Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “ORION”

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.

At least 973 records · Page 54
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. To determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators, and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules, and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (Orion) Occupant Protection

The purpose of this study was to determine the similarity between the response of the THUMS model and the Hybrid III Anthropometric Test Device (ATD) given existing Wright-Patterson (WP) sled tests. There were four tests selected for this comparison with frontal, spinal, rear, and lateral loading. The THUMS was placed in a sled configuration that replicated the WP configuration and the recorded seat acceleration for each test was applied to model seat. Once the modeling simulations were complete, they were compared to the WP results using two methods. The first was a visual inspection of the sled test videos compared to the THUMS d3plot files. This comparison resulted in an assessment of the overall kinematics of the two results. The other comparison was a comparison of the plotted data recorded for both tests. The metrics selected for comparison were seat acceleration, belt forces, head acceleration and chest acceleration. These metrics were recorded in all WP tests and were outputs of the THUMS model. Once the comparison of the THUMS to the WP tests was complete, the THUMS model output was also examined for possible injuries in these scenarios. These outputs included metrics for injury risk to the head, neck, thorax, lumbar spine and lower extremities. The metrics to evaluate head response were peak head acceleration, HIC15, and HIC36. For the neck, N (sub ij) was calculated. The thorax response was evaluated with peak chest acceleration, the Combined Thoracic Index (CTI), sternal deflection, chest deflection, and chest acceleration- 3 ms clip. The lumbar spine response was evaluated with lumbar spine force. Finally the lower extremity response was evaluated by femur and tibia force. The results of the simulation comparisons indicate the THUMS model had a similar response to the Hybrid III dummy given the same input. The primary difference seen between the two was a more flexible response of the THUMS compared to the Hybrid III. This flexibility was most pronounced in the neck flexion, shoulder deflection and chest deflection. Due to the flexibility of the THUMS, the resulting head and chest accelerations tended to lag the Hybrid III acceleration trace and have a lower peak value. The results of the injury metric comparison identified possible injury trends between simulations. Risk of head injury was highest for the lateral simulations. The risk of chest injury was highest for the rear impact. However, neck injury risk was approximately the same for all simulations. The injury metric value for lumbar spine force was highest for the spinal impact. The leg forces were highest for the rear and lateral impacts. The results of this comparison indicate the THUMS model performs in a similar manner as the Hybrid III ATD. The differences in the responses of model and the ATD are primarily due to the flexibility of the THUMS. This flexibility of the THUMS would be a more human like response. Based on the similarity between the two models, the THUMS should be used in further testing to assess risk of injury to the occupant.

Currie-Gregg, Nancy J.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Mid-IR Imaging of Orion BN/KL: Modeling of Physical Conditions and Energy Balance

We have modeled two mid-infrared imaging photometry data sets to determine the spatial distribution of physical conditions in the BN/KL (Becklin-Neugebauer / Kleinmann-Low) infrared complex. We observed the BN/KL region using the 10-meter Keck I telescope and the LWS (Living With a Star) in the direct imaging mode, over a 13 inch by 19 inch field . We also modeled images obtained with COMICS (Cooled Mid-Infrared Camera and Spectrometer, Kataza et al. 2000) at the 8.2-meter SUBARU telescope, over a total field of view [which] is 31 inches by 41 inches in a total of nine bands: 7.8, 8.8, 9.7, 10.5, 11.7, 12.4, 18.5, 20.8 and 24.8 microns with 1-micron bandwidth interference filters.

Gezari, Daniel↗
NASA NTRS2017

Orion Exploration Flight Test Post-Flight Inspection and Analysis

The principal mechanism for developing orbital debris environment models, is to make observations of larger pieces of debris in the range of several centimeters and greater using radar and optical techniques. For particles that are smaller than this threshold, breakup and migration models of particles to returned surfaces in lower orbit are relied upon to quantify the flux. This reliance on models to derive spatial densities of particles that are of critical importance to spacecraft make the unique nature of the EFT-1's return surface a valuable metric. To this end detailed post-flight inspections have been performed of the returned EFT-1 backshell, and the inspections identified six candidate impact sites that were not present during the pre-flight inspections. This paper describes the post-flight analysis efforts to characterize the EFT-1 mission craters. This effort included ground based testing to understand small particle impact craters in the thermal protection material, the pre- and post-flight inspection, the crater analysis using optical, X-ray computed tomography (CT) and scanning electron microscope (SEM) techniques, and numerical simulations.

Miller, J. E.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Orion EM-2 TPS Radiometer & Spectrometer

Radiometers and Spectrometers embedded as flight instrumentation in a spacecraft's thermal protection system (TPS) can generate data on shock layer radiation to a spacecraft's surface for high-speed trajectories such as lunar return. Robust and accurate flight measurements of shock layer radiation can validate models and inform TPS selection and sizing, to reduce risk and TPS launch mass. Contamination from soot deposition and ablation products in the boundary layer condensing on a cold sapphire radiometer window or blocking open ports interferes with measurements. This poster describes characterization of the optical properties and performance of relevant materials, components, and contaminated windows, as well as investigation of contamination control strategies for the optics.

Ablation↗
NASA NTRS2016

Development of a MEMS Preconcentrator (PC) - Gas Chromatograph (GC) for the Spacecraft Atmosphere Monitor for ISS and Orion

In this paper, we report a MEMS preconcentrator (PC) - gas chromatograph (GC) that is a crucial part of the Spacecraft Atmosphere Monitor (S.A.M.). The S.A.M. is a highly miniature gas chromatograph - mass spectrometer (GC-MS) for monitoring the atmosphere of crewed spacecraft for both trace organic compounds and the major constituents of the cabin air. The S.A.M. instrument is the next generation of GC-MS, based on JPL’s Vehicle Cabin Air Monitor (VCAM), which was launched to the International Space Station (ISS) in April 2010 and successfully operated for two years [1, 2]. The S.A.M. employs a unique MEMS PC-GC technology that replaces the macro PC-GC unit in the VCAM. We report herein the current progress of the MEMS PC-GC for the S.A.M. instrument.

Bae, Byunghoon↗