Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “GAP”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1976

Effect of a surface-to-gap temperature discontinuity on the heat transfer to reusable surface insulation tile gaps

An experimental investigation is presented that was performed to determine the effect of a surface-to-gap wall temperature discontinuity on the heat transfer within space shuttle, reusable surface insulation, tile gaps submerged in a thick turbulent boundary layer. Heat-transfer measurements were obtained on a flat-plate, single-gap model submerged in a turbulent tunnel wall boundary layer at a nominal free-stream Mach number of 10.3 and free-stream Reynolds numbers per meter of 1.5 million, 3.3 million and 7.8 million. Surface-to-gap wall temperature discontinuities of varying degree were created by heating the surface of the model upstream of the instrumented gap. The sweep angle of the gap was varied between 0 deg and 60 deg; gap width and depth were held constant. A surface-to-gap wall temperature discontinuity (surface temperature greater than gap wall temperature) results in increased heat transfer to the near-surface portion of the gap, as compared with the heat transfer under isothermal conditions, while decreasing the heat transfer to the deeper portions of the gap. The nondimensionalized heat transfer to the near-surface portion of the gap is shown to decrease with increasing Reynolds number; in the deeper portion of the gap, the heat transfer increases with Reynolds number.

Throckmorton, D. A.↗
NASA NTRS2025

Mind the Gap: Addressing Data Gaps and Assessing Noise Mismodeling in LISA

Due to the sheer complexity of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) space mission, data gaps arising from instrumental irregularities and/or scheduled maintenance are unavoidable. Focusing on merger-dominated massive black hole binary signals, we test the appropriateness of the Whittle-likelihood on gapped data in a variety of cases. From first principles, we derive the likelihood valid for gapped data in both the time and frequency domains. Cheap-to-evaluate proxies to p-p plots are derived based on a Fisher-based formalism, and verified through Bayesian techniques. Our tools allow to predict the altered variance in the parameter estimates that arises from noise mismodeling, as well as the information loss represented by the broadening of the posteriors. The result of noise mismodeling with gaps is sensitive to the characteristics of the noise model, with strong low-frequency (red) noise and strong high-frequency (blue) noise giving statistically significant fluctuations in recovered parameters. We demonstrate that the introduction of a tapering window reduces statistical inconsistency errors, at the cost of less precise parameter estimates. We also show that the assumption of independence between inter-gap segments appears to be a fair approximation even if the data set is inherently coherent. However, if one instead assumes fictitious correlations in the data stream, when the data segments are actually independent, then the resultant parameter recoveries could be inconsistent with the true parameters. The theoretical and numerical practices that are presented in this work could readily be incorporated into global-fit pipelines operating on gapped data.

LISA↗
NASA NTRS1981

A title-gap flow model for use in aerodynamic loads assessment of space shuttle thermal protection system: Parallel gap faces

The problem of predicting aerodynamic loads on the insulating tiles of the space shuttle thermal protection system (TPS) is discussed and seen to require a method for predicting pressure and mass flux in the gaps between tiles. A mathematical model of the tile-gap flow is developed, based upon a slow viscous (Stokes) flow analysis, and is verified against experimental data. The tile-gap pressure field is derived from a solution of the two-dimensional Laplace equation; the mass-flux vector is then calculated from the pressure gradient. The means for incorporating this model into a lumped-parameter network analogy for porous-media flow is given. The means for incorporating this model into a lumped-parameter network analogy for porous-media flow is given. The flow model shows tile-gap mass flux to be very sensitive to the gap width indicating a need for coupling the TPS flow and tile displacement calculation. Analytical and experimental work to improve TPS flow predictions and a possible shuttle TPS hardware modification are recommended.

