SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Guidelines”

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 901 records · Page 50

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2018

GEOS-CF Model Assessment of PM2.5 During Wildfires: Inferring the Impact of PM2.5 Exposure on Adverse Respiratory & Cardiovascular Conditions

Exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) can aggravate pre-existing respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. When PM2.5 is inhaled it can cause damage to the lungs such as reduced lung function and shortness of breath. After being inhaled PM2.5 can enter the bloodstream and cause harm to the heart. One major natural source of PM2.5 exposure is from wildfire smoke. The particulates within the smoke from the wildfires can spread from the initial source region, potentially impacting communities both near and far. During and after wildfire events, PM2.5 levels can exceed the WHO air quality guidelines (10 gm^3 annual mean; 25 gm^3 daily mean), becoming hazardous to an individual's health. Global models can be used to simulate the emission and transport of these particulates and subsequently they can be valuable to air quality forecasting in highly polluted areas. The NASA Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) version 5 Composition Forecast (GEOS-CF) system has been used to produce near-real time air quality forecasts of atmospheric composition at a high global resolution of 25 km. The GEOS-CF system utilizes the GEOS weather forecast model coupled with GEOS-Chem (version 11) chemistry module to provide analyses and forecasts of various toxic air pollutants, including PM2.5. The GEOS-CF simulated high levels of PM2.5 (40 gm^3 to 250 gm^3 ), exceeding the WHO guidelines, during multiple recent regional and global wildfire seasons, including the 2017 Seattle, WA and Los Angeles, CA wildfire seasons, and biomass burning events in India. Furthermore, the GEOS-CF simulated PM2.5 applied to a human health assessment model, BenMAP (The Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program, version 1.3), estimates the impact on adverse respiratory health conditions due to PM2.5 exposure from wildfires. The GEOS-CF predicted PM2.5 during the wildfire season with the corresponding BenMAP results provides an assessment of the human health impact of PM2.5 exposure.

Saunders, Emily↗

NASA NTRS2018

NASA Earth Science Data Rescue Efforts

Historically, at the end of a NASA mission, earth and space science data were stored at NASA's National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC). The original data archive consisted of both magnetic tapes and film media. As data storage technology improved, data from later missions were stored on disks and platters and higher capacity magnetic media for online accessibility. To conserve physical space at NASA archive sites and to meet disaster recovery guidelines, historical data originally stored on magnetic tapes and film were moved to the Federal Archives and Record Center (FRC) as a temporary holding area until its long-term value was determined by NASA. All records at the FRC are controlled by the NASA Records Retention Schedule (NRRS) which determines the disposal date for each record. On that date, responsible NASA parties are notified that all scheduled records should be reviewed and assessed to determine if they continue to hold significant historical, scientific or administrative value. For Earth Science data records being held at FRC, the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Project office is the party responsible for making the value assessment that determines which records warrant preservation and which are ready for proper disposal according to NASA guidelines. Once the data's long-term value is determined, ESDIS takes definitive steps to preserve this data for future discovery and access. Deteriorating media containing historic data of value are recalled from FRC and brought back to ESDIS. Through a tedious, laborious process, digital data are recovered and restored to modern formats with improved metadata and documentation to aid discovery. The restored digital products are then incorporated into our modern online archive, and made immediately accessible to the public. In this paper, we will discuss how we identify data-at-risk, ways to minimize data loss, how we plan for recovery, how we delegate recovery activities to our archive facilities, and how we make recovered data more accessible.

