Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Crew Performance”

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 1,567 records · Page 87

Human visual performance model for crewstation design

An account is given of a Visibility Modeling Tool (VMT) which furnishes a crew-station designer with the means to assess configurational tradeoffs, with a view to the impact of various options on the unambiguous access of information to the pilot. The interactive interface of the VMT allows the manipulation of cockpit geometry, ambient lighting, pilot ergonomics, and the displayed symbology. Performance data can be displayed in the form of 3D contours into the crewstation graphic model, thereby yielding an indication of the operator's visual capabilities.

Larimer, James↗

Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle Similitude to the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

The Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle is the first in a series of flight test vehicles that will take the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle design from development to operational capability. The test flight is scheduled for April 2009, relatively early in the Ares I design process so that data obtained from the flight can impact the design of Ares I before its Critical Design Review. Because of the short time frame (relative to new launch vehicle development) before the Ares I-X flight, decisions about the flight test vehicle design had to be made in order to complete analysis and testing in time to manufacture the Ares I-X vehicle hardware elements. This paper describes the similarities and differences between the Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle and the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. Areas of comparison include the outer mold line geometry, aerosciences, trajectory, structural modes, flight control architecture, separation sequence, and relevant element differences. Most of the outer mold line differences present between Ares I and Ares I-X are minor and will not have a significant effect on overall vehicle performance. The most significant impacts are related to the geometric differences in Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle at the forward end of the stack. These physical differences will cause differences in the flow physics in these areas. Even with these differences, the Ares I-X flight test is poised to meet all five primary objectives and six secondary objectives. Knowledge of what the Ares I-X flight test will provide in similitude to Ares I as well as what the test will not provide is important in the continued execution of the Ares I-X mission leading to its flight and the continued design and development of Ares I.

Huebner, Lawrence D.↗

Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle Similitude to the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

The Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle is the first in a series of flight test vehicles that will take the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle design from development to operational capability. Ares I-X is scheduled for a 2009 flight date, early enough in the Ares I design and development process so that data obtained from the flight can impact the design of Ares I before its Critical Design Review. Decisions on Ares I-X scope, flight test objectives, and FTV fidelity were made prior to the Ares I systems requirements being baselined. This was necessary in order to achieve a development flight test to impact the Ares I design. Differences between the Ares I-X and the Ares I configurations are artifacts of formulating this experimental project at an early stage and the natural maturation of the Ares I design process. This paper describes the similarities and differences between the Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle and the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. Areas of comparison include the outer mold line geometry, aerosciences, trajectory, structural modes, flight control architecture, separation sequence, and relevant element differences. Most of the outer mold line differences present between Ares I and Ares I-X are minor and will not have a significant effect on overall vehicle performance. The most significant impacts are related to the geometric differences in Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle at the forward end of the stack. These physical differences will cause differences in the flow physics in these areas. Even with these differences, the Ares I-X flight test is poised to meet all five primary objectives and six secondary objectives. Knowledge of what the Ares I-X flight test will provide in similitude to Ares I - as well as what the test will not provide - is important in the continued execution of the Ares I-X mission leading to its flight and the continued design and development of Ares I.

Huebner, Lawrence D.↗

Predicting Cognitive States Using Machine Learning Fusion Paradigms to Reduce Model Uncertainty

The development of a synergetic system between humans and technology is a challenge that the scientific community has been facing for many years. Our aeronautic research aims to enhance this synergy between humans and machines through predictive human performance modeling for systems to mitigate high-risk situations. By being able to predict and anticipate human states, the crew monitoring system should be able to adjust and support the pilot for aviation safety. Our work focusing on attention-related human performance-limiting states (AHPLS) that impact a pilot’s performance and introduce high-risk catastrophic situations [1]. For example, AHPLS has been cited as a causal factor in more than 50% of all loss control in flight and thus contributes significantly toward commercial aviation fatalities [1, 2]. Cognitive state and its physiological fingerprint can be valuable information for this detecting AHPLS, but human cognitive state detection is still a major limitation for these crew monitoring systems.

