SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “needs assessment”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 685 records · Page 38

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2011

Energy Storage Project

NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program funded the Energy Storage Project to develop battery and fuel cell technology to meet the expected energy storage needs of the Constellation Program for human exploration. Technology needs were determined by architecture studies and risk assessments conducted by the Constellation Program, focused on a mission for a long-duration lunar outpost. Critical energy storage needs were identified as batteries for EVA suits, surface mobility systems, and a lander ascent stage; fuel cells for the lander and mobility systems; and a regenerative fuel cell for surface power. To address these needs, the Energy Storage Project developed advanced lithium-ion battery technology, targeting cell-level safety and very high specific energy and energy density. Key accomplishments include the development of silicon composite anodes, lithiated-mixed-metal-oxide cathodes, low-flammability electrolytes, and cell-incorporated safety devices that promise to substantially improve battery performance while providing a high level of safety. The project also developed "non-flow-through" proton-exchange-membrane fuel cell stacks. The primary advantage of this technology set is the reduction of ancillary parts in the balance-of-plant--fewer pumps, separators and related components should result in fewer failure modes and hence a higher probability of achieving very reliable operation, and reduced parasitic power losses enable smaller reactant tanks and therefore systems with lower mass and volume. Key accomplishments include the fabrication and testing of several robust, small-scale nonflow-through fuel cell stacks that have demonstrated proof-of-concept. This report summarizes the project s goals, objectives, technical accomplishments, and risk assessments. A bibliography spanning the life of the project is also included.

Mercer, Carolyn R.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Assessing the Risk of Crew Injury Due to Dynamic Loads During Spaceflight

Spaceflight requires tremendous amounts of energy to achieve Earth orbit and to attain escape velocity for interplanetary missions. Although the majority of the energy is managed in such a way as to limit the accelerations on the crew, several mission phases may result in crew exposure to dynamic loads. In the automotive industry, risk of serious injury can be tolerated because the probability of a crash is remote each time a person enters a vehicle, resulting in a low total risk of injury. For spaceflight, the level of acceptable injury risk must be lower to achieve a low total risk of injury because the dynamic loads are expected on each flight. To mitigate the risk of injury due to dynamic loads, the NASA Human Research Program has developed a research plan to inform the knowledge gaps and develop relevant tools for assessing injury risk. The risk of injury due to dynamic loads can be further subdivided into extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Extrinsic risk factors include the vehicle dynamic profile, seat and restraint design, and spacesuit design. Human tolerance to loads varies considerably depending on the direction, amplitude, and rise-time of acceleration therefore the orientation of the body to the dynamic vector is critical to determining crew risk of injury. Although a particular vehicle dynamic profile may be safe for a particular design, the seat, restraint, and suit designs can affect the risk of injury due to localized effects. In addition, characteristics intrinsic to the crewmember may also contribute to the risk of injury, such as crewmember sex, age, anthropometry, and deconditioning due to spaceflight, and each astronaut may have a different risk profile because of these factors. The purpose of the research plan is to address any knowledge gaps in the risk factors to mitigate injury risk. Methods for assessing injury risk have been well documented in other analogous industries and include human volunteer testing, human exposure to dynamic environments, post-mortem human subject (PMHS) testing, animal testing, anthropomorphic test devices (ATD), dynamic models of the human, numerical models of ATDs, and numerical models of the human. Each has inherent strengths and limitations. For example, human volunteer testing is advantageous because a population can be selected that is similar to the astronaut corps; however, because of the inherent ethical limitations, only sub-injurious conditions can be tested. PMHSs can be tested in a variety of conditions including injurious levels, but the responses are not completely analogous to living human subjects. In addition, it is exceedingly difficult to select a PMHS population that is similar to the astronaut corps. ATDs are currently widely used in the automotive industry and military because they are highly repeatable and durable. Unfortunately, because they are mechanical models of the human body, the biofidelity of the responses are limited to dynamic conditions used to validate the ATD. Numerical models of the ATD, in addition to the strengths and limitations for ATDs, are easy to use for a variety of designs before a design is fabricated, but also have additional limitations for ATDs, are easy to use for a variety of designs before a design is fabricated, but also have additional uncertainty. Dynamic models are simple and easy to use, but do not account for localized effects of the seat and suit. Finally, numerical models of the human have the potential to have the most advantages; however, the current models are not validated for the conditions expected during spaceflight. To properly assess spaceflight conditions with numerical human models, human data would be needed to optimize the model responses for those conditions. Using the appropriate assessment method with the knowledge gained for each risk factor, an appropriate approach for mitigating the risk of injury due to dynamic loads can be developed ensuring crew safety in future NASA vehicles.