Data Systems; Social and Information sciences↗

NASA NTRS2018

NASA's GEOS Composition Model Assessment of PM2.5 During Wildfires: Inferring the Impact of PM2.5 Exposure on Adverse Respiratory & Cardiovascular Conditions

Particulate matter pollution is a mixture of solid and liquid droplets floating in the air that can lead to reduced air quality and increased adverse health impact. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) can be emitted into the air from anthropogenic sources such as the burning of fossil fuels, motor vehicles, and powerplant emissions. Exposure to PM2.5 can aggravate pre-existing respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. When PM2.5 is inhaled it can cause damage to the lungs such as reduced lung function and shortness of breath. After being inhaled PM2.5 can enter the bloodstream and cause harm to the heart. One major natural source of PM2.5 exposure is from wildfire smoke. The particulates within the smoke from the wildfires can spread from the initial source region, potentially impacting communities both near and far. During and after wildfire events, PM2.5 levels can exceed the WHO air quality guidelines (10 m.g/m^3 annual mean; 25 m.g/m^3 daily mean), becoming hazardous to an individual's health. Global models can be used to simulate the emission and transport of these particulates and subsequently they can be valuable to air quality forecasting in highly polluted areas. The NASA Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) Composition Forecast (GEOS-CF) system has been used to produce near-real time air quality forecasts of atmospheric composition at a high global resolution of 25x25 km2. The GEOS-CF system utilizes the GEOS weather forecast model coupled with GEOS-Chem (version 11) chemistry module to provide analyses and forecasts of various toxic air pollutants, including PM2.5. The GEOS-CF simulated high levels of PM2.5 (40 m.g/m^3 to 250 m.g/m^3 ), exceeding the WHO guidelines, during multiple recent regional and global wildfire seasons, including the 2017 Washington State and Northern and Southern California wildfire seasons. Furthermore, the GEOS-CF simulated PM2.5 applied to a human health assessment model, BenMAP (The Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program, version 1.3), estimates the impact on adverse respiratory health conditions due to PM2.5 exposure from wildfires. The GEOS-CF predicted PM2.5 during the wildfire season with the corresponding BenMAP results provides an assessment of the human health impact of PM2.5 exposure.

Saunders, Emily↗

NASA NTRS2016

The IOAG Recommendations on Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support

In 2014, the Inter-agency Operations Advisory Group (IOAG) chartered a multi-agency team effort to study how to best handle spacecraft emergency as part of cross support among network assets. The original intent is to put in place for the first time a process and guidelines to make emergency support as part of a permanent cross-support capability between space agencies. From the perspective of space communications service providers, a few key issues, common to all agencies, concerning the Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support (SECS) have been explored. They are: context of emergency support, provision of emergency support under a cross-support agreement, provision of emergency support with no cross-support agreement, legal and liability issues, response time, support priority, services provided, sustaining emergency support capabilities, and charge for the support. The positions of the various participating agencies with respect to these issues have been collected, analyzed, and finally harmonized to form the recommended IOAG positions. A central challenge most communications service providers are facing is that since the spacecraft emergency is an unplanned critical event, it typically requires fast response to the emergency call, hence lacking an international standard process for the operational interfaces seems to exacerbate the difficulty in providing SECS. For reducing the response time, i.e. from the time of accepting a request for SECS to the readiness for support, it is recommended that a “cross-support emergency system” be established by IOAG member agencies. Along with it, the IOAG core services, just-in-time ground communications line, cross support service management (CSSM), and standard operations procedures (SOP) for operational interfaces form the basic foundation of the “cross support emergency system”. Of the above, new to the cross support conducted thus far in the IOAG community is the concept of the SOP specifically for the interfaces between the service provider and service user during the SECS. Use cases, salient features, and definition of the key operational activities/tasks relevant to the interfaces are addressed by the effort. Underpinning such a system is the availability of the RF license granted by the local authority, at national and/or regional level, for a given ground station to communicate with and track the spacecraft in emergency mode at the uplink and downlink frequencies assigned to that spacecraft. That means it is critical for the IOAG member agencies to obtain a priori all-band licenses (for the entire X-band or S-band) for some, if not all, of their ground stations that are most capable of or likely to provide SECS. It is also recommended that certain prior arrangements be made with the relevant local licensing authorities for a process that will allow expedited authorization to transmit/receive signals to/from the declared spacecraft over the declared ground stations specifically and solely for the emergency case. Our analysis of the SECS has also uncovered a few fundamental programmatic issues. Recognizing any IOAG positions reached on these issues do not necessarily lead to any binding authority, it is recommended that they, along with those key attributes of the cross support emergency system, be explicitly stated as multi-agency guidelines to guide the implementation and provision of the SECS. The paper will present the results of the working group on Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support and, in particular, its findings, products and recommendations. It will also identify the next steps of this work that may include the production of some international standards as an extension of this work, or the process to make this emergency system usable by other spacecraft operators beyond the space agencies.