machine learning↗

Phase VI Glove Durability Testing

The current state-of-the-art space suit gloves, the Phase VI gloves, have an operational life of 25 -- 8 hour Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) in a dust free, manufactured microgravity EVA environment. Future planetary outpost missions create the need for space suit gloves which can endure up to 90 -- 8 hour traditional EVAs or 576 -- 45 minute suit port-based EVAs in a dirty, uncontrolled planetary environment. Prior to developing improved space suit gloves for use in planetary environments, it is necessary to understand how the current state-of-the-art performs in these environments. The Phase VI glove operational life has traditionally been certified through cycle testing consisting of International Space Station (ISS)-based EVA tasks in a clean environment, and glove durability while performing planetary EVA tasks in a dirty environment has not previously been characterized. Testing was performed in the spring of 2010 by the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) to characterize the durability of the Phase VI Glove and identify areas of the glove design which need improvement to meet the requirements of future NASA missions. Lunar simulant was used in this test to help replicate the dirty lunar environment, and generic planetary surface EVA tasks were performed during testing. A total of 50 manned, pressurized test sessions were completed in the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) using one pair of Phase VI gloves as the test article. The 50 test sessions were designed to mimic the total amount of pressurized cycling the gloves would experience over a 6 month planetary outpost mission. The gloves were inspected periodically throughout testing, to assess their condition at various stages in the test and to monitor the gloves for failures. Additionally, motion capture and force data were collected during 18 of the 50 test sessions to assess the accuracy of the cycle model predictions used in testing and to feed into the development of improved cycle model tables. This paper provides a detailed description of the test hardware and methodology, shares the results of the testing, and provides recommendations for future work.

Mitchell, Kathryn↗

Space Shuttle MMOD Threat Mitigation Techniques

Prior to each shuttle mission, threat assessments are performed to determine the risk of critical penetration, payload bay door radiator tube leak and crew module window replacement from Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD). Mission parameters, such as vehicle attitude, exposure time and altitude are used as inputs for the analysis. Ballistic limit equations, based on hypervelocity impact testing of shuttle materials are used to estimate the critical particle diameters of the outer surfaces of the vehicle. The assessments are performed using the BUMPER computer code at the NASA/JSC Hypervelocity Impact Technology Facility (HITF). The most critical involves the calculation of Loss of Crew and Vehicle (LOCV) risk. In recent years, NASA has implemented several techniques to reduce the risk to the Shuttle from MMOD impacts. This paper will describe on-orbit inspection of the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) regions and the methods used discern hypervelocity impact damage. Impact damage contingency plans and on-orbit repair techniques will also be discussed. The wing leading edge impact detection system (WLEIDS) and it's role in the reduction of on-orbit risk reduction will be presented. Finally, an analysis of the effectivity of alternative shuttle flight attitudes on MMOD risk will be demonstrated.

Hyde, Justin L.↗

Space Shuttle MMOD Threat Mitigation Techniques

Prior to each shuttle mission, threat assessments are performed to determine the risk of critical penetration, payload bay door radiator tube leak and crew module window replacement from Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD). Mission parameters, such as vehicle attitude, exposure time and altitude are used as inputs for the analysis. Ballistic limit equations, based on hypervelocity impact testing of shuttle materials are used to estimate the critical particle diameters of the outer surfaces of the vehicle. The assessments are performed using the BUMPER computer code at the NASA/JSC Hypervelocity Impact Technology Facility (HITF). The most critical involves the calculation of Loss of Crew and Vehicle (LOCV) risk. An overview of significant MMOD impacts on the Payload Bay Door radiators, wing leading edge reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panels and crew module windows will be presented, along with a discussion of the techniques NASA has implemented to reduce the risk from MMOD impacts. This paper will describe on-orbit inspection of the RCC regions and the methods used discern hypervelocity impact damage. Impact damage contingency plans and on-orbit repair techniques will also be discussed. The wing leading edge impact detection system (WLEIDS) and it s role in the reduction of on-orbit risk reduction will be presented. Finally, an analysis of alternative shuttle flight attitudes on MMOD risk will be demonstrated.