Somers, J. T.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Nanoscale Surface Plasmonics Sensor With Nanofluidic Control

Conventional quantitative protein assays of bodily fluids typically involve multiple steps to obtain desired measurements. Such methods are not well suited for fast and accurate assay measurements in austere environments such as spaceflight and in the aftermath of disasters. Consequently, there is a need for a protein assay technology capable of routinely monitoring proteins in austere environments. For example, there is an immediate need for a urine protein assay to assess astronaut renal health during spaceflight. The disclosed nanoscale surface plasmonics sensor provides a core detection method that can be integrated to a lab-on-chip device that satisfies the unmet need for such a protein assay technology. Assays based upon combinations of nanoholes, nanorings, and nanoslits with transmission surface plasmon resonance (SPR) are used for assays requiring extreme sensitivity, and are capable of detecting specific analytes at concentrations as low as picomole to femtomole level in well-controlled environments. The device operates in a transmission mode configuration in which light is directed at one planar surface of the array, which functions as an optical aperture. The incident light induces surface plasmon light transmission from the opposite surface of the array. The presence of a target analyte is detected by changes in the spectrum of light transmitted by the array when a target analyte induces a change in the refractive index of the fluid within the nanochannels. This occurs, for example, when a target analyte binds to a receptor fixed to the walls of the nanochannels in the array. Independent fluid handling capability for individual nanoarrays on a nanofluidic chip containing a plurality of nanochannel arrays allows each array to be used to sense a different target analyte and/or for paired arrays to analyze control and test samples simultaneously in parallel. The present invention incorporates transmission mode nanoplasmonics and nanofluidics into a single, microfluidically controlled device. The device comprises one or more arrays of aligned nanochannels that are in fluid communication with inflowing and outflowing fluid handling manifolds that control the flow of fluid through the arrays. The array acts as an aperture in a plasmonic sensor. Fluid, in the form of a liquid or a gas and comprising a sample for analysis, is moved from an inlet manifold through the nanochannel array, and out through an exit manifold. The fluid may also contain a reagent used to modify the interior surfaces of the nanochannels, and/or a reagent required for the detection of an analyte.

Wei, Jianjun↗

NASA NTRS2015

SPHERES: From Ground Development to Operations on ISS

SPHERES (Synchronized Position Hold Engage and Reorient Experimental Satellites) is an internal International Space Station (ISS) Facility that supports multiple investigations for the development of multi-spacecraft and robotic control algorithms. The SPHERES Facility on ISS is managed and operated by the SPHERES National Lab Facility at NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) at Moffett Field California. The SPHERES Facility on ISS consists of three self-contained eight-inch diameter free-floating satellites which perform the various flight algorithms and serve as a platform to support the integration of experimental hardware. To help make science a reality on the ISS, the SPHERES ARC team supports a Guest Scientist Program (GSP). This program allows anyone with new science the possibility to interface with the SPHERES team and hardware. In addition to highlighting the available SPHERES hardware on ISS and on the ground, this presentation will also highlight ground support, facilities, and resources available to guest researchers. Investigations on the ISS evolve through four main phases: Strategic, Tactical, Operations, and Post Operations. The Strategic Phase encompasses early planning beginning with initial contact by the Principle Investigator (PI) and the SPHERES program who may work with the PI to assess what assistance the PI may need. Once the basic parameters are understood, the investigation moves to the Tactical Phase which involves more detailed planning, development, and testing. Depending on the nature of the investigation, the tactical phase may be split into the Lab Tactical Phase or the ISS Tactical Phase due to the difference in requirements for the two destinations. The Operations Phase is when the actual science is performed; this can be either in the lab, or on the ISS. The Post Operations Phase encompasses data analysis and distribution, and generation of summary status and reports. The SPHERES Operations and Engineering teams at ARC is composed of experts who can guide the Payload Developer (PD) and Principle Investigator (PI) in reaching critical milestones to make their science a reality using the SPHERES platform. From performing integrated safety and verification assessments, to assisting in developing crew procedures and operations products, to organizing, planning, and executing all test sessions, to helping manage data products, the SPHERES team at ARC is available to support microgravity research with the SPEHRES Guest Scientist Program.