Tai, Wallace S.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Trends in Human Spaceflight: Failure Tolerance, High Reliability and Correlated Failure History

In a half century of human spaceflight, NASA has continuously refined agency safety and reliability requirements in response to mission demands, critical failures, and technology development. Early spacecraft, including Mercury, Gemini and Apollo vehicles, were highly reliant on dissimilar redundancy and demonstrated test margins. Later programs, such as the reusable Space Transportation System (STS) and International Space Station (ISS), introduced probabilistic studies and isolated two-failure tolerance to improve robustness at the expense of added complexity. More recently, the Orion Multi-Program Crew Vehicle (MPCV) program adopted universal single-failure tolerance with two categorical exceptions; Zero-Failure Tolerant (0FT) and Design for Minimum Risk (DFMR) hardware. Failure tolerance variances are defined and managed in accordance with agency human-rating requirements, and require concurrence from program Technical Authorities (TA) as well as the MPCV Safety and Mission Assurance Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP). To understand and reaffirm standards applied to Apollo, Space Shuttle and Orion vehicles, Orion and Deep Space Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) representatives conducted accelerated research to compare unique safety and reliability criteria against ground and flight anomalies, based on information contained in post-mission reports and the Problem Reporting and Corrective Action (PRACA) database. In some cases, high-profile failures and narrow escapes have reinforced decisions to maintain or adapt safety requirements. In others, empirical trends have highlighted the need for vigilance and innovative safety guidelines. Given the inability to achieve absolute compliance with evolving safety and reliability requirements, the team conducted a targeted review of DFMR and 0FT propulsion elements within the framework of changing system design, inspection, materials and process developments to formulate conclusions on technological maturity, failure density, and net changes in safety risk. Based on the aggregate performance of high-reliability and failure-tolerant systems, the authors have attempted to establish best practices and guidelines to inform future program decisions. On a somewhat cautionary note, this study is not intended to direct a universal set of requirements for future missions based on prior lessons learned. Spacecraft safety is a multi-variable problem, and attempts to mitigate past failures will not guarantee future success. However, this assessment offers a retrospective review of policy changes, implementation and effectiveness. In the future, NASA, European Space Agency (ESA) and industry partners may benefit from a more robust correlation between requirements and performance, as space-faring nations work toward more challenging, complex and long-duration commercial and deep-space ventures.

Green, Carrie↗

NASA NTRS2016

The IOAG Recommendations on Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support

Tai, Wallace S.↗

NASA NTRS2019

FUN3D and USM3D Analysis of the Propulsion Aerodynamic Workshop 2018 S-Duct Test Case

This work presents the results of Fun3D and USM3D analyses that were performed for the 4th AIAA Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop (PAW). The PAW workshop is separated into three sections that focus on internal duct flows, nozzle flows and a special topic. This paper focuses on the internal duct flow section of PAW04 while an accompanying paper discusses the analyses performed for the nozzle portion. For the internal duct flow section, the PAW04 participants were provided with the two configurations consisting of an S-duct with and without aerodynamic interface plane (AIP) rake legs modeled. The participants were asked to perform a grid refinement study as well as a turbulence model study for the configuration with the rake legs. The analyses discussed here were performed on custom grids developed under the guidelines of the workshop. Additionally, the paper discusses the development and use of flow controllers for matching the desired flow characteristics. The results show that both solvers do well for predicting internal flow characteristics of the S-duct based on direct comparison with the experimental data. However, the CFD-to-CFD comparison proved to be more challenging due to the localized occurrence of supersonic flow near the rake legs when using the mass flow controller. A turbulence model study was performed to compare the two-equation SST model to the SA-QCR model. The results show that although the turbulence model does affect the solution, it makes a minimal impact on pressure recovery and inlet distortion intensity for this case. Suggestions for future workshops include gridding guidelines similar to those employed for the Drag Prediction Workshop series for the grid refinement study and a time accuracy study.