Dwoyer, D. L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Results of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) Gap Review: Specific Action Team (SAT), Examination of Strategic Knowledge Gaps (SKGs) for Human Exploration of the Moon

The Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) was tasked by the Human Exploration Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) to establish a Specific Action Team (SAT) to review lunar Strategic Knowledge Gaps (SKGs) within the context of new lunar data and some specific human mission scenarios. Within this review, the SAT was to identify the SKGs that have been fully or partially retired, identify new SKGs resulting from new data and observations, and review quantitative descriptions of measurements that are required to fill knowledge gaps, the fidelity of the measurements needed, and if relevant, provide examples of existing instruments or potential missions capable of filling the SKGs.

Shearer, C. K.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Aerodynamic pressure and heating-rate distributions in tile gaps around chine regions with pressure gradients at a Mach number of 6.6

Surface and gap pressures and heating-rate distributions were obtained for simulated Thermal Protection System (TPS) tile arrays on the curved surface test apparatus of the Langley 8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel at Mach 6.6. The results indicated that the chine gap pressures varied inversely with gap width because larger gap widths allowed greater venting from the gap to the lower model side pressures. Lower gap pressures caused greater flow ingress from the surface and increased gap heating. Generally, gap heating was greater in the longitudinal gaps than in the circumferential gaps. Gap heating decreased with increasing gap depth. Circumferential gap heating at the mid-depth was generally less than about 10 percent of the external surface value. Gap heating was most severe at local T-gap junctions and tile-to-tile forward-facing steps that caused the greatest heating from flow impingement. The use of flow stoppers at discrete locations reduced heating from flow impingement. The use of flow stoppers at discrete locations reduced heating in most gaps but increased heating in others. Limited use of flow stoppers or gap filler in longitudinal gaps could reduce gap heating in open circumferential gaps in regions of high surface pressure gradients.

Hunt, L. Roane↗
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

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

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS2015

Structural Dynamics of Tropical Moist Forest Gaps

Gap phase dynamics are the dominant mode of forest turnover in tropical forests. However, gap processes are infrequently studied at the landscape scale. Airborne lidar data offer detailed information on three-dimensional forest structure, providing a means to characterize fine-scale (1 m) processes in tropical forests over large areas. Lidar-based estimates of forest structure (top down) differ from traditional field measurements (bottom up), and necessitate clear-cut definitions unencumbered by the wisdom of a field observer. We offer a new definition of a forest gap that is driven by forest dynamics and consistent with precise ranging measurements from airborne lidar data and tall, multi-layered tropical forest structure. We used 1000 ha of multi-temporal lidar data (2008, 2012) at two sites, the Tapajos National Forest and Ducke Reserve, to study gap dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon. Here, we identified dynamic gaps as contiguous areas of significant growth, that correspond to areas greater than 10 sq m, with height less than 10 m. Applying the dynamic definition at both sites, we found over twice as much area in gap at Tapajos National Forest (4.8%) as compared to Ducke Reserve (2.0%). On average, gaps were smaller at Ducke Reserve and closed slightly more rapidly, with estimated height gains of 1.2 m y-1 versus 1.1 m y-1 at Tapajos. At the Tapajos site, height growth in gap centers was greater than the average height gain in gaps (1.3 m y-1 versus 1.1 m y-1). Rates of height growth between lidar acquisitions reflect the interplay between gap edge mortality, horizontal ingrowth and gap size at the two sites. We estimated that approximately 10% of gap area closed via horizontal ingrowth at Ducke Reserve as opposed to 6% at Tapajos National Forest. Height loss (interpreted as repeat damage and/or mortality) and horizontal ingrowth accounted for similar proportions of gap area at Ducke Reserve (13% and 10%, respectively). At Tapajos, height loss had a much stronger signal (23% versus 6%) within gaps. Both sites demonstrate limited gap contagiousness defined by an increase in the likelihood of mortality in the immediate vicinity ((is) approximately 6 m) of existing gaps.