ISS Research↗

NASA NTRS2007

A Contrast in Use of Metrics in Earth Science Data Systems

In recent years there has been a surge in the number of systems for processing, archiving and distributing remotely sensed data. Such systems, working independently as well as in collaboration, have been contributing greatly to the advances in the scientific understanding of the Earth system, as well as utilization of the data for nationally and internationally important applications. Among such systems, we consider those that are developed by or under the sponsorship of NASA to fulfill one of its strategic objectives: "Study Earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs." NASA's Earth science data systems are of varying size and complexity depending on the requirements they are intended to meet. Some data systems are regarded as NASA's "Core Capabilities" that provide the basic infrastructure for processing, archiving and distributing a set of data products to a large and diverse user community in a robust and reliable manner. Other data systems constitute "Community Capabilities". These provide specialized and innovative services to data users and/or research products offering new scientific insight. Such data systems are generally supported by NASA through peer reviewed competition. Examples of Core Capabilities are 1. Earth Observing Data and Information System (EOSDIS) with its Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs), Science Investigator-led Processing Systems (SIPSs), and the EOS Clearing House (ECHO); 2. Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) Science Data and Information System (TSDIS); 3. Ocean Data Processing System (ODPS); and 4. CloudSat Data Processing Center. Examples of Community Capabilities are projects under the Research, Education and Applications Solutions Network (REASON), and Advancing Collaborative Connections for Earth System Science (ACCESS) Programs. In managing these data system capabilities, it is necessary to have well-established goals and to measure progress relative to them. Progress is measured through "metrics", which can be a combination of quantitative as well as qualitative assessments. The specific metrics of interest depend on the user of the metrics as well as the type of data system. The users of metrics can be data system managers, program managers, funding agency or the public. Data system managers need metrics for assessing and improving the performance of the system and for future planning. Program managers need metrics to assess progress and the value of the data systems sponsored by them. Also, there is a difference in the metrics needed for core capabilities that tend to be more complex, larger and longer-term compared to community capabilities and the community capabilities that tend to be simpler, smaller and shorter-term. Even among community capabilities there are differences; hence the same set of metrics does not apply to all. Some provide data products to users, some provide services that enable better utilization of data or interoperability among other systems, and some are a part of a larger project where provision of data or services is only a minor activity. There is also a contrast between metrics used for internal and external purposes. Examples of internal purposes are: ensuring that the system meets its requirements, and planning for evolution and growth. Examples of external purposes are: providing to sponsors indicators of success of the systems, demonstrating the contributions of the system to overall program success, etc. This paper will consider EOSDIS, REASON and ACCESS programs to show the various types of metrics needed and how they need to be tailored to the types of data systems while maintaining the overall management goals of measuring progress and contributions made by the data systems.

