Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CONTRACTORS”

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 1,315 records · Page 73
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

Factors in International Space Station Integration Feasibility Assessments

The International Space Station, ISS, is a growing vehicle. The ISS configuration changes internally and externally with each ISS flight. Each flight adds resources and capabilities such as docking/berthing ports, power, stowage volume, heat rejection, and data processing capability. The configuration, capabilities and performance characteristics of the vehicle will be in flux until assembly complete. At the same time the knowledge about what is required to support humans involved in long duration space flight is also being greatly expanded. In addition to the changes occurring on-orbit, the situation on the ground is also very dynamic. Proposals for new ISS elements, proposed deletions of elements, changes to the ISS requirements, and changes to the planned configuration are always under evaluation. Furthermore, budgetary issues have driven the need to explore alternative options for the ISS . This environment has made the role of the technical integrator in the ISS program unique in that the baseline against which proposals are evaluated is always changing. The nature of the International Space Station Program adds another dimension to the integrators task. ISS program activities are spread across several centers: KSC, MSFC, GRC, DFRC, ARC and JSc. There are six International Partners/participants each with their own unique organizations. The prime contractor is in Texas, California and Alabama. And, the Space Shuttle Program as the launch vehicle provider is another major interface. In spite of the fluidity of the technical baseline, projections and organizational complexity, in the course of evaluating proposals and producing feasibility assessments there are factors, which frequently emerge as significant. These factors tend to be the limiting conditions when they come into play. The finite resources, which tend to limit the options for ISS are: upmass, life support and crew rescue capability, crew time, utilities, exercise equipment, and docking/berthing ports. Upmass requirements need to be developed for each option proposed. Short term and long term impacts to upmass are the result of the implementation and long term operations. The upmass requirements need to be met by the existing launch vehicles and any change in flight rate will be a significant cost driver. In addition, when any item is brought to the ISS careful consideration must be given to the on-board stowage and crew time available to unpack, transfer, stow and use these items. If stowage is not available then something must be returned, use of non-standard stowage negotiated or the item in question stays on the ground. Additional crew time requirements will impact available utilization time or crew off-duty time. When the human element is affected, such as, by increasing the number of crew members or changing the duration of the crew stay (longer or shorter) there is an additional set of factors that come into play. The main considerations are: rescue capability, exercise requirements and availability of equipment, resupply, and life support capability.

Watson, Patricia M.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Jake Garn Mission Simulator and Training Facility, Building 5, Historical Documentation

In response to President George W. Bush's announcement in January 2004 that the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) would end in 2010, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) completed a nation-wide historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned facilities and properties (real property assets) at all its Centers and component facilities. The buildings and structures which supported the SSP were inventoried and assessed as per the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in the context of this program. This study was performed in compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190); Executive Order (EO) 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; EO 13287, Preserve America, and other relevant legislation. As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities at was conducted by NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, "Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas," prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC's contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Jake Gam Mission Simulator and Training Facility (Building 5) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 5 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. At the time of this documentation, Building 5 was still used to support the SSP as an astronaut training facility. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 5 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the structure. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 5 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided.

Slovinac, Trish↗
NASA NTRS2010

Integrated Evaluation of Closed Loop Air Revitalization System Components

NASA s vision and mission statements include an emphasis on human exploration of space, which requires environmental control and life support technologies. This Contractor Report (CR) describes the development and evaluation of an Air Revitalization System, modeling and simulation of the components, and integrated hardware testing with the goal of better understanding the inherent capabilities and limitations of this closed loop system. Major components integrated and tested included a 4-Bed Modular Sieve, Mechanical Compressor Engineering Development Unit, Temperature Swing Adsorption Compressor, and a Sabatier Engineering and Development Unit. The requisite methodolgy and technical results are contained in this CR.

