SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “exploration risk”

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 127 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2023

Historical Pattern Analysis of Global Geothermal Power Capacity Development

Between 1913 and 1958, Italy was the only country with an operational geothermal power plant until New Zealand installed its first plant in 1958. At present, 24 countries are involved in the geothermal power market, and they have a combined installed capacity of 16,127 GW. This study analyzes the historical patterns of geothermal power capacity in the world and in individual countries to investigate the ideal global geothermal development pattern by examining the annual cumulative capacity (ACC) and the annual capacity addition (ACA) graphs of the historical development of geothermal power capacity in 24 countries. First, the global patterns are analyzed using these graphs in five periods (1945-1957, 1958-1976, 1977-1991, 1992-2002, and 2003-2020) that are marked by a series of characteristics of ACA peaks separated by two major troughs. Then, five characteristic patterns are developed in five periods globally. These patterns correspond to the early-stage linear, the first acceleration, the first steady-state linear, the second acceleration, and the second steady-state linear developments. A positive relationship exists between global patterns and the 5-year shifted oil-price curve: two major factors influenced global development: 1) increasing oil prices and increasing awareness of global climate change, and 2) global development of geothermal power. Last, we investigate these patterns in each country. The top ten countries, which comprise 93.3% of the world's total installed capacity are separated into five groups based on the availability and characteristics of patterns globally developed in five periods. Group-1 (the United States) has an installed capacity of 3,794 MW, Group-2 (Mexico and Philippines) 963-1935 MW, Group-3 (New Zealand, Italy, Iceland, and Japan) 601-1,037 MW, and Group-4 (Indonesia, Kenya, and Turkiye) 944-2,356 MW. The remaining 14 countries (6.7%), which are called Group 5, are still in an immature stage and have installed capacities of 7-262 MW and are not involved in pattern analysis. Overall, geothermal power in the world is in its third stage of development, which had its peak development after 1977. A fourth development peak may be expected to occur after this through business-as-usual cases. The biggest barrier to the development of the global geothermal power market is the risk associated with exploration and drilling. If risk mitigation systems and funds are employed, the growth of geothermal power production projects could accelerate.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS2003

Risk based decision tool for space exploration missions

This paper presents an approach and corresponding tool to assess and analyze the risks involved in a mission during the pre-phase A design process. This approach is based on creating a risk template for each subsystem expert involved in the mission design process and defining appropriate interactions between the templates.

space exploration proposals↗

NASA NTRS2003

A Subjective Assessment of Alternative Mission Architecture Operations Concepts for the Human Exploration of Mars at NASA Using a Three-Dimensional Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model

The primary driver for developing missions to send humans to other planets is to generate significant scientific return. NASA plans human planetary explorations with an acceptable level of risk consistent with other manned operations. Space exploration risks can not be completely eliminated. Therefore, an acceptable level of cost, technical, safety, schedule, and political risks and benefits must be established for exploratory missions. This study uses a three-dimensional multi-criteria decision making model to identify the risks and benefits associated with three alternative mission architecture operations concepts for the human exploration of Mars identified by the Mission Operations Directorate at Johnson Space Center. The three alternatives considered in this study include split, combo lander, and dual scenarios. The model considers the seven phases of the mission including: 1) Earth Vicinity/Departure; 2) Mars Transfer; 3) Mars Arrival; 4) Planetary Surface; 5) Mars Vicinity/Departure; 6) Earth Transfer; and 7) Earth Arrival. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and subjective probability estimation are used to captures the experts belief concerning the risks and benefits of the three alternative scenarios through a series of sequential, rational, and analytical processes.

Tavana, Madjid↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS: Teams Risk

BACKGROUNDThe Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogsof the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.METHODSWe followed best practices for data harmonization. Characteristics of each research setting were assessed for harmonization potential, and we deemed NEK-SIRIUS 17 as inappropriate due to study aims, length, and data quality. Common variables of interest were identified. Study characteristics and key variables with which datafiles could be merged were defined as “meta-data.” HFBP-EM data from all settings were processed under a common format. We then created a harmonized team-level database designed to facilitate analyses that address HRP research gaps related to HRP’s Team risk. In this database, team cohesion, processes, performance, psychological safety, and group living were operationalized as the team mean of the crew responses for each data collection (e.g., on mission day 7). Data collected on the International Space Station (ISS) included a subset of scale items administered to participants. Data collected from ISS team members within +/- 7 days of the first data collection and every following 30 +/-4 days were aggregated to the team level. We generated figures that display the mean and variability of team constructs across research settings. We also generated plots of changes in team constructs with mission day and with percentage of the mission completed. Where possible, we compared data from spaceflight analogs with data from astronauts aboard the ISS. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe team-level harmonized database was structured such that each row represents data for a team on a specific mission day. Team constructs (e.g., team cohesion) were included as columns (i.e., wide format) with repeated measures across mission days given in rows (i.e., long format). The database included data from 18 crews: five, 4-person American crews in HERA C4, four 4-person American crews in HERA C5, one 6-person multinational crew in NEK-SIRIUS 19, and eight, 2–11-person multinational crews aboard the ISS. Results provide insights into mission and campaign differences in team functioning and performance. For example, between campaign differences were observed for team processes—the interdependent team actions that orchestrate taskwork in pursuit of the team’s goals [1]. Greater between-team variability on team processes was detected during HERA C4 than during C5, and a downward trend was observed over the duration of C4, but not C5 or SIRIUS 19. This may be due to the campaign-level differences such as the sleep deprivation implemented during C4. Responses on the subset of team process items administered on the ISS indicate between-crew variability more like those observed in C4 than C5 and NEK, with some, but not all ISS crews demonstrating a downward trend over time. Additional findings will be presented. REFERENCESMarks, M. A., et al (2001) Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