Ramapriyan, Hampapuram↗

NASA NTRS2009

An Update of the Nation's Long-Term Strategic Needs for NASA's Aeronautics Test Facilities

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) major wind tunnel (WT), propulsion test (PT), and simulation facilities exist to serve NASA's and the nation's aeronautics needs. RAND Corporation researchers conducted a prior study of these facilities from 2002 to 2003, identifying (1) NASA's continuing ability to serve national needs, (2) which facilities appear strategically important from an engineering perspective given the vehicle classes the nation investigates and produces, and (3) management challenges and issues. This documented briefing (DB) is the final report from a new, one-year study (conducted from September 2006 through January 2008), partially updating the prior assessment. The study focuses on updating the list of facilities in the prior study that were deemed to be strategically important (again, from an engineering perspective) in serving those needs. This update also adds a new assessment of national needs for six major aeronautics simulators at NASA and lists those deemed strategically important.

NASA FACILITIES↗

NASA NTRS2010

Active Debris Removal - A Grand Engineering Challenge for the Twenty-First Century

The collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 in 2009 underlined the potential of an ongoing collision cascade effect (the Kessler Syndrome ) in the near-Earth orbital debris environment. A 2006 NASA analysis of the instability of the debris population in the low Earth orbit (LEO, the region below 2000 km altitude) shows that the environment has reached a point where the debris population will continue to increase in the next 200 years, even without any future launches. The increase is driven by fragments generated via collisions among existing objects in LEO. In reality, the situation will be worse than this prediction because satellite launches will continue and unexpected major breakups may continue to occur. Mitigation measures commonly adopted by the international space community (such as the 25-year rule) will help, but will be insufficient to stop the population growth. To better preserve the near-Earth space environment for future generations, active debris removal (ADR) should be considered. The idea of active debris removal is not new. However, due to the monumental technical, resource, operational, legal, and political challenges associated with removing objects from orbit, it has not yet been widely considered feasible. The recent major breakup events and the environment modeling efforts have certainly reignited the interest in using active debris removal to remediate the environment. This trend is further highlighted by the National Space Policy of the United States of America, released by the White House in June 2010, where the President explicitly directs NASA and the Department of Defense to pursue research and development of technology and techniques, to mitigate and remove on-orbit debris, reduce hazards, and increase understanding of the current and future debris environment. A 2009 modeling study by the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office has shown that, in order to maintain the LEO debris population at a constant level for the next 200 years, an active debris removal of about five objects per year is needed. The targets identified for removal are those with the highest mass and collision probability products. Analyses from the study indicate that the majority of those objects are spent upper stages with masses ranging from 1 to more than 8 metric tons, residing in several altitude regions and concentrated in about 10 inclination bands. To remove five of those objects per year in a cost-effective manner truly represents a grand challenge in engineering and technology development. An end-to-end debris removal operation includes, in general terms, launches orbit rendezvous, precision tracking, stabilization (of the tumbling motion), capture, and deorbit of the targets. An ADR system deigned to remove a single object is not very cost-effective. Therefore, the repeatability of the removal system is almost a requirement. Some of the technologies involved in the ADR process do exist, but the difficulty is to make them more cost effective. Other technologies, such as ways to stabilize a massive tumbling upper stage and the capture mechanisms, are new and will require major innovative research and development efforts. This paper summarizes an updated assessment of the environment, including what needs to be done to control the population growth, and outlines the major engineering and technology challenges to carry out active debris removal to preserve the environment.

Liou, Jer-Chyi↗

NASA NTRS1978

Civil helicopter design and operational requirement

Design and operational requirements and other factors that have a restraining influence on expansion of the helicopter market are discussed. The needs of operators, users, pilots and the community at large are examined. The impact of future technology developments and other trends such as use, energy shortages, and civil and military helicopter requirements and development is assessed. Areas where research and development are needed to provide opportunities for lowering life cycle costs and removing barriers to further expansion of the industry are analyzed.

