.1/Vol.2). [1] Even though many vehicle, ground, and communication systems as well as mission operations are modeled for the Artemis Campaigns, no mission level CHP system model was created to achieve the intent of the HRP CHP Shared Mental Model. The lack of this model renders it difficult to visualize and understand how the many programs work together to provide the necessary cross program functions and capabilities to ensure the health and performance of the crew throughout an Artemis mission. For this purpose, the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element of HRP developed a CHP system model for the Artemis III and IV missions to provide a view of how each program contributes to and interacts with the overall CHP system. To develop the 2023 Artemis CHP system model, ExMC leveraged existing data and models from the Moon to Mars Program Office, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) and the Orion, Gateway, Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) and Human Landing System (HLS) programs. By using a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach, existing requirements, functions, and concepts of operations were combined to create a single system model focused on representing CHP from the launch to the return to Earth segments of the Artemis III and IV missions. Additionally, by incorporating the HRP Systems Platform for Aggregating and Relating Capabilities, or SPARC tool, the data from the programs was also related back to the 2nd volume of the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standard (NASA-STD-3001, Vol.2) and the human system risks identified by the Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The first version of the 2023 Artemis CHP system model was baselined in Fall of 2023 after the model was demonstrated to be a potentially useful tool for systems engineers integrating CHP capabilities in vehicle development as well as members of the Health and Medical Technical Authority providing oversight of those programs. The model may also be useful to any stakeholder of astronaut health and performance by providing insights on how an Artemis mission satisfies the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards as well as how they mitigate the HSRB Human System Risks. This presentation highlights how the model was developed and the possible benefits of the model. [1] NASA HRP (2022), Crew Health and Performance System Whitepaper

Systems engineering↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing and Maintaining Healthy Sleep

The purpose of this presentation is to provide information on healthy sleep to the entire NASA workforce. This presentation is part of the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer Journey to Wellness series. I will describe how sleep works, what constitutes normal sleep, sleep hygiene, tips for shiftworkers, and how to recognize sleep disorders.

health↗

NASA NTRS1970

Space Transportation System Technology Symposium: Operations, Maintenance, and Safety (Including Cryogenic Systems) - Volume 5

The prospect of undertaking a reusable launch vehicle development led the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF) to request the Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART) to organize and direct a program to develop the technology that would aid in selecting the best system alternatives and that would support the ultimate development of an earth-to-orbit shuttle. Such a Space Transportation System Technology Program has been initiated. OART, OMSF, and NASA Flight and Research Centers with the considerable inputs of Department of Defense personnel have generated the program through the efforts of several Technology Working Groups and a Technology Steering Group. Funding and management of the recommended efforts is being accomplished through the normal OART and OMSF line management channels. The work is being done in government laboratories and under contract with industry and universities. Foreign nations have been invited to participate in this work as well. Substantial funding, from both OART and OMSF, was applied during the second half of fiscal year 1970. The Space Transportation System Technology Symposium held at the NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, July 15-17, 1970, was the first public report on that program. The Symposium goals were to consider the technology problems, their status, and the prospective program outlook for the benefit of the industry, government, university, and foreign participants considered to be contributors to the program. In addition, it offered an opportunity to identify the responsible individuals already engaged in the program. The Symposium sessions were intended to confront each presenter with his technical peers as listeners, and this, I believe, was substantially accomplished. Because of the high interest in the material presented, and also because the people who could edit the output are already deeply involved in other important tasks, we have elected to publish the material essentially as it was presented, utilizing mainly the illustrations used by the presenters along with brief words of explanation. Those who heard the presentations, and those who are technically astute in specialty areas, can probably put this story together again. We hope that more will be gained by compiling the information in this form now than by spending the time and effort to publish a more finished compendium later.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1970