Hyde, J. L.↗

Marshall Space Flight Center solid waste characterization and recycling improvement study: General office and laboratory waste, scrap metal, office and flight surplus

The primary objectives of the study were to characterize the solid waste stream for MSFC facilities in Huntsville, Alabama, and to evaluate their present recycling program. The purpose of the study was to determine if improvements could be made in terms of increasing quantities of the present commodities collected, adding more recyclables to the program, and streamlining or improving operational efficiency. In conducting the study, various elements were implemented. These included sampling and sorting representative samples of the waste stream; visually inspecting each refuse bin, recycle bin, and roll-off; interviewing employees and recycling coordinators of other companies; touring local material recycling facilities; contacting experts in the field; and performing a literature search.

Eley, Michael H.↗

Descent Assisted Split Habitat Lunar Lander Concept

The Descent Assisted Split Habitat (DASH) lunar lander concept utilizes a disposable braking stage for descent and a minimally sized pressurized volume for crew transport to and from the lunar surface. The lander can also be configured to perform autonomous cargo missions. Although a braking-stage approach represents a significantly different operational concept compared with a traditional two-stage lander, the DASH lander offers many important benefits. These benefits include improved crew egress/ingress and large-cargo unloading; excellent surface visibility during landing; elimination of the need for deep-throttling descent engines; potentially reduced plume-surface interactions and lower vertical touchdown velocity; and reduced lander gross mass through efficient mass staging and volume segmentation. This paper documents the conceptual study on various aspects of the design, including development of sortie and outpost lander configurations and a mission concept of operations; the initial descent trajectory design; the initial spacecraft sizing estimates and subsystem design; and the identification of technology needs

Mazanek, Daniel D.↗

Lunar lander configuration study and parametric performance analysis

Future Lunar exploration plans will call for delivery of significant mounts or cargo to provide for crew habitation, surface tansportation, and scientific exploration activities. Minimization of costly surface based infrastructure is in large part directly related to the design of the cargo delivery/landing craft. This study focused on evaluating Lunar lander concepts from a logistics oriented perspective, and outlines the approach used in the development of a preferred configuration, sets forth the benefits derived from its utilization and describes the missions and system considered. Results indicate that only direct-to-surface downloading of payloads provides for unassisted cargo removal operations imperative to efficient and low risk site buildup, including the emplacement of Space Station derivative surface habitat modules, immediate cargo jettison for both descent abort and emergency surface ascent essential to piloted missions carrying cargo, and short habitat egress/ingress paths necessary to productive surface work tours for crew members carrying hand held experiments, tools and other bulky articles. Accommodating cargo in a position underneath the vehicles structural frame, landing craft described herein eliminate altogether the necessity for dedicated surface based off-loading vehicles, the operations and maintenance associated with their operation, and the precipitous ladder climbs to and from the surface that are inherent to traditional designs. Parametric evaluations illustrate performance and mass variation with respect to mission requirements.

Donahue, Benjamin B.↗

Onboard Determination of Vehicle Glide Capability for Shuttle Abort Flight Managment (SAFM)

When one or more main engines fail during ascent, the flight crew of the Space Shuttle must make several critical decisions and accurately perform a series of abort procedures. One of the most important decisions for many aborts is the selection ofa landing site. Several factors influence the ability to reach a landing site, including the spacecraft point of atmospheric entry, the energy state at atmospheric entry, the vehicle glide capability from that energy state, and whether one or more suitable landing sites are within the glide capability. Energy assessment is further complicated by the fact that phugoid oscillations in total energy influence glide capability. Once the glide capability is known, the crew must select the "best" site option based upon glide capability and landing site conditions and facilities. Since most of these factors cannot currently be assessed by the crew in flight, extensive planning is required prior to each mission to script a variety of procedures based upon spacecraft velocity at the point of engine failure (or failures). The results of this preflight planning are expressed in tables and diagrams on mission-specific cockpit checklists. Crew checklist procedures involve leafing through several pages of instructions and navigating a decision tree for site selection and flight procedures - all during a time critical abort situation. With the advent of the Cockpit Avionics Upgrade (CAU), the Shuttle will have increased on-board computational power to help alleviate crew workload during aborts and provide valuable situational awareness during nominal operations. One application baselined for the CAU computers is Shuttle Abort Flight Management (SAFM), whose requirements have been designed and prototyped. The SAFM application includes powered and glided flight algorithms. This paper describes the glided flight algorithm which is dispatched by SAFM to determine the vehicle glide capability and make recommendations to the crew for site selection as well as to monitor glide capability while in route to the selected site. Background is provided on Shuttle entry guidance as well as the various types of Shuttle aborts. SAFM entry requirements and cockpit disp lays are discussed briefly to provide background for Glided Flight algorithm design considerations. The central principal of the Glided Flight algorithm is the use of energy-over-weight (EOW) curves to determine range and crossrange boundaries. The major challenges of this technique are exo-atmospheric flight, and phugoid oscillations in energy. During exo-atmospheric flight, energy is constant, so vehicle EOW is not sufficient to determine glide capability. The paper describes how the exo-atmospheric problem is solved by propagating the vehicle state to an "atmospheric pullout" state defined by Shuttle guidance parameters.