Murdock, K.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Summary of the Large Civil Tiltrotor (LCTR2) Engine Gearbox Study

In support of the Fundamental Aeronautics Program, Subsonic Rotary Wing Project, NASA is continuing to study the Large Civil Tiltrotor (LCTR) concept to help define/refine vehicle, system and subsystem attributes. These attributes can then be used to define performance requirements and identify new or advanced technologies to achieve an operational vehicle class. As part of this goal, NASA contracted with The Boeing Company and its subcontractor Rolls-Royce to perform an investigation of different combinations of engine and gearbox variability to achieve a maximum of 50 percent rotor tip speed reduction from hover to cruise conditions. Previous NASA studies identified the 50 percent rotor speed reduction minimized vehicle gross weight and fuel burn. The LCTR2 (LCTR-iteration 2) was the contracted study baseline for initial sizing. Rotor tip speed ratios (cruise to hover) of 100, 77, and 54 percent were analyzed for each combination of engine and gearbox speed reduction to achieve the chosen rotor tip speed ratio. Three different engine and gearbox technology levels were assumed; commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), entry-in-service (EIS) in 2025 and EIS in 2035. These technology levels were applied to determine each particular effect on vehicle gross weight and fuel burn, while other vehicle technologies were assumed constant. This report summarizes the work performed that is being put together into a comprehensive NASA contractor report. Some background on the LCTR concept and baseline vehicle will be given and then a discussion concerning the technical approach utilized. Major study assumptions and results will be presented and discussed. Finally conclusions will be drawn as well as suggestions provided for future efforts.

Snyder, Christopher A.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Hardware Development Process for Human Research Facility Applications

The simple goal of the Human Research Facility (HRF) is to conduct human research experiments on the International Space Station (ISS) astronauts during long-duration missions. This is accomplished by providing integration and operation of the necessary hardware and software capabilities. A typical hardware development flow consists of five stages: functional inputs and requirements definition, market research, design life cycle through hardware delivery, crew training, and mission support. The purpose of this presentation is to guide the audience through the early hardware development process: requirement definition through selecting a development path. Specific HRF equipment is used to illustrate the hardware development paths. The source of hardware requirements is the science community and HRF program. The HRF Science Working Group, consisting of SCientists from various medical disciplines, defined a basic set of equipment with functional requirements. This established the performance requirements of the hardware. HRF program requirements focus on making the hardware safe and operational in a space environment. This includes structural, thermal, human factors, and material requirements. Science and HRF program requirements are defined in a hardware requirements document which includes verification methods. Once the hardware is fabricated, requirements are verified by inspection, test, analysis, or demonstration. All data is compiled and reviewed to certify the hardware for flight. Obviously, the basis for all hardware development activities is requirement definition. Full and complete requirement definition is ideal prior to initiating the hardware development. However, this is generally not the case, but the hardware team typically has functional inputs as a guide. The first step is for engineers to conduct market research based on the functional inputs provided by scientists. CommerCially available products are evaluated against the science requirements as well as modifications needed to meet program requirements. Options are consolidated and the hardware development team reaches a hardware development decision point. Within budget and schedule constraints, the team must decide whether or not to complete the hardware as an in-house, subcontract with vendor, or commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) development. An in-house development indicates NASA personnel or a contractor builds the hardware at a NASA site. A subcontract development is completed off-site by a commercial company. A COTS item is a vendor product available by ordering a specific part number. The team evaluates the pros and cons of each development path. For example, in-bouse developments utilize existing corporate knowledge regarding bow to build equipment for use in space. However, technical expertise would be required to fully understand the medical equipment capabilities, such as for an ultrasound system. It may require additional time and funding to gain the expertise that commercially exists. The major benefit of subcontracting a hardware development is the product is delivered as an end-item and commercial expertise is utilized. On the other hand, NASA has limited control over schedule delays. The final option of COTS or modified COTS equipment is a compromise between in-house and subcontracts. A vendor product may exist that meets all functional requirements but req uires in-house modifications for successful operation in a space environment. The HRF utilizes equipment developed using all of the paths described: inhouse, subcontract, and modified COTS.