Structural Dynamics of Tropical Moist Forest Gaps↗
NASA NTRS2011

DCS: A Case Study of Identification of Knowledge and Disposition Gaps Using Principles of Continuous Risk Management

The Human Research Program (HRP) is formulated around the program architecture of Evidence-Risk-Gap-Task-Deliverable. Review of accumulated evidence forms the basis for identification of high priority risks to human health and performance in space exploration. Gaps in knowledge or disposition are identified for each risk, and a portfolio of research tasks is developed to fill them. Deliverables from the tasks inform the evidence base with the ultimate goal of defining the level of risk and reducing it to an acceptable level. A comprehensive framework for gap identification, focus, and metrics has been developed based on principles of continuous risk management and clinical care. Research towards knowledge gaps improves understanding of the likelihood, consequence or timeframe of the risk. Disposition gaps include development of standards or requirements for risk acceptance, development of countermeasures or technology to mitigate the risk, and yearly technology assessment related to watching developments related to the risk. Standard concepts from clinical care: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, rehabilitation, and surveillance, can be used to focus gaps dealing with risk mitigation. The research plan for the new HRP Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS) used the framework to identify one disposition gap related to establishment of a DCS standard for acceptable risk, two knowledge gaps related to DCS phenomenon and mission attributes, and three mitigation gaps focused on prediction, prevention, and new technology watch. These gaps were organized in this manner primarily based on target for closure and ease of organizing interim metrics so that gap status could be quantified. Additional considerations for the knowledge gaps were that one was highly design reference mission specific and the other gap was focused on DCS phenomenon.

Norcross, Jason↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS1975

Data correlation and analysis of arc tunnel and wind tunnel tests of RSI joints and gaps, phase 2. Volume 1: Technical report

Heat transfer data measured in gaps representative of those being employed for joints in the space shuttle reusable surface insulation (RSI) thermal protection systems (TPS) were assimilated, analyzed, and correlated. Several types of gap were investigated with emphasis on simple butt joints. Gap widths ranged from 0.0 to 0.76 cm and depths ranged from 1 to 6 cm. Laminar, transitional, and turbulent boundary layer flows over the gap opening were investigated. The angle between gap axis and external flow was varied between 0 and pi/2 radians. The contoured cross section gap performed significantly better than all other wide gaps and slightly better than all other narrow gap geometries. Three dimensional heating variations were observed within gaps in the absence of external flow pressure gradients. Interactions between heating within gaps and heating of adjacent top tile surfaces were observed. Gaps aligned with the flow were observed to promote boundary layer transition. Heat transfer correlation equations were obtained for many of the tests. The TPS thickness requirements with and without gaps were computed for a current shuttle entry trajectory. Experimental data employed in the study are summarized. A description of each test facility, run schedule and test conditions, model descriptive information, and heat flux data are included.

Cristensen, H. E.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Gaps List KSC Space Crop Production Project Scientist: Interview Evaluation

The Space Crop Production (SCP) at the NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is aimed at achieving nutrient supplementation and moving towards caloric independence from Earth by growing crops for astronauts. However, growing crops outside of Earth’s orbit creates many new challenges. The KCS SCP Project Scientists have developed a method of organizing these challenges, called the Gaps List. This Gaps List is a dynamic, taxonomically arranged list of missing knowledge and technologies needed to reach production goals. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the effectiveness and current research coverage of the Gaps List by using it to document the KSC SCP Program research. In evaluating the research, it was determined that several needs within the SCP Program that are not being met, and many deficiencies within the Gaps List were encountered. Gaps involving hardware were largely unrecognized by the KSC researchers and the funding sources that would typically support them. The KSC SCP Project will require more engineering and physical sciences support to close those gaps. The Gaps List was found to be out of date and in need of rearrangement. A recommendation from this review was that the Gaps List be reassessed at regular intervals to ensure all gaps and relevant research topics are included. In order to better understand the gaps within the list, any assessment needs to include a measure of priority, dependency and breadth. These measures may be included within or along side the current taxonomical arrangement of the Gaps List.