Straube, Timothy↗

Overview of Integrated Random Vibration Testing of the NASA Orion Crew Survival Suit

The launch ascent and abort random vibration environments from NASA’s Orion spacecraft drove the need to test the NASA Orion Crew Survival Suit as an integrated system with exposure to the design levels. In order to properly characterize component responses, a series of integrated tests were designed to incorporate the interaction between a crew member, suit, seat, and the attenuation system. The first Development Test (2017) included human subjects, and was performed with early development seat and suit components, and low level inputs. It provided a baseline for frequency response and behavior of the integrated system. The next two tests, Development Test (2019) and Qualification Test (2020), used manikin surrogates to represent the crew member and increasing levels of component hardware fidelity in order to test to higher input levels. Testing was performed at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Vibration Labs and provided the input levels required to represent the ascent and abort vehicle profiles as well as recorded component response behavior from accelerometer instrumentation and high speed cameras. Inspection of the suit and related components showed that for all seat orientations, and input environments, no damage occurred. Additional pre and post-test checks confirmed the functionality of all suited hardware. Response data of the suited components generally showed heavy attenuation across most of the tested frequency range. Transmissibility plots showed some amplification of components at lower frequency ranges. Overall this series of integrated tests showed that 1) the use of surrogate manikins in the tests were adequate for representing crew in a vibration environment, 2) full vibration levels for ascent and abort were heavily attenuated in the suit components and were non-damaging, and 3) the suit and related components are qualified for the Orion random vibration environments.

Jeffrey D Suhey↗

Overview of Integrated Random Vibration Testing of the NASA Orion Crew Survival Suit

The launch ascent and abort random vibration environments from NASA’s Orion spacecraft drove the need to test the NASA Orion Crew Survival Suit as an integrated system with exposure to the design levels. In order to properly characterize component responses, a series of integrated tests were designed to incorporate the interaction between a crew member, suit, seat, and the attenuation system. The first Development Test (2017) included human subjects, and was performed with early development seat and suit components, and low level inputs. It provided a baseline for frequency response and behavior of the integrated system. The next two tests, Development Test (2019) and Qualification Test (2020), used manikin surrogates to represent the crew member and increasing levels of component hardware fidelity in order to test to higher input levels. Testing was performed at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Vibration Labs and provided the input levels required to represent the ascent and abort vehicle profiles as well as recorded component response behavior from accelerometer instrumentation and high speed cameras. Inspection of the suit and related components showed that for all seat orientations, and input environments, no damage occurred. Additional pre and post-test checks confirmed the functionality of all suited hardware. Response data of the suited components generally showed heavy attenuation across most of the tested frequency range. Transmissibility plots showed some amplification of components at lower frequency ranges. Overall this series of integrated tests showed that 1) the use of surrogate manikins in the tests were adequate for representing crew in a vibration environment, 2) full vibration levels for ascent and abort were heavily attenuated in the suit components and were non-damaging, and 3) the suit and related components are qualified for the Orion random vibration environments.