Bauer, Liz↗
NASA NTRS2010

Ares I-X Range Safety Simulation Verification and Analysis IV and V

NASA s ARES I-X vehicle launched on a suborbital test flight from the Eastern Range in Florida on October 28, 2009. NASA generated a Range Safety (RS) flight data package to meet the RS trajectory data requirements defined in the Air Force Space Command Manual 91-710. Some products included in the flight data package were a nominal ascent trajectory, ascent flight envelope trajectories, and malfunction turn trajectories. These data are used by the Air Force s 45th Space Wing (45SW) to ensure Eastern Range public safety and to make flight termination decisions on launch day. Due to the criticality of the RS data in regards to public safety and mission success, an independent validation and verification (IV&V) effort was undertaken to accompany the data generation analyses to ensure utmost data quality and correct adherence to requirements. Multiple NASA centers and contractor organizations were assigned specific products to IV&V. The data generation and IV&V work was coordinated through the Launch Constellation Range Safety Panel s Trajectory Working Group, which included members from the prime and IV&V organizations as well as the 45SW. As a result of the IV&V efforts, the RS product package was delivered with confidence that two independent organizations using separate simulation software generated data to meet the range requirements and yielded similar results. This document captures ARES I-X RS product IV&V analysis, including the methodology used to verify inputs, simulation, and output data for an RS product. Additionally a discussion of lessons learned is presented to capture advantages and disadvantages to the IV&V processes used.

Tarpley, Ashley↗
NASA NTRS2009

Designing Struts for the Low-Fidelity Orion Cockpit Mockup

The objective of the project was to design and construct nine struts to be installed in the low-fidelity Orion cockpit mockup (Rev F; located at NASA s Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX) as simplified representations of the existing flight designed struts designed by engineers at Lockheed Martin (the primary contractor of the Orion). The project design included: researching the existing flight designs, brainstorming design upgrades, developing three unrelated three-dimensional (3D) strut designs using Pro/Engineer Wildfire 3.0, choosing the best fit design, locating materials and their sources, implementing the chosen design, and making design modifications. The project resulted in making simple modifications to the existing struts used in the last Orion cockpit mockup. The project is relevant to NASA, because upgrades to the low-fidelity Orion cockpit mockup progresses NASA s goals of developing and testing a new spacecraft, conducting the spacecraft's first crewed mission by 2015, returning to the moon by 2020, and exploring Mars and other planets in the future.

Lucienne, Runa A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Avionics Systems Laboratory/Building 16. Historical Documentation

As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities that was conducted by NASA s Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, "Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas," prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC s contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Avionics Systems Laboratory (Building 16) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 5 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. At the time of this documentation, Building 16 was still used to support the SSP as an engineering research facility, which is also sometimes used for astronaut training. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 16 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the structure. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 16 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided

Slovinac, Patricia↗
NASA NTRS2011

Communications and Tracking Development Laboratory/Building 44. Historical Documentation

As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities was conducted by NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC s contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Communications and Tracking Development Laboratory (Building 44) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 44 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. At the time of this documentation, Building 44 was still used to support the SSP as an engineering research facility, which is also sometimes used for astronaut training. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented by 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle Program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 44 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the building. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 44 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided.

Slovinac, Patricia↗
NASA NTRS2010

Mission Control Center/Building 30. Historical Documentation

As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities was conducted by NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC s contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Mission Control Center (Building 30) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 30 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. It should be noted that the Mission Control Center was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1985 for its role in the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing. At the time of this documentation, Building 30 was still used to support the SSP as an engineering research facility, which is also sometimes used for astronaut training. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 30 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the structure. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 30 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

Crowdsourcing for Challenging Technical Problems - It Works!

