SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This bibliography lists 289 reports, articles and other documents announced in the NASA Scientific and Technical Information System during Nov. 1995. Subject coverage includes: aerospace medicine and physiology, life support systems and man/system technology, protective clothing, exobiology and extraterrestrial life, planetary biology, and flight crew behavior and performance.
This bibliography lists 84 reports, articles and other documents introduced into the NASA Scientific and Technical Information System during Dec. 1995. Subject coverage includes: aerospace medicine and physiology, life support systems and man/system technology, protective clothing, exobiology and extraterrestrial life, planetary biology, and flight crew behavior and performance.
STS-81 was the fifth of nine planned missions to dock with the Russian Mir Space Station and the fourth crewmember transfer mission. The double Spacehab module was carried for the second time, and it housed experiments that were performed by the crew and logistics equipment that was transferred to the Mir.
Live footage shows the crewmembers of STS-29, Commander Michael L. Coats, Pilot John E. Blaha, and Mission Specialists James P. Bagian, James F. Buchli, and Robert C. Springer, seated in the White Room with the traditional cake. The crew is seen performing various pre-launch activities including suit-up, and walk out to the Astro-van. This early morning launch shows countdown, main engine start, liftoff, booster separation, and various isolated footage of the launch from different cameras. Also presented are footage of the approach, gear touchdown, rollout at Edwards Air Force Base, and various isolated views of the landing.
To support its ISS and exploration class mission objectives, NASA has developed a Countermeasure Evaluation and Validation Project (CEVP). The goal of this project is to evaluate and validate the optimal complement of countermeasures required to maintain astronaut health, safety, and functional ability during and after short- and long-duration space flight missions. The CEVP is the final element of the process in which ideas and concepts emerging from basic research evolve into operational countermeasures. The CEVP is accomplishing these objectives by conducting operational/clinical research to evaluate and validate countermeasures to mitigate these maladaptive responses. Evaluation is accomplished by testing in space flight analog facilities, and validation is accomplished by space flight testing. Both will utilize a standardized complement of integrated physiological and psychological tests, termed the Integrated Testing Regimen (ITR) to examine candidate countermeasure efficacy and intersystem effects. The CEVP emphasis is currently placed on validating the initial complement of ISS countermeasures targeting bone, muscle, and aerobic fitness; followed by countermeasures for neurological, psychological, immunological, nutrition and metabolism, and radiation risks associated with space flight. This presentation will review the processes, plans, and procedures that will enable CEVP to play a vital role in transitioning promising research results into operational countermeasures necessary to maintain crew health and performance during long duration space flight.
Footage of various stages of the Discovery mission is shown, including shots of the crew at breakfast, getting suited up, and departing to board the orbiter. The launch is shown from many vantage points, as is the landing. The crew is shown performing various micro-gravity experiments while in orbit.
BIO-Plex is a ground-based test bed currently under development by NASA for testing technologies and practices that may be utilized in future long-term life support missions. All aspects of such an Advanced Life Support (ALS) System must be considered to confidently construct a reliable system, which will not only allow the crew to survive in harsh environments, but allow the crew time to perform meaningful research. Effective handling of solid wastes is a critical aspect of the system, especially when recovery of resources contained in the waste is required. This is particularly important for ALS Systems configurations that include a Biomass Production Chamber. In these cases, significant amounts of inedible biomass waste may be produced, which can ultimately serve as a repository of necessary resources for sustaining life, notably carbon, water, and plant nutrients. Numerous biological and physicochemical solid waste processing options have been considered. Biological options include composting, aerobic digestion, and anaerobic digestion. Physicochemical options include pyrolysis, SCWO (supercritical water oxidation), various incineration configurations, microwave incineration, magnetically assisted gasification, and low temperature plasma reaction. Modeling of these options is a necessary step to assist in the design process. A previously developed top-level model of BIO-Plex implemented in MATLAB Simulink (r) for the use of systems analysis and design has been adopted for this analysis. Presently, this model only considered incineration for solid waste processing. Present work, reported here, includes the expansion of this model to include a wider array of solid waste processing options selected from the above options, bearing in mind potential, near term solid waste treatment systems. Furthermore, a trade study has also been performed among these solid waste processing technologies in an effort to determine the ideal technology for long-term life support missions.
