SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The contents include:1) NASA Mission and Organization; 2) Major Mission Failures and Causes; 3) Cultural Changes Resulting from Failures; 3) Safety at NASA Today; 4) Best Safety Practices; 5) Safety Challenges; and 6) Future Commitment.
I. During each nine-hour shift (or upon request), the Orbital Safety Analyst (OSA) at JSpOC updates the entire tracked catalog with the latest tracking data from the SSN and screens this catalog against NASA s assets. a) For ISS operations, a 72-hour advance screening is performed. b) For Shuttle orbit operations, a 36-hour advance screening is performed. c) If a vehicle is performing a maneuver during the screening period, OSA uses post-reboost-trajectory data supplied by Mission Control Center-Houston (MCC-H) for screening. II. An automated process is used to detect any conjunctions within 10 x 40 x 40 km box (centered on the vehicle) using Special Perturbation (SP) processing: a) Box dimensions are Radial x Downtrack x Crosstrack. b) Any object found within this box has the tracking tasking level increased to improve (hopefully) its uncertainty in its current and predicted orbital trajectory. c) OSA informs NASA if any object is found inside a 2 x 25 x 25 km box then creates and sends an Orbital Conjunction Message (OCM) to NASA which contains detailed information about the conjunction. d) For Shuttle, the box size used for screening and reporting is altered for special operations (day of rendezvous, launch screening, etc.).
NASA is concerned about acute effect of sound on crew performance on International Space Station (ISS), and is developing strategies to assess and reduce acute, chronic, and delayed effects of sound. High noise levels can cause headaches, irritation, fatigue, impaired sleep, headache, and tinnitus and have resulted in an inability to hear alarms. Speech intelligibility may be more impaired for crew understanding non-native language in a noisy environment. No hearing loss occurred, but significant effects on crew performance and communication occurred. Permanent Threshold Shifts (PTS) have not been observed in the US shuttle program. Russian specification for noise in spacecraft is 60 dBA (awake) and 50 dBA (asleep) while the U.S. noise specification on ISS is NC 50 (awake) and NC 40 (asleep) with a 85 dBA hazard limit. Background noise levels of ISS modules have measured 56-69 dBA. Treadmill exercise operations measure 77 dBA. Alarms are required to be 20 dBA above ambient. Hearing protection is recommended when noise exceeds 60 dB 24 hour Leq. Countermeasures include hearing protection and design/ engineering controls. Advanced composite materials with excellent low frequency attenuation properties could be applied as a barrier protection around noisy equipment, or used on personal protective equipment worn by the crew. Hearing protection countermeasures include foam ear inserts, passive muff headsets, and active noise reduction headsets. Oto-acoustic emissions (OAE) could be used to monitor effectiveness of hearing protection countermeasures and tailor hearing protection countermeasures to individual crewmembers. Micro-gravity, vibration, toxic fumes, air quality/composition, stress, temperature, physical exertion or some combination of the above factors may have interacted with moderate long-term noise exposure to cause significant hearing loss. Longitudinal studies will need to address what co-morbidity factors, such as radiation, toxicology, microgravity effects (fluid shift), aging, are involved with hearing loss.
No abstract available
No abstract available
No abstract available
Joint Confidence Level (JCL) analysis focuses on the integration of traditionally stove-piped programmatic components (schedule, cost and risk) to establish projected resource and schedule requirements at various confidence levels and to identify programmatic cost and schedule risk drivers. SLS Program consists of multiple Prime Contractors managed by independent SLS Elements which are integrated using SE&I and Program Management. SLS further integrates with GSDO and MPCV through ESD integrated working groups.
The field of Avionics is advancing far more rapidly in terrestrial applications than in space flight applications. Spaceflight Avionics are not keeping pace with expectations set by terrestrial experience, nor are they keeping pace with the need for increasingly complex automation and crew interfaces as we move beyond Low Earth Orbit. NASA must take advantage of the strides being made by both space-related and terrestrial industries to drive our development and sustaining costs down. This paper describes ongoing efforts by the Avionics Architectures for Exploration (AAE) project chartered by NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Program to evaluate new avionic architectures and technologies, provide objective comparisons of them, and mature selected technologies for flight and for use by other AES projects. Results from the AAE project's FY13 efforts are discussed, along with the status of FY14 efforts and future plans.
No abstract available
The field of Avionics is advancing far more rapidly in terrestrial applications than in spaceflight applications. Spaceflight Avionics are not keeping pace with expectations set by terrestrial experience, nor are they keeping pace with the need for increasingly complex automation and crew interfaces as we move beyond Low Earth Orbit. NASA must take advantage of the strides being made by both space-related and terrestrial industries to drive our development and sustaining costs down. This paper describes ongoing efforts by the Avionics Architectures for Exploration (AAE) project chartered by NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Program to evaluate new avionic architectures and technologies, provide objective comparisons of them, and mature selected technologies for flight and for use by other AES projects. The AAE project team includes members from most NASA centers, and from industry. It is our intent to develop a common core avionic system that has standard capabilities and interfaces, and contains the basic elements and functionality needed for any spacecraft. This common core will be scalable and tailored to specific missions. It will incorporate hardware and software from multiple vendors, and be upgradeable in order to infuse incremental capabilities and new technologies. It will maximize the use of reconfigurable open source software (e.g., Goddard Space Flight Center's (GSFC's) Core Flight Software (CFS)). Our long-term focus is on improving functionality, reliability, and autonomy, while reducing size, weight, and power. Where possible, we will leverage terrestrial commercial capabilities to drive down development and sustaining costs. We will select promising technologies for evaluation, compare them in an objective manner, and mature them to be available for future programs. The remainder of this paper describes our approach, technical areas of emphasis, integrated test experience and results as of mid-2014, and future plans. As a part of the AES Program, we are encouraged to set aggressive goals and fall short if necessary, rather than to set our sights too low. We are also asked to emphasize providing our personnel with hands-on experience in development, integration, and testing. That we have embraced both of these philosophies will be evident in the descriptions below.