S T Bell↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS Teams Risk

The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogs of the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.

S T Bell↗

NASA NTRS2014

Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Approach to Enterprise Risk Management

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Division has implemented an innovative approach to Enterprise Risk Management under a unique governance structure and streamlined integration model. ESD's mission is to design and build the capability to extend human existence to deep space. The Enterprise consists of three Programs: Space Launch System (SLS), Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO). The SLS is a rocket and launch system that will be capable of powering humans, habitats, and support systems to deep space. Orion will be the first spacecraft in history capable of taking humans to multiple destinations within deep space. GSDO is modernizing Kennedy's spaceport to launch spacecraft built and designed by both NASA and private industry. ESD's approach to Enterprise Risk Management is commensurate with affordability and a streamlined management philosophy. ESD Enterprise Risk Management leverages off of the primary mechanisms for integration within the Enterprise. The Enterprise integration approach emphasizes delegation of authority to manage and execute the majority of cross-program activities and products to the individual Programs, while maintaining the overall responsibility for all cross-program activities at the Division. The intent of the ESD Enterprise Risk Management approach is to improve risk communication, to avoid replication and/or contradictory strategies, and to minimize overhead process burden. This is accomplished by the facilitation and integration of risk information within ESD. The ESD Division risks, Orion risks, SLS risks, and GSDO risks are owned and managed by the applicable Program. When the Programs have shared risks with multiple consequences, they are jointly owned and managed. When a risk is associated with the integrated system that involves more than one Program in condition, consequence, or mitigation plan, it is considered an Exploration Systems Integration (ESI) Risk. An ESI risk may require visibility and risk handling by multiple organizations. The Integrated Risk Working Group (IRWG) is a small team of Risk experts that are responsible for collaborating and communicating best practices. In addition, the forum facilitates proper integration of risks across the Enterprise. The IRWG uses a Continuous Risk Management approach for facilitating the identification, analysis, planning, tracking, and controlling of ESI Risks. The ESD Division, Programs, and Integrated Task Teams identify ESI Risks. The IRWG maintains a set of metrics for understanding Enterprise Risk process and the overall Risk Posture. The team is also actively involved in the modeling of risk for Enterprise Performance Management. With the Enterprise being constrained in Schedule and Budget, and with significant technical complexity, the appropriate use of Risk Management techniques is crucial to the success of the Enterprise. The IRWG achieves this through the modified approach, providing a forum for collaboration on risks that cross boundaries between the separate entities.

Bauder, Stephen P.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Multilateral Research Opportunities in Ground Analogs

The global economy forces many nations to consider their national investments and make difficult decisions regarding their investment in future exploration. International collaboration provides an opportunity to leverage other nations' investments to meet common goals. The Humans In Space Community shares a common goal to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration within and beyond Low Earth Orbit. Meeting this goal requires efficient use of limited resources and International capabilities. The International Space Station (ISS) is our primary platform to conduct microgravity research targeted at reducing human health and performance risks for exploration missions. Access to ISS resources, however, is becoming more and more constrained and will only be available through 2020 or 2024. NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) is actively pursuing methods to effectively utilize the ISS and appropriate ground analogs to understand and mitigate human health and performance risks prior to embarking on human exploration of deep space destinations. HRP developed a plan to use ground analogs of increasing fidelity to address questions related to exploration missions and is inviting International participation in these planned campaigns. Using established working groups and multilateral panels, the HRP is working with multiple Space Agencies to invite International participation in a series of 30- day missions that HRP will conduct in the US owned and operated Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) during 2016. In addition, the HRP is negotiating access to Antarctic stations (both US and non-US), the German :envihab and Russian NEK facilities. These facilities provide unique capabilities to address critical research questions requiring longer duration simulation or isolation. We are negotiating release of international research opportunities to ensure a multilateral approach to future analog research campaigns, hoping to begin multilateral campaigns in the latter facilities by 2017. Collaborative use of analog facilities and shared investment in the development of spaceflight countermeasures through multilateral campaigns or missions that leverage the global scientific community will focus high quality research and provide sufficient power to accelerate the development of countermeasures and drive sound recommendations for exploration missions. This panel will provide an overview of efforts to encourage and facilitate multilateral collaboration in analog missions or campaigns and describe the facilities currently under consideration to reach the common goal of enabling safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration.