Carter, Melissa B.↗

NASA NTRS2019

FUN3D and USM3D Analysis of the 4th AIAA Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop Nozzle Test Case

This work presents the results of FUN3D and USM3D analyses that were performed for the 4th AIAA Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop. The workshop was separated into three sections that focus on internal duct flows, nozzle flows, and a special topic of interest. This paper focuses on the nozzle section while an accompanying paper discusses the analyses performed for the internal duct flow section. For the nozzle flow section, the participants were provided with two configurations consisting of a rectangular convergent nozzle with and without an aft-deck. User-generated grids were developed under the guidelines of the workshop for the present analyses. The results show that both solvers compare favorably to the experimental results for the baseline nozzle with the largest differences observed at the lower NPR values. Additionally, both solvers showed favorable agreement with the experimental data for the pressures on the surface of the aft-deck. However, neither solver was able to match the jet flow further downstream for the nozzle with aft-deck configuration. A turbulence model study was conducted to compare the two-equation SST model, SA-QCR model, and two-equation k-kL model (FUN3D only). The results show that the SA-QCR turbulence model was unable to match the experimental results downstream of the nozzle. The k-kL model was shown to better match the experimental data compared to the SST model for most cases simulated using the FUN3D flow solver. Suggestions for future workshops include gridding guidelines similar ion Workshop series for the grid refinement study and a reduction in scope to allow for more detailed exploration of the individual problems. rticipation by reducing time requirements

Bozeman, Michael D.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Design Variants of a Common Habitat for Moon and Mars Exploration

The Common Habitat is a long-duration habitat concept based on the Skylab II architecture that leverages a single, multi-destination design applicable to microgravity Mars transit, 1/6 g lunar surface, 3/8 g Mars surface, and 1 g Earth. A trade study for the Common Habitat will address vertical versus horizontal internal orientation and a crew size of four or eight crew. This has resulted in the creation of four variants of the Common Habitat: Four Crew Horizontal Configuration, Four Crew Vertical Configuration, Eight Crew Horizontal Configuration, and Eight Crew Vertical Configuration. Design guidelines that shaped the four configurations are discussed, including: mission duration, destinations/missions, pressure vessel, hatches and docking, subsystems and utilities, lander integration and offloading, and eight-crew extensibility. Functional capabilities for crew-related systems are also discussed, including: private habitation, meal preparation, meal consumption, medical operations, exercise, group socialization and recreation, human waste collection, hygiene, logistics, spacecraft monitoring and commanding, mission planning, robotics and teleoperation, scientific research, maintenance and fabrication, and EVA. Each of the four Common Habitat designs will be presented, with a deck-by-deck description of each workstation, crew station, or subsystem along with an assessment of its degree of compliance with the guidelines and functional capabilities. Finally, forward work will be identified that will down-select a single Common Habitat. This includes multiple analyses that will be performed on the four variants, a down-selection process, and design refinement goals for the selected variant.

Habitability↗

NASA NTRS2020

Credible practice of modeling and simulation in healthcare: ten rules from a multidisciplinary perspective