The NASA Johnson Space Center Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) and Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering (Wyle) will conduct a one-day business cluster at the 62nd IAC so that IAC attendees will understand the benefits of open innovation (crowdsourcing), review successful results of conducting technical challenges in various open innovation projects, and learn how an organization can effectively deploy these new problem solving tools to innovate more efficiently and effectively. Results from both the SLSD open innovation pilot program and the open innovation workshop conducted by the NASA Human Health and Performance Center will be discussed. NHHPC members will be recruited to participate in the business cluster (see membership http://nhhpc.nasa.gov) and as IAF members. Crowdsourcing may be defined as the act of outsourcing tasks that are traditionally performed by an employee or contractor to an undefined, generally large group of people or community (a crowd) in the form of an open call. The open call may be issued by the organization wishing to find a solution to a particular problem or complete a task, or by an open innovation service provider on behalf of that organization. In 2008, the SLSD, with the support of Wyle, established and implemented pilot projects in open innovation (crowdsourcing) to determine if these new internet-based platforms could indeed find solutions to difficult technical challenges. These unsolved technical problems were converted to problem statements, called Challenges by some open innovation service providers, and were then posted externally to seek solutions to these problems. In addition, an open call was issued internally to NASA employees Agency wide (11 Field Centers and NASA HQ) using an open innovation service provider crowdsourcing platform to post NASA challenges from each Center for the others to propose solutions). From 2008 to 2010, the SLSD issued 34 challenges, 14 externally and 20 internally. The 14 external problems or challenges were posted through three different vendors: InnoCentive, yet2.com and TopCoder. The 20 internal challenges were conducted using the InnoCentive crowdsourcing platform designed for use internal to an organization and customized for NASA use, and promoted as NASA@Work. The results were significant. Of the seven InnoCentive external challenges, two full and five partial awards were made in complex technical areas such as predicting solar flares and long-duration food packaging.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Crowd Sourcing for Challenging Technical Problems and Business Model

Crowd sourcing may be defined as the act of outsourcing tasks that are traditionally performed by an employee or contractor to an undefined, generally large group of people or community (a crowd) in the form of an open call. The open call may be issued by an organization wishing to find a solution to a particular problem or complete a task, or by an open innovation service provider on behalf of that organization. In 2008, the Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD), with the support of Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering, established and implemented pilot projects in open innovation (crowd sourcing) to determine if these new internet-based platforms could indeed find solutions to difficult technical challenges. These unsolved technical problems were converted to problem statements, also called "Challenges" or "Technical Needs" by the various open innovation service providers, and were then posted externally to seek solutions. In addition, an open call was issued internally to NASA employees Agency wide (10 Field Centers and NASA HQ) using an open innovation service provider crowd sourcing platform to post NASA challenges from each Center for the others to propose solutions). From 2008 to 2010, the SLSD issued 34 challenges, 14 externally and 20 internally. The 14 external problems or challenges were posted through three different vendors: InnoCentive, Yet2.com and TopCoder. The 20 internal challenges were conducted using the InnoCentive crowd sourcing platform designed for internal use by an organization. This platform was customized for NASA use and promoted as NASA@Work. The results were significant. Of the seven InnoCentive external challenges, two full and five partial awards were made in complex technical areas such as predicting solar flares and long-duration food packaging. Similarly, the TopCoder challenge yielded an optimization algorithm for designing a lunar medical kit. The Yet2.com challenges yielded many new industry and academic contacts in bone imaging, microbial detection and even the use of pharmaceuticals for radiation protection. The internal challenges through NASA@Work drew over 6000 participants across all NASA centers. Challenges conducted by each NASA center elicited ideas and solutions from several other NASA centers and demonstrated rapid and efficient participation from employees at multiple centers to contribute to problem solving. Finally, on January 19, 2011, the SLSD conducted a workshop on open collaboration and innovation strategies and best practices through the newly established NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC). Initial projects will be described leading to a new business model for SLSD.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
NASA NTRS2010

The 2010 Field Demonstration of the Solar Carbothermal Reduction of Regolith to Produce Oxygen

This slide presentation reviews a demonstration of the use of solar carbothermal reduction processing of regolith to produce oxygen and silicon from silica. A contractor developed the Carbothermal Regolith Reduction Module to demonstrate the extraction of oxygen from lunar regolith simulant using concentrated solar energy at a site that has similar terrain to the moon and Mars.