Operator interaction with modern control systems is a topic of great concern in high-risk industries such as nuclear power and commercial aviation. The issues associated with such systems focus on the ability of the operators (e.g., pilots) to achieve mission goals safely while containing failures. Operators must be able to interact safely and reliably with highly automatic and complex systems across the full spectrum of possible operating conditions, including normal, abnormal, and emergency situations. In environments such as commercial aviation, operator interaction with the machine is specified through a set of standard operating procedures (SOP). A procedure represents a collective agreement on the 'best' way to perform a given task. The intent of this paper is to suggest a formal methodology, for designing and evaluating procedures, that is both reliable and systematic. Our approach involves two major elements: a model of the machine and a list of the operator's task specifications (goals). We use formal modeling paradigms for describing the system and super-imposing on it the operator's tasks. Such paradigms, based on recent frameworks such as Statecharts and Hierarchical Hybrid Machines appear to be adequate methods for analyzing operator interaction with modern control systems. To illustrate this methodology, we model and analyze the sequence of actions for an emergency procedure. The procedure, Irregular Engine Start, for a medium-range aircraft, specifies the sequence of immediate actions that must be performed by the crew to avoid an uncontrolled rise in engine temperature during start-up. A model of engine behavior during a hot start is constructed. It also describes the various actions that can be taken by the crew and the resulting outcomes. The model is then opened up as a tree of all possible action sequences. This action tree allows us to trace the correct sequences necessary to achieve the desired end-goal (secure and shut down of the engine). In conclusion, we argue that the current process of designing and evaluating procedures can be improved. We discuss the implications of this approach for designing and evaluating this and other types of procedures. We conclude with insights about the benefits and limitation of this methodology, and offer suggestions for future research.
This paper presents an overview of an ongoing research and development effort at the NASA Ames Research Center to create an autonomous control system for an internal spacecraft autonomous mobile monitor. It primary functions are to provide crew support and perform intra- vehicular sensing activities by autonomously navigating onboard the International Space Station. We describe the mission roles and high-level functional requirements for an autonomous mobile monitor. The mobile monitor prototypes, of which two are operational and one is actively being designed, physical test facilities used to perform ground testing, including a 3D micro-gravity test facility, and simulators are briefly described. We provide an overview of the autonomy framework and describe each of its components, including those used for automated planning, goal-oriented task execution, diagnosis, and fault recovery. A sample mission test scenario is also described.
The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria - performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and risk - are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost accounts for most of the cost of planetary missions, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated masses of the hardware and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in Advanced Life Support. A crew time mass-equivalent and sometimes other non-mass factors are added to equivalent mass to create ESM. Equivalent mass is an estimate of the launch cost only. For earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is usually exceeded by the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E). Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. Since LCC includes launch cost, it is always a more accurate cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission design, destination, and duration. Since DDT&E or operations may cost more than launch, LCC may give a more accurate cost ranking than equivalent mass. To be sure of identifying the lowest cost technology for a particular mission, we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.
The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria such as performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and technical and schedule risk are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost would account for much of the cost of a future planetary mission, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select advanced life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated mass of the hardware and of the spacecraft pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass of a system is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in the Advanced Life Support project. ESM adds a mass-equivalent of crew time and possibly other cost factors to equivalent mass. Traditional equivalent mass is strictly based on flown mass and reflects only the launch cost. ESM includes other important cost factors, but it complicates the simple flown mass definition of equivalent mass by adding a non-physical mass penalty for crew time that may exceed the actual flown mass. Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. For Earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is less than the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDTBE). LCC is a more inclusive cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission destination and duration. Since DDTBE or operations may cost more than launch, LCC gives a more accurate relative cost ranking than equivalent mass. To select the lowest cost technology for a particular application we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.