The complexities of modern biomedicine are rapidly increasing. Thus, modeling and simulation have become increasingly important as a strategy to understand and predict the trajectory of pathophysiology, disease genesis, and disease spread in support of clinical and policy decisions. In such cases, inappropriate or ill-placed trust in the model and simulation outcomes may result in negative outcomes, and hence illustrate the need to formalize the execution and communication of modeling and simulation practices. Although verification and validation have been generally accepted as significant components of a model’s credibility, they cannot be assumed to equate to a holistic credible practice, which includes activities that can impact comprehension and in-depth examination inherent in the devel-opment and reuse of the models. For the past several years, the Committee on Credible Practice of Modeling and Simulation in Healthcare, an interdisciplinary group seeded from a U.S. interagency initiative, has worked to codify best practices. Here, we provide Ten Rules for credible practice of modeling and simulation in healthcare developed from a comparative analysis by the Committee’s multidisciplinary membership, followed by a large stakeholder com-munity survey. These rules establish a unified conceptual framework for modeling and simulation design, implementation, evaluation, dissemination and usage across the modeling and simulation life-cycle. While biomedical science and clinical care domains have somewhat different requirements and expectations for credible practice, our study converged on rules that would be useful across a broad swath of model types. In brief, the rules are: (1) Define context clearly. (2) Use contextually appropriate data. (3) Evaluate within context. (4) List limitations explicitly. (5) Use version control. (6) Document appropriately. (7) Disseminate broadly. (8) Get independent reviews. (9) Test competing imple-mentations. (10) Conform to standards. Although some of these are common sense guidelines, we have found that many are often missed or misconstrued, even by seasoned practitioners. Computational models are already widely used in basic science to generate new biomedical knowledge. As they penetrate clinical care and healthcare policy, contributing to personalized and precision medicine, clinical safety will require established guidelines for the credible practice of modeling and simulation in healthcare.

Credibility↗

NASA NTRS2020

Buckling of Thin-Walled Circular Cylinders

Recent industry and NASA experience with the development of launch vehicle structures have indicated a need for updated monographs for the design of buckling-critical structures that account for state-of-the-art structural configurations, material systems, and computational tools. This monograph provides an update to NASA SP-8007 (circa 1965, and 1968) and was prepared under the cognizance of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). It summarizes all significant knowledge and experience accumulated from the NESC Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor (SBKF) Assessment (NESC Assessment #: 07-010-E) to date for use in the design of buckling-critical thin-walled circular cylinders. The format and terminology used in this monograph is similar to previous versions of NASA SP-8007 for ease of understanding and implementation. In addition, as with the design recommendations contained in the previous versions of NASA SP-8007, this monograph is to be regarded as a guideline to design and not as a NASA requirement, unless specified in formal program requirements. Furthermore, it is expected that the guidelines presented in this monograph will be updated as appropriate. Designers are advised to stay abreast of updates in the state-of-the-art and corresponding design criteria.

Buckling↗

NASA NTRS2020

Introduction to ISS Crew Displays

The International Space Station (ISS) began payload operations in earnest in 2000 with the arrival of the Expedition 1. To date, ISS has offered Principal Investigators (PIs) a reliable platform for microgravity research, having hosted thousands of onboard science experiments. Most of this research is supported by experiment hardware and software and many include a crew‐operated Graphical User Interface (GUI). The purpose of this article is to share information with PIs and Payload Developer (PD) teams about the processes, standards, and guidelines applicable to crew GUI design that must be complied with when planning payload software. The goal is not to enumerate all of the ISS display standards, but rather to highlight design guidelines and the ISS Program milestones for verification and approval of onboard crew displays.

Graphical User Interface↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A METHOD TO REDUCE BIOBURDEN IN ASTROMATERIALS CURATION FACILITIES WITHOUT INTRODUCING UNWANTED CONTAMINATION