Waters, K. T.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Assimilation of Wind Profiles from Multiple Doppler Radar Wind Profilers for Space Launch Vehicle Applications

Space launch vehicles utilize atmospheric winds in design of the vehicle and during day-of-launch (DOL) operations to assess affects of wind loading on the vehicle and to optimize vehicle performance during ascent. The launch ranges at NASA's Kennedy Space Center co-located with the United States Air Force's (USAF) Eastern Range (ER) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and USAF's Western Range (WR) at Vandenberg Air Force Base have extensive networks of in-situ and remote sensing instrumentation to measure atmospheric winds. Each instrument's technique to measure winds has advantages and disadvantages in regards to use for vehicle engineering assessments. Balloons measure wind at all altitudes necessary for vehicle assessments, but two primary disadvantages exist when applying balloon output on DOL. First, balloons need approximately one hour to reach required altitude. For vehicle assessments this occurs at 60 kft (18.3 km). Second, balloons are steered by atmospheric winds down range of the launch site that could significantly differ from those winds along the vehicle ascent trajectory. Figure 1 illustrates the spatial separation of balloon measurements from the surface up to approximately 55 kft (16.8 km) during the Space Shuttle launch on 10 December 2006. The balloon issues are mitigated by use of vertically pointing Doppler Radar Wind Profilers (DRWPs). However, multiple DRWP instruments are required to provide wind data up to 60 kft (18.3 km) for vehicle trajectory assessments. The various DRWP systems have different operating configurations resulting in different temporal and spatial sampling intervals. Therefore, software was developed to combine data from both DRWP-generated profiles into a single profile for use in vehicle trajectory analyses. Details on how data from various wind measurement systems are combined and sample output will be presented in the following sections.

Decker, Ryan K.↗

NASA NTRS1994

National facilities study. Volume 5: Space research and development facilities task group

With the beginnings of the U.S. space program, there was a pressing need to develop facilities that could support the technology research and development, testing, and operations of evolving space systems. Redundancy in facilities that was once and advantage in providing flexibility and schedule accommodation is instead fast becoming a burden on scarce resources. As a result, there is a clear perception in many sectors that the U.S. has many space R&D facilities that are under-utilized and which are no longer cost-effective to maintain. At the same time, it is clear that the U.S. continues to possess many space R&D facilities which are the best -- or among the best -- in the world. In order to remain world class in key areas, careful assessment of current capabilities and planning for new facilities is needed. The National Facility Study (NFS) was initiated in 1992 to develop a comprehensive and integrated long-term plan for future aerospace facilities that meets current and projected government and commercial needs. In order to assess the nation's capability to support space research and development (R&D), a Space R&D Task Group was formed. The Task Group was co-chaired by NASA and DOD. The Task Group formed four major, technologically- and functionally- oriented working groups: Human and Machine Operations; Information and Communications; Propulsion and Power; and Materials, Structures, and Flight Dynamics. In addition to these groups, three supporting working groups were formed: Systems Engineering and Requirements; Strategy and Policy; and Costing Analysis. The Space R&D Task Group examined several hundred facilities against the template of a baseline mission and requirements model (developed in common with the Space Operations Task Group) and a set of excursions from the baseline. The model and excursions are described in Volume 3 of the NFS final report. In addition, as a part of the effort, the group examined key strategic issues associated with space R&D facilities planning for the U.S., and these are discussed in Section 4 of this volume.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2024

Safe Exploration: Sensorimotor Assessments for Early Extravehicular Activities

BACKGROUND: Artemis missions will require a new level of crew autonomy around periods of gravitational transition, where sensorimotor disturbances are at their highest. There is a need to define performance thresholds for key sensorimotor assessments that indicate when performance in early extravehicular activities (EVAs) might be impacted or unsafe. This panel presentation will discuss the development of sensorimotor assessments for determining crew preparedness of early EVAs by utilizing a novel portable sensorimotor disorientation analog and other spaceflight analogs. OVERVIEW: To define performance thresholds, a proposed set of sensorimotor assessment tasks must be validated under various spaceflight analogs. A Sensorimotor Disorientation Analog (SDA) was developed that could induce varying levels of disorientation through combined vestibular (galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS)) and proprioceptive (weighted chest, ankles, and wrists) disruptions. The SDA was first pilot tested using subjective feedback from previously flown astronauts to determine the levels of disorientation that mimic motor performance immediately (R+0) and +24 hours (R+1) postflight. A second study was performed using healthy non-astronaut ground subjects to validate the SDA levels by comparing to astronaut postflight data. The validated SDA was utilized in a third study to map performance in the proposed set of sensorimotor assessment tasks to operational tasks. The assessment tasks were defined based on lessons learned from Apollo and subject matter experts (e.g., flight surgeons) to include the following: 1) aid in progressive adaptation to the novel gravitational environment; 2) provide opportunities to develop strategies to recover from off-nominal body positions; and 3) mimic operational tasks such that crew can self-assess their potential ability to complete their missions. This presentation will conclude with a discussion on future validation studies of the proposed assessment tasks using other spaceflight analogs such as centrifugation and gravity offload systems. DISCUSSION: Exploration class missions will require crew to be able to self-assess and treat their sensorimotor dysfunction after gravity transitions, and in off-nominal situations they may be required to perform provocative, challenging tasks soon after landing. This panel presentation will discuss current and ongoing research strategies to address the sensorimotor risk on safe exploration during Artemis missions.