Corbin, Barbara J.↗

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Smart Habitat: Identifying Technological Countermeasures to Address Health and Performance Risks during Long-Duration Exploration Missions

During proposed long-duration Exploration Missions, crews must become increasingly autonomous, as they will be unable to rely on consistent input and guidance from ground-based mission control operations. While it is known that smart technologies will play a crucial role in future long-duration Exploration Missions, it is not known which manner of devices and systems may best mitigate the expected risks to crew. The purpose of this project was to identify both current and emerging technologies which may act as health and performance countermeasures on long-duration Exploration Missions.

Ryan A. Lange↗

NASA NTRS2005

Results from the NASA Capability Roadmap Team for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)

On January 14, 2004, the President of the United States unveiled a new vision for robotic and human exploration of space entitled, "A Renewed Spirit of Discovery". As stated by the President in the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), NASA must "... implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond " and ".. .develop new technologies and harness the moon's abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments." A key to fulfilling the goal of sustained and affordable human and robotic exploration will be the ability to use resources that are available at the site of exploration to "live off the land" instead of bringing everything from Earth, known as In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). ISRU can significantly reduce the mass, cost, and risk of exploration through capabilities such as: mission consumable production (propellants, fuel cell reagents, life support consumables, and feedstock for manufacturing & construction); surface construction (radiation shields, landing pads, walls, habitats, etc.); manufacturing and repair with in-situ resources (spare parts, wires, trusses, integrated systems etc.); and space utilities and power from space resources. On January 27th, 2004 the President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy (Aldridge Committee) was created and its final report was released in June 2004. One of the report's recommendations was to establish special project teams to evaluate enabling technologies, of which "Planetary in situ resource utilization" was one of them. Based on the VSE and the commission's final report, NASA established fifteen Capability Roadmap teams, of which ISRU was one of the teams established. From Oct. 2004 to May 2005 the ISRU Capability Roadmap team examined the capabilities, benefits, architecture and mission implementation strategy, critical decisions, current state-of-the-art (SOA), challenges, technology gaps, and risks of ISRU for future human Moon and Mars exploration. This presentation will provide an overview of the ISRU capability, architecture, and implementation strategy examined by the ISRU Capability Roadmap team, along with a top-level review of ISRU benefits, resources and products of interest, and the current SOA in ISRU processes and systems. The presentation will also highlight the challenges of incorporating ISRU into future missions and the gaps in technologies and capabilities that need to be filled to enable ISRU.

Sanders, Gerald B.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Assessment of Medical Risks and Optimization of their Management using Integrated Medical Model

The Integrated Medical Model (IMM) Project is a software-based technique that will identify and quantify the medical needs and health risks of exploration crew members during space flight and evaluate the effectiveness of potential mitigation strategies. The IMM Project employs an evidence-based approach that will quantify probability and consequences of defined in-flight medical risks, mitigation strategies, and tactics to optimize crew member health. Using stochastic techniques, the IMM will ultimately inform decision makers at both programmatic and institutional levels and will enable objective assessment of crew health and optimization of mission success using data from relevant cohort populations and from the astronaut population. The objectives of the project include: 1) identification and documentation of conditions that may occur during exploration missions (Baseline Medical Conditions List [BMCL), 2) assessment of the likelihood of conditions in the BMCL occurring during exploration missions (incidence rate), 3) determination of the risk associated with these conditions and quantify in terms of end states (Loss of Crew, Loss of Mission, Evacuation), 4) optimization of in-flight hardware mass, volume, power, bandwidth and cost for a given level of risk or uncertainty, and .. validation of the methodologies used.

Fitts, Mary A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Field Immune Assessment during Simulated Planetary Exploration in the Canadian Arctic