Introduction: NASA curates its Astromaterials collections in cleanrooms that are carefully monitored for particulate, inorganic and trace metal contamination. Current sample collections are not particularly susceptible to organic contamination or biological alteration. However, new collections like those from the OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa2 missions will have organic contamination requirements and are susceptible to biodegradation. It will be necessary sterilize or at least disinfect curation labs, as well as tools and equipment in a manner that does not introduce additional contamination and does not affect the samples 1. Current curation cleaning procedures utilize isopropyl alcohol which offers some bioburden reduction, but is not effective against spore-forming bacteria or fungal spores 2. We present a modified disinfection method that uses ultrapure hydrogen peroxide to reduce bioburden inside curation labs and glove boxes without introducing contamination or damaging curation equipment. We tested this method in the meteorite processing lab as well as on a glovebox being cleaned for use in processing ANGSA (Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis) samples and present the results of those tests. We discuss the limitations of this method and describe potential situations in which it will not be applicable. The CDC guidelines for disinfection andsterilization in healthcare facilities discusses over 15different methods for reducing bioburden in hospitalsettings 3. The most common method, steamsterilization, is well suited to sterilizing curationprocessing tools but cannot easily be used to sterilizecleanroom surfaces or large equipment likegloveboxes. Chemical sterilization with bleach(NaOCl) is also a common strategy in healthcare andpharmaceutical settings that presents materialcompatibility issues as well as serious inorganiccontamination concerns for curation facilities.Introducing a new source of Na and Cl into curationlabs is not acceptable. Other chemical methods likeethylene oxide, formaldehyde, iodophors andquaternary ammonium compounds could introduceorganic and inorganic contamination. We chose tofocus on hydrogen peroxide because it is generallycompatible with commonly used curation materialslike stainless steel, aluminum and Teflon and becauseit decomposes to oxygen and water. The CDCguidelines for hydrogen peroxide specify using a 7.5wt% solution at 25 ̊C with a contact time of 30 minutesfor high level disinfection and 6 hours for sterilization.High level disinfection is defined as a technique thatwill kill all microorganisms except large numbers ofbacterial spores 3. Methods: We prepared a solution of 7.5 wt%hydrogen peroxide from a stock solution of ultrapure30 wt% peroxide (JT Baker) and curation gradeultrapure water. This ultrapure water is already used incuration cleaning procedures and thus is not consideredand additional source of contamination. We conducteda materials compatibility test by exposing unanodizedand anodized 6061 T6 Al alloy to the peroxide solutionfor up to six hours and periodically inspecting thesurfaces for visible defects. We used this peroxide todisinfect the floor of the meteorite processing lab andthe interior of a curation glovebox by exposing thesesurfaces to the peroxide solution for 30 min. Thesurfaces were swabbed with a dry macrofoam swabbefore (Puritan Brand 2518051PFRNDFD) and afterperoxide treatment to collect microbes present on thesurfaces. Microbes were extracted by sonication fromthe swab into 15 ml of PBS (phosphate buffered saline)and inoculated onto the following media: TSA (trypticsoy agar) BA (blood agar), R2A (Reasoners 2 agar),Potato Dextrose Agar, Saboraud Dextrose Agar andSaboraud Dextrose Agar with 0.1 mg/ mlchloramphenicol. Four TSA plates and two BA plateswere inoculated with 0.1 ml of PBS each andincubated at 35 and 37 for 48 hours. Two R2A°C°Cplates (0.1 ml of PBS each) were incubated at 25 .°CThe remaining plates were inoculated with 0.2ml ofPBS and incubated at 30 ̊C for seven days. Afterincubation bacterial and fungal isolates were countedand transferred to new plates for identification usingthe VITEK24 automated system or by sequencing aportion of the barcode gene (16S rRNA for bacteria,small subunit gene for fungi) on an ABI 3500 Sangersequencer. Negative controls consisted of swabs thatwere opened in the sampling environment andanalyzed alongside the experimental samples.Results: A 6 hour exposure to hydrogen peroxideresulted in visible pitting on un-anodized 6061 Al, butnot on anodized surfaces. No visible pitting occurredafter a 30 minute exposure. Therefore, we decided tolimit our experimental tests to 30 min. exposures. 17bacterial CFU (colony forming units) representing 4distinct organisms were isolated from the meteorite processing lab floor prior to hydrogen peroxidetreatment. We were unable culture any organisms afterperoxide treatment. In the glovebox we were able toculture three bacterial CFU representing three distinctspecies, including a spore forming bacterium prior todisinfection with peroxide. After the peroxidetreatment we were unable to culture any organisms.Routine monitoring of the meteorite processing lab andthe glovebox did not indicate any increase in unwantedinorganic contamination after these peroxidetreatments. Discussion: A 30 minute treatment with 7.5 wt%peroxide appears to be an effective method forreducing bioburden on typical cleanroom surfaces. Themethod does not introduce unwanted organic orinorganic contamination and is compatible withcommonly used curation materials like stainless steel,Teflon and anodized aluminum alloys. Special careshould be taken with un-anodized aluminum.Prolonged exposure to hydrogen peroxide can causepitting on this material. We recommend using thismethod to disinfect curation labs and equipment whenbiological alteration is a concern. This method iseffective at room temperature and cannot be used todisinfect labs and equipment where the ambienttemperature is < 0 ̊C. Astromaterials samples shouldbe removed from the area where disinfection is tooccur. Hydrogen peroxide is a powerful oxidizingagent and will react with any organic carbon present inthe sample. References: [1.] Mccubbin, F. M. et al.Sp. Sci Rev(2019) doi:10.1007/s11214-019-0615-9. [2.] Mogul, R.et al.Astrobiology 18, ast.2017.1814 (2018). [3.]Rutala, W. A. & Weber, D. J. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. [4.] Pincus, D. H. in Encyclopedia of Rapid Microbiological Methods (2005).