Muscatello, Anthony↗
NASA NTRS2011

Taking the Evolutionary Road to Developing an In-House Cost Estimate

This slide presentation reviews the process and some of the problems and challenges of developing an In-House Cost Estimate (IHCE). Using as an example the Space Network Ground Segment Sustainment (SGSS) project, the presentation reviews the phases for developing a Cost estimate within the project to estimate government and contractor project costs to support a budget request.

Jacintho, David↗
NASA NTRS2011

A Comparison of the Capability of Sensitivity Level 3 and Sensitivity Level 4 Fluorescent Penetrants to Detect Fatigue Cracks in Various Metals

In April 2008, NASA-STD-5009 established a requirement that only sensitivity level 4 penetrants are acceptable for NASA Standard Level liquid penetrant inspections. Having NASA contractors change existing processes or perform demonstration tests to certify sensitivity level 3 penetrants posed a potentially huge cost to the Agency. This study was conducted to directly compare the probability of detection (POD) of sensitivity level 3 and level 4 penetrants using both Method A and Method D inspection processes. POD demonstration tests were performed on 6061-Al, Haynes 188 and Ti-6Al-4V crack panel sets. The study results strongly support the conclusion that sensitivity level 3 penetrants are acceptable for NASA Standard Level inspections.

Parker, Bradford H.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Experimental Plans for Subsystems of a Shock Wave Driven Gas Core Reactor

This Contractor Report proposes a number of plans for experiments on subsystems of a shock wave driven pulsed magnetic induction gas core reactor (PMI-GCR, or PMD-GCR pulsed magnet driven gas core reactor). Computer models of shock generation and collision in a large-scale PMI-GCR shock tube have been performed. Based upon the simulation results a number of issues arose that can only be addressed adequately by capturing experimental data on high pressure (approx.1 atmosphere or greater) partial plasma shock wave effects in large bore shock tubes ( 10 cm radius). There are three main subsystems that are of immediate interest (for appraisal of the concept viability). These are (1) the shock generation in a high pressure gas using either a plasma thruster or pulsed high magnetic field, (2) collision of MHD or gas dynamic shocks, their interaction time, and collision pile-up region thickness, and (3) magnetic flux compression power generation (not included here).

Kazeminezhad, F.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Independent Review of U.S. and Russian Probabilistic Risk Assessments for the International Space Station Mini Research Module #2 Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

The Mini-Research Module-2 (MRM-2), a Russian module on the International Space Station, does not meet its requirements for micrometeoroid and orbital debris probability of no penetration (PNP). To document this condition, the primary Russian Federal Space Agency ISS contractor, S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation-Energia (RSC-E), submitted an ISS non-compliance report (NCR) which was presented at the 5R Stage Operations Readiness Review (SORR) in October 2009. In the NCR, RSC-E argued for waiving the PNP requirement based on several factors, one of which was the risk of catastrophic failure was acceptably low at 1 in 11,100. However, NASA independently performed an assessment of the catastrophic risk resulting in a value of 1 in 1380 and believed that the risk at that level was unacceptable. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center was requested to evaluate the two competing catastrophic risk values and determine which was more accurate. This document contains the outcome of the assessment.

Squire, Michael D.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Aerospace Medical Support in Russia

This slide presentation reviews the role of the flight surgeon in support of aerospace medical support operations at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center (GCTC), also known as Star City, in Russia. The flight surgeon in this role is the medical advocate for non-russian astronauts, and also provides medical care for illness and injury for astronauts, family members, and guests as well as civil servants and contractors. The flight surgeon also provides support for hazardous training. There are various photos of the area, and the office, and some of the equipment that is used.

Castleberry, Tara↗