Jeffrey Suhey↗

ISS Payload Operations Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impacts and Solutions

Introduction: The onset and the protracted duration of the COVID-19 pandemic brought a dramatic and rapid transformation to almost every aspect of humanity in 2020. The world’s space agencies and their missions were not immune to the unpredictable and wide-sweeping changes. One discipline principally affected was mission operations and the various groups supporting that critical function. Mission support teams, especially for complex and crewed missions like the International Space Station (ISS) were forced to rapidly rethink how and where control center staff performed their vital work. Operations training – an essential element to mission ops, had unique hurdles to overcome. Operations training is responsible for preparing astronaut crews for their scientific missions, providing recurring proficiency and currency material to flight controllers, as well as ensuring new team members are ready to join their colleagues on console. Every element of training was impacted by COVID restrictions. From orientation and introductory classes for new controllers, training for scientists and payload developers, to simulations and advanced lessons, critical On the Job Training (OJT) and final evaluations; all aspects faced new challenges. Operations trainers at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, were forced to rethink, retool, and become more efficient with trainees and training resources in order to continue supporting payload operations on the ISS. Impacts and Barriers to Operations Training: The pandemic started in the United States in early March 2020. Immediately, NASA mandated that the support for ISS real-time operations was critical. As a result, physical access to the ISS Payload Operations Center was restricted to only those people supporting console operations. Thus, use of on-site NASA facilities and any trainer to trainee face-to-face interaction was not authorized. Trainers and trainees had to quickly shift to 100% remote learning. In the short term, this was not a problem since NASA had already prepared Information Technology (IT) resources that facilitated remote access to mission resources like classes, documents and teleconferences. However, instructors quickly discovered the classes that they were accustomed to delivering in a large classroom environment did not translate well to remote teaching. The lack of non-verbal communication with the class became a major barrier to instruction. Another significant hurdle to operations training was the mandate that all simulations could only be held remotely. The logistics of planning and executing even small simulations proved to be challenging, almost impossible, due to IT technology and public internet limitations. With simulations essentially stopped, as well as the restrictions on most OJT training, trainees were essentially stopped in their advancement towards certification. An additional barrier that had to be overcome was the formal documentation of the curriculum objectives. Even though NASA had been deliberately transitioning to electronic documents for years, some organizations were still relying on “pen and ink” documents to formalize training completion. The logistics of implementing secure and controlled e-signature documents in a standardized, NASA approved format had to be addressed. Lesson Learned and Efficiencies: Once the various limitations were identified, ISS trainers at MSFC discussed, proposed, and prioritized new options and techniques. Transitioning to all electronic learning materials and certifications was a relevantly easy fix. Teaching courses to large and diverse groups took additional shifts in the NASA training paradigm. Likewise, methods and procedures for preparing astronauts for their missions were forced to be revised. Simulation supervisors and their teams were also forced to find more efficient techniques to provide realistic training experience. Communication and approvals from management was essential. In every case, the ISS payload operations instructors found novel and efficient solutions to all functions listed above. This paper will discuss the factors and solutions payloads operations trainers found to keep scientific research on the ISS flying forward to mission success.

ISS Operations↗

Combined 1-MW Solar Electric and Chemical Propulsion for Crewed Mars Missions

The current Moon to Mars Architecture defines functional capabilities that are essential to achieving NASA’s specific exploration goals and objectives. The transportation system goals and objectives or functional capabilities do not prescribe a solution, leaving an open tradespace to be explored. NASA is working to identify power and propulsion technologies that enable feasible transportation options for crewed missions to Mars. During NASA’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21), nuclear enabled spacecraft concepts were analyzed for moderate duration 850-day Earth-Mars roundtrip mission2. During SAC22, the transportation tradespace was expanded to understand the feasibility of using different propulsion systems for crewed Mars missions using a moderate duration reference mission as a comparison point. This paper explores the mission analysis performed for a conceptual MW-class hybrid Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP)-chemical propulsion system (SEP-Chem) spacecraft optimized for an 850-day crewed Mars mission for the 2039 opportunity.