Space Crop Production↗
NASA NTRS2021

Gaps List KSC Space Crop Production Project Scientist: Interview Evaluation

The Space Crop Production (SCP) Program at the NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is aimed at achieving nutrient supplementation and moving towards caloric independence from Earth by growing crops for astronauts. However, growing crops outside of Earth’s orbit creates many new challenges. The KCS SCP Project Scientists have developed a method of organizing these challenges, called the Gaps List. This Gaps List is a dynamic, taxonomically arranged list of missing knowledge and technologies needed to reach production goals. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the effectiveness and current research coverage of the Gaps List by using it to document KSC SCP Program research. It was determined that there are several needs within the SCP Program that are not being met, as well as, many deficiencies within the Gaps List. Gaps involving hardware were largely unrecognized by both the KSC researchers and the funding sources that would typically support them. The KSC SCP Project will require more engineering and physical sciences support to fill those gaps. The Gaps List was found to be out of date and in need of rearrangement. A recommendation from this review was that the Gaps List be reassessed at regular intervals to ensure all gaps, and relevant research topics are included. To better understand the gaps within the list, any assessment needs to include a measure of priority, dependency, and breadth. These measures may be included within or alongside the current taxonomical arrangement of the Gaps List.

Chloe Sophia Alexander↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gaps List KSC Space Crop Production Project Scientist: Interview Evaluation

The Space Crop Production (SCP) Program at the NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is aimed at achieving nutrient supplementation and moving towards caloric independence from Earth by growing crops for astronauts. However, growing crops outside of Earth’s orbit creates many new challenges. The KCS SCP Project Scientists have developed a method of organizing these challenges, called the Gaps List. This Gaps List is a dynamic, taxonomically arranged list of missing knowledge and technologies needed to reach production goals. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the effectiveness and current research coverage of the Gaps List by using it to document KSC SCP Program research. It was determined that there are several needs within the SCP Program that are not being met, as well as, many deficiencies within the Gaps List. Gaps involving hardware were largely unrecognized by both the KSC researchers and the funding sources that would typically support them. The KSC SCP Project will require more engineering and physical sciences support to fill those gaps. The Gaps List was found to be out of date and in need of rearrangement. A recommendation from this review was that the Gaps List be reassessed at regular intervals to ensure all gaps, and relevant research topics are included. To better understand the gaps within the list, any assessment needs to include a measure of priority, dependency, and breadth. These measures may be included within or alongside the current taxonomical arrangement of the Gaps List.

Chloe S. Alexander↗
NASA NTRS2023

Identifying and Closing Medical Capability Gaps for Human Spaceflight Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit

BACKGROUND: Features of human space missions beyond low Earth orbit such as increasing distance from Earth, lack of real-time communication, and limited or no evacuation or resupply capability are expected to drive an increase in medical risk and require crews to operate in an increasingly autonomous fashion. A diverse set of stakeholders at NASA are seeking to fund the development of concepts of operations, medical requirements, and medical capabilities for such missions. However, a systematic approach to identification of current medical capability gaps and a strategic framework to gap closure is needed. OVERVIEW: The Exploration Medical Integrated Product Team (XMIPT) has developed a list of nine high-level medical capability gaps and associated activities required for gap closure. The list was derived based on inputs from subject matter experts at NASA including flight surgeons, other clinical providers, as well as operational and research communities regarding medical capabilities required to support human missions to the Moon and the Mars surface. Responses were reviewed and distilled to identify common themes across capabilities. To ensure alignment with established human system risks, the gap list was further refined based on inputs from NASA’s Human System Risk Board. Relevant medical gap closure activities outside of those funded by the XMIPT were identified through solicitation of inputs from Elements of NASA’s Human Research Program (particularly Exploration Medical Capability), the broader medical operations community, and other stakeholders. This medical capability gap list is reviewed and updated regularly as new information becomes available or new stakeholders are identified. DISCUSSION: The medical capability gap list has matured to include a large group of NASA stakeholders and development activities. This has enabled articulation of priorities to funding entities and programmatic stakeholders, while serving as an accessible resource summarizing gap closure activities, relevant programmatic infusion points, and opportunities for collaboration between stakeholders. This presentation will provide an overview of the nine NASA medical capability gaps and their associated gap closure activities.

Moriah Thompson↗