Dysregulation of the immune system has been shown to occur during space flight, although the detailed nature of the phenomenon and the clinical risks for exploration class missions has yet to be established. In addition, the growing clinical significance of immune system evaluation combined with epidemic infectious disease rates in third world countries provides a strong rationale for the development of field-compatible clinical immunology techniques and equipment. In July 2002 NASA performed a comprehensive field immunology assessment on crewmembers participating in the Haughton-Mars Project (HMP) on Devon Island in the high Canadian Arctic. The purpose of the study was to evaluate mission-associated effects on the human immune system, as well as to evaluate techniques developed for processing immune samples in remote field locations. Ten HMP-2002 participants volunteered for the study. A field protocol was developed at NASA-JSC for performing sample collection, blood staining/processing for immunophenotype analysis, wholeblood mitogenic culture for functional assessments and cell-sample preservation on-location at Devon Island. Specific assays included peripheral leukocyte distribution; constitutively activated T cells, intracellular cytokine profiles and plasma EBV viral antibody levels. Study timepoints were L-30, midmission and R+60. The protocol developed for immune sample processing in remote field locations functioned properly. Samples were processed in the field location, and stabilized for subsequent analysis at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. The data indicated that some phenotype, immune function and stress hormone changes occurred in the HMP field participants that were largely distinct from pre-mission baseline and post-mission recovery data. These immune changes appear similar to those observed in Astronauts following spaceflight. The sample processing protocol developed for this study may have applications for immune assessment during exploration-class space missions or in remote terrestrial field locations. The data validate the use of the HMP as a ground-based spaceflight/planetary exploration analog for some aspects of human physiology.

Crucian, Brian↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, And ISS: Behavioral Medicine Risk

The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures used to assess behavioral health and performance risks related to future exploration class space missions. The HFBP-EM addresses the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) campaigns 4 and 5, and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogs of spaceflight environments. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected in spaceflight as part of the HRP Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are the same across studies, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, and mission length) and implementation of the measures require that the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project was to develop a harmonized database of analyzable HFBP-EM data from spaceflight and analog settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance outcomes within and between mission settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of BMed related measures including depression, neurobehavioral function, mood, cognition, and operationally relevant individual performance over time and by campaign and mission.

S T Bell↗

NASA NTRS2005

Exploration-Related Research on the International Space Station: Connecting Science Results to the Design of Future Missions

In January, 2004, the US President announced a vision for space exploration, and charged NASA with utilizing the International Space Station (ISS) for research and technology targeted at supporting the US space exploration goals. This paper describes: 1) what we have learned from the first four years of research on ISS relative to the exploration mission, 2) the on-going research being conducted in this regard, 3) our current understanding of the major exploration mission risks that the ISS can be used to address, and 4) current progress in realigning NASA s research portfolio for ISS to support exploration missions. Specifically, we discuss the focus of research on solving the perplexing problems of maintaining human health on long-duration missions, and the development of countermeasures to protect humans from the space environment, enabling long duration exploration missions. The interchange between mission design and research needs is dynamic, where design decisions influence the type of research needed, and results of research influence design decisions. The fundamental challenge to science on ISS is completing experiments that answer key questions in time to shape design decisions for future exploration. In this context, exploration-relevant research must do more than be conceptually connected to design decisions-it must become a part of the mission design process.

Rhatigan, Jennifer L.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Psychosocial Characteristics of Optimum Performance in Isolated and Confined Environments (ICE)

The Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Element addresses human health risks in the NASA Human Research Program (HRP), including the Risk of Adverse Behavioral Conditions and the Risk of Psychiatric Disorders. BHP supports and conducts research to help characteristics and mitigate the Behavioral Medicine risk for exploration missions, and in some instances, current Flight Medical Operations. The Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Element identified research gaps within the Behavioral Medicine Risk, including Gap BMed6: What psychosocial characteristics predict success in an isolated, confined environment (ICE)? To address this gap, we conducted an extensive and exhaustive literature review to identify the following: 1) psychosocial characteristics that predict success in ICE environments; 2) characteristics that are most malleable; and 3) specific countermeasures that could enhance malleable characteristics.

Palinkas, Lawrence A.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Lunar Lettuce Production During Artemis III Mission to the Moon's South Pole

The Artemis Science Plan identified that the infrastructure and resources associated during a human/robotic exploration mission can be used to conduct fundamental lunar science needed to mitigate the risks of human exploration of surface systems (i.e. Mars and the Moon). In particular, studying the response of life to the combination of fractional gravity and deep space radiation of the Moon is needed to mitigate the HEOMD risks to the crew that result from inadequate diets. Essential nutrients and vitamins available to astronauts have been shown to degrade within the stored food system during long duration missions. Other risks to exploration missions were isolation and confinement, distance from the Earth, radiation and partial gravity.

O. Monje↗

NASA NTRS2023

Full Lunar Surface Visualization and Simulation Platform

This project created a visualization and simulation software platform for the entire lunar surface. Given the polar Artemis landing targets, the challenging terrain, lighting, and associated integrated crew / vehicle risk assessment, a more integrated approach to mission safety certification, potentially impacting equipment design and crew activity is required. This integrated capability will enable Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA), Flight Operations (FOD), and EVA to effectively collaborate to reduce human lunar exploration operational risk utilizing the identical tools to perform mission planning, rehearsal simulations, and providing the Safety Review Panel with integrated risk analysis capability.

information fusion↗