Future NASA missions to explore the solar system will be long-duration missions, requiring human life support systems which must operate with very high reliability over long periods of time. Such systems must be highly regenerative, requiring minimum resupply, to enable the crews to be largely self-sufficient. These regenerative life support systems will use a combination of higher plants, microorganisms, and physicochemical processes to recycle air and water, produce food, and process wastes. A key step in the development of these systems is establishment of a human-rated test facility specifically tailored to evaluation of closed, regenerative life supports systems--one in which long-duration, large-scale testing involving human test crews can be performed. Construction of such a facility, the Advanced Life Support Program's (ALS) Human-Rated Test Facility (HRTF), has begun at NASA's Johnson Space Center, and definition of systems and development of initial outfitting concepts for the facility are underway. This paper will provide an overview of the HRTF project plan, an explanation of baseline configurations, and descriptive illustrations of facility outfitting concepts.
Remote monitoring of crew, spacecraft, and environmental health has always been an integral part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) operations. Crew safety and mission success face a number of challenges in outerspace, including physiological adaptations to microgravity, radiation exposure, extreme temperatures and vacuum, and psychosocial reactions to space flight. The NASA effort to monitor and maintain crew health, system performance, and environmental integrity in space flight is a sophisticated and coordinated program of telemedicine combining cutting-edge engineering with medical expertise. As missions have increased in complexity, NASA telemedicine capabilities have grown apace, underlying its role in the field. At the same time, the terrestrial validation of telemedicine technologies to bring healthcare to remote locations provides feedback, improvement, and enhancement of the space program. As NASA progresses in its space exploration program, astronauts will join missions lasting months, even years, that take them millions of miles from home. These long-duration missions necessitate further technological breakthroughs in tele-operations and autonomous technology. Earth-based monitoring will no longer be real-time, requiring telemedicine capabilities to advance with future explorers as they travel deeper into space. The International Space Station will serve as a testbed for the telemedicine technologies to enable future missions as well as improve the quality of healthcare delivery on Earth.
Medical support of spaceflight missions is composed of complex tasks and decisions that dedicated to maintaining the health and performance of the crew and the completion of mission objectives. Spacecraft represent one of the most complex vehicles built by humans, and are built to very rigorous design specifications. In the course of a Flight Readiness Review (FRR) or a mission itself, the flight surgeon must be able to understand the impact of hazards and risks that may not be completely mitigated by design alone. Some hazards are not mitigated because they are never actually identified. When a hazard is identified, it must be reduced or waivered. Hazards that cannot be designed out of the vehicle or mission, are usually mitigated through other means to bring the residual risk to an acceptable level. This is possible in most engineered systems because failure modes are usually predictable and analysis can include taking these systems to failure. Medical support of space missions is complicated by the inability of flight surgeons to provide "exact" hazard and risk numbers to the NASA engineering community. Taking humans to failure is not an option. Furthermore, medical dogma is mostly comprised of "medical prevention" strategies that mitigate risk by examining the behaviour of a cohort of humans similar to astronauts. Unfortunately, this approach does not lend itself well for predicting the effect of a hazard in the unique environment of space. This presentation will discuss how Medical Operations uses an evidence-based approach to decide if hazard mitigation strategies are adequate to reduce mission risk to acceptable levels. Case studies to be discussed will include: 1. Risk of electrocution risk during EVA 2. Risk of cardiac event risk during long and short duration missions 3. Degraded cabin environmental monitoring on the ISS. Learning Objectives 1.) The audience will understand the challenges of mitigating medical risk caused by nominal and off-nominal mission events. 2.) The audience will understand the process by which medical hazards are identified and mitigated before launch. 3.) The audience will understand the roles and responsibilities of all the other flight control positions in participating in the process of reducing hazards and reducing medical risk to an acceptable level.