Space Transportation System Technology Symposium: Propulsion - Volume 4

The prospect of undertaking a reusable launch vehicle development led the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF) to request the Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART) to organize and direct a program to develop the technology that would aid in selecting the best system alternatives and that would support the ultimate development of an earth-to-orbit shuttle. Such a Space Transportation System Technology Program has been initiated. OART, OMSF, and NASA Flight and Research Centers with the considerable inputs of Department of Defense personnel have generated the program through the efforts of several Technology Working Groups and a Technology Steering Group. Funding and management of the recommended efforts is being accomplished through the normal OAR T and OMSF line management channels. The work is being done in government laboratories and under contract with industry and universities. Foreign nations have been invited to participate in this work as well. Substantial funding, from both OART and OMSF, was applied during the second half of fiscal year 1970. The Space Transportation System Technology Symposium held at the NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, July 15-17, 1970, was the first public report on that program. The Symposium goals were to consider the technology problems, their status, and the prospective program outlook for the benefit of the industry, government, university, and foreign participants considered to be contributors to the program. In addition, it offered an opportunity to identify the responsible individuals already engaged in the program. The Symposium sessions were intended to confront each presenter with his technical peers as listeners, and this, I believe, was substantially accomplished. Because of the high interest in the material presented, and also because the people who could edit the output are already deeply involved in other important tasks, we have elected to publish the material essentially as it was presented, utilizing mainly the illustrations used by the presenters along with brief words of explanation. Those who heard the presentations, and those who are technically astute in specialty areas, can probably put this story together again. We hope that more will be gained by compiling the information in this form now than by spending the time and effort to publish a more finished compendium later.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1970

Space Transportation System Technology Symposium: Biotechnology - Volume 7

The prospect of undertaking a reusable launch vehicle development led the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF) to request the Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART) to organize and direct a program to develop the technology that would aid in selecting the best system alternatives and that would support the ultimate development of an earth-to-orbit shuttle. Such a Space Transportation System Technology Program has been initiated. OART, OMSF, and NASA Flight and Research Centers with the considerable inputs of Department of Defense personnel have generated the program through the efforts of several Technology Working Groups and a Technology Steering Group. Funding and management of the recommended efforts is being accomplished through the normal OART and OMSF line management channels. The work is being done in government laboratories and under contract with industry and universities. Foreign nations have been invited to participate in this work as well. Substantial funding, from both OART and OMSF, was applied during the second half of fiscal year 1970. The Space Transportation System Technology Symposium held at the NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, July 15-17, 1970, was the first public report on that program. The Symposium goals were to consider the technology problems, their status, and the prospective program outlook for the benefit of the industry, government, university, and foreign participants considered to be contributors to the program. In addition, it offered an opportunity to identify the responsible individuals already engaged in the program. The Symposium sessions were intended to confront each presenter with his technical peers as listeners, and this, I believe, was substantially accomplished. Because of the high interest in the material presented, and also because the people who could edit the output are already deeply involved in other important tasks, we have elected to publish the material essentially as it was presented, utilizing mainly the illustrations used by the presenters along with brief words of explanation. Those who heard the presentations, and those who are technically astute in specialty areas, can probably put this story together again. We hope that more will be gained by compiling the information in this form now than by spending the time and effort to publish a more finished compendium later.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1951

Wind-tunnel investigation of the descent characteristics of bodies of revolution simulating anti-personnel bombs

An investigation has been conducted in the Langley 20-foot free spinning tunnel to study the relative behavior in descent of a number of homogeneous balsa bodies of revolution simulating anti-personnel bombs with a small cylindrical exploding device suspended approximately 10 feet below the bomb. The bodies of revolution included hemispherical, near-hemispherical, and near-paraboloid shapes. The ordinates of one near-paraboloid shape were specified by the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, U. S. Army. The behavior of the various bodies without the cylinder was also investigated. The results of the investigation indicated that several of the bodies descended vertically with their longitudinal axis, suspension line, and small cylinder in a vertical attitude,. However, the body, the ordinates of which had been specified by the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, U. S. Army, oscillated considerably from a vertical attitude while descending and therefore appeared unsuitable for its intended use. The behavior of this body became satisfactory when its center of gravity was moved well forward from its original position. In general, the results indicated that the descent characteristics of the bodies of revolution become more favorable as their shapes approached that of a hemisphere.

Sher, S. H.↗