Sarah Moudy↗

NASA NTRS2011

Development of Head Injury Assessment Reference Values Based on NASA Injury Modeling

NASA is developing a new capsule-based, crewed vehicle that will land in the ocean, and the space agency desires to reduce the risk of injury from impact during these landings. Because landing impact occurs for each flight and the crew might need to perform egress tasks, current injury assessment reference values (IARV) were deemed insufficient. Because NASCAR occupant restraint systems are more effective than the systems used to determine the current IARVs and are similar to NASA s proposed restraint system, an analysis of NASCAR impacts was performed to develop new IARVs that may be more relevant to NASA s context of vehicle landing operations. Head IARVs associated with race car impacts were investigated by completing a detailed analysis of all of the 2002-2008 NASCAR impact data. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select 4071 impacts from the 4015 recorder files provided (each file could contain multiple impact events). Of the 4071 accepted impacts, 274 were selected for numerical simulation using a custom NASCAR restraint system and Humanetics Hybrid-III 50th percentile numerical dummy model in LS-DYNA. Injury had occurred in 32 of the 274 selected impacts, and 27 of those injuries involved the head. A majority of the head injuries were mild concussions with or without brief loss of consciousness. The 242 non-injury impacts were randomly selected and representative of the range of crash dynamics present in the total set of 4071 impacts. Head dynamics data (head translational acceleration, translational change in velocity, rotational acceleration, rotational velocity, HIC-15, HIC-36, and the Head 3ms clip) were filtered according to SAE J211 specifications and then transformed to a log scale. The probability of head injury was estimated using a separate logistic regression analysis for each log-transformed predictor candidate. Using the log transformation constrains the estimated probability of injury to become negligible as IARVs approach zero. For the parameters head translational acceleration, head translational velocity change, head rotational acceleration, HIC-15, and HIC-36, conservative values (in the lower 95% confidence interval) that gave rise to a 5% risk of any injury occurring were estimated as 40.0 G, 7.9 m/s, 2200 rad/s2, 98.4, and 77.4 respectively. Because NASA is interested in the consequence of any particular injury on the ability of the crew to perform egress tasks, the head injuries that occurred in the NASCAR dataset were classified according to a NASA-developed scale (Classes I - III) for operationally relevant injuries, which classifies injuries on the basis of their operational significance. Additional analysis of the data was performed to determine the probability of each injury class occurring, and this was estimated using an ordered probit model. For head translational acceleration, head translational velocity change, head rotational acceleration, head rotational velocity, HIC-36, and head 3ms clip, conservative values of IARVs that produced a 5% risk of Class II injury were estimated as 50.7 G, 9.5 m/s, 2863 rad/s2, 11.0 rad/s, 30.3, and 46.4 G respectively. The results indicate that head IARVs developed from the NASCAR dataset may be useful to protect crews during landing impact.