Protecting crew from ionizing radiation is a key life sciences problem for long-duration space missions. The three major sources/types of radiation are found in space: galactic cosmic rays, trapped Van Allen belt radiation, and solar particle events. All present varying degrees of hazard to crews; however, exposure to high doses of any of these types of radiation ultimately induce both acute and long-term biological effects. High doses of space radiation can lead to the development of toxicity associated with the acute radiation syndrome (ARS) which could have significant mission impact, and even render the crew incapable of performing flight duties. The creation of efficient radiation protection technologies is considered an important target in space radiobiology, immunology, biochemistry and pharmacology. Two major mechanisms of cellular, organelle, and molecular destruction as a result of radiation exposure have been identified: 1) damage induced directly by incident radiation on the macromolecules they encounter and 2) radiolysis of water and generation of secondary free radicals and reactive oxygen species (ROS), which induce chemical bond breakage, molecular substitutions, and damage to biological molecules and membranes. Free-radical scavengers and antioxidants, which neutralize the damaging activities of ROS, are effective in reducing the impact of small to moderate doses of radiation. In the case of high doses of radiation, antioxidants alone may be inadequate as a radioprotective therapy. However, it remains a valuable component of a more holistic strategy of prophylaxis and therapy. High doses of radiation directly damage biological molecules and modify chemical bond, resulting in the main pathological processes that drive the development of acute radiation syndromes (ARS). Which of two types of radiation-induced cellular lethality that ultimately develops, apoptosis or necrosis, depends on the spectrum of incident radiation, dose, dose rate, and functional conditions of impacted cells/organisms. The administration of an experimental anti-radiation vaccine may provide an immunologically based, adjunct method of prevention or prophylaxis against clinical ARS. The administration of experimental anti-radiation serum (ARS) and the use of the blood dialysis methods, such as immune plasma-sorption, may assist in the clearance of radiation-specific toxins and may enhance established strategies for the mitigation of the biological effects leading to ARS, and should be evaluated for use on exploration-class space missions.
The Remote Control Orbiter (RCO) capability allows a Space Shuttle Orbiter to perform an unmanned re-entry and landing. This low-cost capability employs existing and newly added functions to perform key activities typically performed by flight crews and controllers during manned re-entries. During an RCO landing attempt, these functions are triggered by automation resident in the on-board computers or uplinked commands from flight controllers on the ground. In order to properly route certain commands to the appropriate hardware, an In-Flight Maintenance (IFM) cable was developed. Currently, the RCO capability is reserved for the scenario where a safe return of the crew from orbit may not be possible. The flight crew would remain in orbit and await a rescue mission. After the crew is rescued, the RCO capability would be used on the unmanned Orbiter in an attempt to salvage this national asset.
This viewgraph presentation is an overview of the Launch Abort System (LAS) for the Constellation Program. The purpose of the paper is to review the planned tests for the LAS. The program will evaluate the performance of the crew escape functions of the Launch Abort System (LAS) specifically: the ability of the LAS to separate from the crew module, to gather flight test data for future design and implementation and to reduce system development risks.
One possible mechanism for post-spaceflight orthostatic hypotension, which affects approximately 30% of astronauts after short duration shuttle missions, is inadequate norepinephrine release during upright posture. We performed a two phased study to determine the effectiveness of an alpha1-adrenergic agonist, midodrine, as a countermeasure to post-spaceflight orthostatic hypotension. The first phase of the study examined the landing day orthostatic responses of six veteran astronauts after oral midodrine (10 mg) administered on the ground within approximately two hours of wheel stop. One female crewmember exhibited orthostatic hypotension in a previous flight but not after midodrine. Five male crewmembers, who did not exhibit orthostatic hypotension during previous flights, also did not show signs of orthostatic hypotension after midodrine. Additionally, phase one showed that midodrine did not cause hypertension in these crewmembers. In the second phase of this study, midodrine is ingested inflight (near time of ignition, TIG) and orthostatic responses are determined immediately upon landing via an 80 degree head-up tilt test performed on the crew transport vehicle (CTV). Four of ten crewmembers have completed phase two of this study. Two crewmembers completed the landing day tilt tests, while two tests were ended early due to presyncopal symptoms. All subjects had decreased landing day stroke volumes and increased heart rates compared to preflight. Midodrine appears to have increased total peripheral resistance in one crewmember who was able to complete the landing day tilt test. The effectiveness of midodrine as a countermeasure to immediate post-spaceflight orthostatic hypotension has yet to be determined; interpretation is made more difficult due to low subject number and the lack of control subjects on the CTV.