A. B. Regberg↗

NASA NTRS2008

Assessing and mitigating radiation effects in Xilinx FPGAs

The main purpose of this guideline is to document the current understanding of the effort and tradeoffs involved in using SRAM-based FPGAs with maximum achievable upset tolerance. This guideline summarizes the different testing strategies to be considered when assessing the SEE tolerance of SRAM-based FPGAs. For critical applications, in-beam testing of flight designs is strongly recommended in order to verify that the upset mitigation is working as well as the designer intended. At present, there are four manufacturers (Actel, Xilinx, Atmel, and Aeroflex) offering six FPGA types to the military market (i.e., some military spec screening and testing are specified) and four device types to the aerospace application market, which indicates that the manufacturers have added radiation parameter specifications. There is also a Honeywell and BAE Systems device that has been under development for several years, but it does not appear to be available yet; inquiries to Honeywell’s military/aerospace marketing arm on this product have been unanswered.

Allen, Greg↗

NASA NTRS2002

Electron-induced Luminescence and X-ray Spectrometer (ELXS) system for life detection

NASA has developed guidelines for space missions and their affiliated research. A primary theme of these guidelines is the link between the possibility of extraterrestrial life and the past or present existence of liquid water.

in-situ↗

NASA NTRS2018

Development of a Guidebook in Support of the NASA R&M Standard

This paper describes a guidebook currently in development to support the application of the NASA R&M Standard [1]. NASA-STD-8729.1A identifies the objectives and strategies for how to develop a system or design that is reliable and maintainable. Rather than requiring a checklist of mandatory tasks, such as specific design or Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) analyses, the standard explains objectives that need to be accomplished, and how to accomplish the objectives in the form of strategies. Currently, the standard presents the hierarchy without defining or explaining elements, or how to use the hierarchy efficiently. This is where this accompanying guideline comes into play; the guideline helps clarify through discussion and examples the standard in more detail, and how to apply it in real world situations that engineers face every day.

DiVenti, Anthony↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions: A Multi-Team Research Effort to Reduce Risk in the Human-System Integration Architecture for Future Deep-Space Missions