SEP-Chem↗

Evaluation of Dual Pressurized Rover Operations During Simulated Planetary Surface Exploration

Introduction: A pair of small pressurized rovers (Space Exploration Vehicles, or SEVs) is at the center of the Global Point-of-Departure architecture for future human planetary exploration. Simultaneous operation of multiple crewed surface assets should maximize productive crew time, minimize overhead, and preserve contingency return paths. Methods: A 14-day mission simulation was conducted in the Arizona desert as part of NASA?s 2010 Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS). The simulation involved two SEV concept vehicles performing geological exploration under varied operational modes affecting both the extent to which the SEVs must maintain real-time communications with mission control ("Continuous" vs. "Twice-a-Day") and their proximity to each other ("Lead-and-Follow" vs. "Divide-and-Conquer"). As part of a minimalist lunar architecture, no communications relay satellites were assumed. Two-person crews consisting of an astronaut and a field geologist operated each SEV, day and night, throughout the entire 14-day mission, only leaving via the suit ports to perform simulated extravehicular activities. Standard metrics enabled quantification of the habitability and usability of all aspects of the SEV concept vehicles throughout the mission, as well as comparison of the extent to which the operating modes affected crew productivity and performance. Practically significant differences in the relevant metrics were prospectively defined for the testing of all hypotheses. Results and Discussion: Data showed a significant 14% increase in available science time (AST) during Lead-and-Follow mode compared with Divide-and-Conquer, primarily because of the minimal overhead required to maintain communications during Lead-and-Follow. In Lead-and-Follow mode, there was a non-significant 2% increase in AST during Twice-a-Day vs. Continuous communications. Situational awareness of the other vehicle?s location, activities, and contingency return constraints were enhanced during Lead-and-Follow and Twice-a-Day communications modes due to line-of-sight and direct SEV-to-SEV communication. Preliminary analysis of Scientific Data Quality and Observation Quality metrics showed no significant differences between modes.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗

Moon to Mars (M2M): Exploration Atmosphere

As humans leave the bounds of Earth to explore the lunar surface and beyond, crew will don extravehicular activity (EVA) suits to learn more about these extraterrestrial environments, establish sustained presence, and perform needed upgrades and maintenance to their space vehicle and habitation systems. Spacefaring vehicle and habitation design will need to support these EVA excursions while ensuring crew health and safety. A crucial technological design advancement towards this goal is the use of a lower pressure exploration atmosphere (EA) that enables high efficiency EVA, rather than the sea level atmosphere of 14.7 psia, 21% oxygen (O 2 ) found on the International Space Station, Shuttle, and most other Russian and Chinese space vehicles and stations. Early space vehicles (Mercury through Apollo Programs) used a 5 psia, 100% O 2 environment, which eliminated the need for pre-EVA denitrogenation protocols, simplified the life support system to a single gas, and saved structural mass. For longer duration missions (Skylab), a diluent gas was added, changing the atmosphere to 5 psia, 70-74% O 2 to prevent atelectasis while remaining normoxic. As in-flight science became a top priority, Shuttle and ISS atmospheres were chosen to operate at sea level allowing for simpler ground-based study control conditions. Consequently this led to long pre-EVA denitrogenation protocols involving up to 4 hours of O 2 prebreathe because the EVA suit still operated at a low pressure of 4.3 psid. To increase operational efficiency, the Shuttle was retroactively certified to operate using 10.2 psia, 26.5% O 2 , reducing O 2 prebreathe time to 40-75 min. Current plans for M2M habitats on the Lunar surface require EVA, thus EA recommendation became 8 psia and 32% O 2 but was revised to 8.2 psia and 34% O 2 to decrease hypoxia exposure. Unfortunately, the benefits of EA in support of safe and efficient EVAs comes with the challenge of fire management in a higher-than-normal O 2 % environment. Although known for decades, the recommended forward work to address fire management has only recently begun. Current flammability tests include examining material propagation and ignition sources as well as fire mitigation processes to better understand these properties for proposed new EA environments. Fire safety, DCS risk, and mission design all contribute to the multifaceted parameters of EA. Thus while it is clear that EA is required to achieve the goals of future exploratory space missions, final specifications are still being evaluated for optimizing crew health and safety.

space atmosphere↗