Somers, Jeffrey T.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

technology development↗

NASA NTRS2014

Uncertainty in Agricultural Impact Assessment

This chapter considers issues concerning uncertainty associated with modeling and its use within agricultural impact assessments. Information about uncertainty is important for those who develop assessment methods, since that information indicates the need for, and the possibility of, improvement of the methods and databases. Such information also allows one to compare alternative methods. Information about the sources of uncertainties is an aid in prioritizing further work on the impact assessment method. Uncertainty information is also necessary for those who apply assessment methods, e.g., for projecting climate change impacts on agricultural production and for stakeholders who want to use the results as part of a decision-making process (e.g., for adaptation planning). For them, uncertainty information indicates the degree of confidence they can place in the simulated results. Quantification of uncertainty also provides stakeholders with an important guideline for making decisions that are robust across the known uncertainties. Thus, uncertainty information is important for any decision based on impact assessment. Ultimately, we are interested in knowledge about uncertainty so that information can be used to achieve positive outcomes from agricultural modeling and impact assessment.

damage assessment↗

NASA NTRS1991

Chaparral vegetation reflectance and its potential utility for assessment of fire hazard

Current methods for assessment of ignition potential often fail to alert wildland managers to the severity of drought-induced fire hazard at remote locations and over large geographic areas. After the severe fires of 1988 in the western United States, the need was heightened for improved fire hazard assessment techniques. Chaparral vegetation is particularly receptive to recurring drought-related episodes of extreme fire hazard and was thus chosen for study here. Demonstrated herein is that chaparral vegetation has considerably different reflecting properties at different levels of drought stress. As such, remote sensing may have utility for fire hazard assessment in this vegetation type.

Cohen, Warren B.↗

NASA NTRS2012

PMA-Linked Fluorescence for Rapid Detection of Viable Bacterial Endospores

The most common approach for assessing the abundance of viable bacterial endospores is the culture-based plating method. However, culture-based approaches are heavily biased and oftentimes incompatible with upstream sample processing strategies, which make viable cells/spores uncultivable. This shortcoming highlights the need for rapid molecular diagnostic tools to assess more accurately the abundance of viable spacecraft-associated microbiota, perhaps most importantly bacterial endospores. Propidium monoazide (PMA) has received a great deal of attention due to its ability to differentiate live, viable bacterial cells from dead ones. PMA gains access to the DNA of dead cells through compromised membranes. Once inside the cell, it intercalates and eventually covalently bonds with the double-helix structures upon photoactivation with visible light. The covalently bound DNA is significantly altered, and unavailable to downstream molecular-based manipulations and analyses. Microbiological samples can be treated with appropriate concentrations of PMA and exposed to visible light prior to undergoing total genomic DNA extraction, resulting in an extract comprised solely of DNA arising from viable cells. This ability to extract DNA selectively from living cells is extremely powerful, and bears great relevance to many microbiological arenas.

LaDuc, Myron T.↗

NASA NTRS1996

Enhanced Raman Monitor Project

Monitoring of gaseous contaminants stems from the need to ensure a healthy and safe environment. NASA/Ames needs sensors that are able to monitor common atmospheric gas concentrations as well as trace amounts of contaminant gases. To provide an accurate assessment of air quality, a monitoring system would need to be continuous and on-line with full spectrum capabilities, allowing simultaneous detection of all gas components in a sample, including both combustible and non-combustible gases. The system demands a high degree of sensitivity to detect low gas concentrations in the low-ppm and sub-ppm regions. For clean and healthy air ('good' category), criteria established by the EPA requires that contaminant concentrations not exceed 4 ppm of carbon monoxide (CO) in an 8 hour period, 60 ppb of ozone(O3) in a one hour period and 30 ppb of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in a 24 hour period. One step below this is the National Ambient Air Quality Standard ('moderate' category) which requires that contaminant concentrations not exceed 9 ppm of carbon monoxide (CO), 120 ppb of ozone (O3) and 140 ppb of sulfur dioxide (SO2) for their respective time periods. Ideally a monitor should be able to detect the concentrations specified in the 'good' category. To benchmark current abilities of Raman technology in gas phase analysis, laboratory experiments were performed to evaluate the RASCAL II anesthetic gas monitor.

Westenskow, Dwayne↗