In future exploration missions beyond low earth-orbit, crew will have to execute complex operations and respond to off-nominal events, without real-time support from Mission Control. It is anticipated that increased reliance on automated systems, including human-centric vehicle and information architecture, will need to be designed to support the crew; increased risk to performance, health, and safety may occur if these are not implemented appropriately. The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element (HFBP) in the NASA Human Research Program supports research to characterize and mitigate such human health and performance risks, including the Risk of Adverse Outcome Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA). The HSIA risk addresses the integration of onboard capability and the crew roles and responsibilities necessary to enable the crew to respond effectively and efficiently in the increasingly autonomous mission operations environment. In 2017, HFBP released the “Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions” (HCAAM) research topic to address HSIA related questions. HCAAM is a major NASA research effort that has assembled a multidisciplinary team from seven institutions to work closely with design and engineering efforts on research towards developing and refining human performance standards, guidelines and automation tools. The scientific focus is on quantitative assessment of human capabilities relevant to future deep-space missions during which earth/spacecraft communication is so delayed and intermittent that the crew must be able to function autonomously. The integrated strategy of the HCAAM project characterizes human capabilities and limitations related to potential performance decrements during long duration exploration mission spaceflight as relevant to both routine and complex task performance; defines system characteristics that reduce the likelihood or impact of potential decrements in human performance capabilities; performs integrated assessment of intelligent system responses within the context of an operational environment with relevant NASA tools, systems, and data structures in order to determine positive or negative interactions and validate recommended approaches; and proposes specific updates to existing standards and guidelines for inclusion in NASA handbooks for the design of future spacecraft intelligent systems that provide crew performance assessment/feedback, and to also serve as decision-support aids for the onboard crew (i.e., NASA-STD-3001, and NASA/SP-Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)). The scientific research vectors being addressed by the seven HCAAM teams include: - crew task performance (accuracy, efficiency) (crew + automation) - crew performance (accuracy, efficiency) - crew Situation Awareness - procedure design and multi-modal enhancement - concurrent tasking (mixed manual + some level of autonomy) - task handover - crew self-planning and time-lining - task design - trust in automation, real-time calibration - human multi-sensory feedback and guidance - human trust in on-board software-based intelligent assistants - virtual assistants The presentation will highlight plans and progress made in each of these research areas as well as the methods by which surrogate astronaut crews in the NASA JSC HERA spaceflight analog facility will function as human test subjects for all of the HCAAM research projects.

HCAAM VNSCOR↗

NASA NTRS2024

Test and Analysis of the 8-foot Diameter Cylindrical Sandwich Composite Test Article CTA8.2B: As part of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor Project

The buckling response of thin-walled cylindrical structures have long been shown to be sensitive to various imperfections. That is, imperfections related to load introduction, boundary conditions, material property variation, and geometric deviations can all contribute to experimentally obtained buckling loads being lower than the buckling loads predicted for perfect representations of the same thin-walled cylindrical structure. To account for the influence of geometry-based imperfections of a thin-walled cylindrical structure on buckling response, a design factor (also known as a buckling knockdown factor) is used during the design phase. Guidelines for buckling knockdown factors are readily available in NASA SP-8007, Buckling of Thin Walled Circular Cylinders, which was updated in 2020. Prior to this recent update, NASA SP-8007 had not been updated since 1969, and since that time, computational analysis, experimental testing, and manufacturing methods have significantly improved. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor Project (SBKF, NESC Assessment 07-010-E) had the goal of developing buckling design recommendations for select classes of metallic and composite launch-vehicle structures [3]. Specifically, the test and analysis results from the fourth SBKF composite test article SBKF-P3-CYL-CTA8.2B, which is referred to as CTA8.2B, are described in this paper. This test was the fourth in a series of four tests on sandwich composite cylinders that will be used to experimentally validate analysis methods, which in turn can be used to develop new analysis-based shell buckling design guidelines for typical sandwich composite launch vehicle cylindrical structures. Publications describing previous test validation with analysis are available in Refs. CTA8.2B was designed to occupy one corner of the design space with approximately equal bending stiffnesses in the axial and transverse directions and have a larger ratio of radius to effective shell thickness. Each test article had a unique design and was designed to occupy a specific region of the design space. CTA8.2B was an 8-foot diameter honeycomb-core sandwich cylinder that was fabricated and tested at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). The primary objectives of this test were to interrogate the structural capability of a composite test article, and to verify the test article design and analysis approach for cylinders subjected to axial compression and combined axial and bending loads. First, descriptions of the test article design and test are given in Section 2.0, and modeling and analysis methods used in support of the test article design and testing activities are described briefly in Section 3.0. Then, select test results are presented and compared to predicted results in Section 4.0, and concluding remarks are presented in Section 5.0. Finally, drawings of CTA8.2B and references used to support the test and analysis are provided in the Appendix.

Nonlinear analysis↗