Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Andrew Frank Abercromby.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Introduction: Carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by astronauts inside space suits can accumulate to levels that affect health and performance. The human health and performance risks associated with different levels of CO2 exposure in the flight environment remain an area of debate. The purpose of this study is to characterize the limit of acceptable performance (cognitive and physical) decrements and symptom severity for mission operations when subjected to elevated inspired CO2 levels in the spacesuit during contingency EVA scenarios. Methods: This study will create a simulation of a 1-hour contingency EVA walk back to the habitat, incorporating a passive treadmill and a fully immersive virtual reality (VR) simulation of a lunar EVA. Subjects will be asked to walk on a treadmill while breathing partial pressures of CO2 of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30mmHg for 1 hour at a time. Cognitive performance will be quantified using validated cognitive tests and measures of functional task performance embedded within the VR environment. Test subject symptoms and self-assessment of performance will be evaluated via survey. Results: This study currently has approval from NASA’s Institutional Review Board and has completed the Test Readiness Review process. Next steps for this research study include test subject recruitment, data collection, and analysis. Data collection is planned for calendar year 2022 and 2023. Discussion: This study will provide valuable information regarding how various partial pressures of CO2 exposure impact acute health, as well as cognitive and physical performance during simulated lunar EVA. This information will be vital in the assessment of overall risk associated with current hardware (vehicle and suit) design for upcoming exploration missions. It will also be invaluable for informing future standards and requirements.
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 may be closed 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 very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology vs when a mission element is also a strong consideration in which technologies should be pursued. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) capability areas include: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. These capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of ECLSS gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the moon and eventually enable a human Mars mission. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the crew health and performance (CHP) research and technology development (R&D) necessary to enable these future missions. These organizations include flight programs as well as other organizations such as the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), Human Research Program, Space Technology Mission Directorate, and System Capability Leadership Teams, each of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for the management of risks and strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA for identifying and prioritizing R&D needs. Alignment and evolution of these strategic planning constructs is ongoing and will allow for alignment and traceability between M2M objectives and R&D investments at a detailed level. While this reorganization is ongoing, and even after it is established, there is a recognized need among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&D priorities in a unified and digestible way that synthesizes the considerations and perspectives of the CHP community across NASA. To achieve this, the HMTA facilitated a series of group discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, which culminated in a product identifying the eight highest priority mission-enabling CHP capabilities for human missions to Mars, referred to as the “Top Human System Capability Needs for Mars”. The list includes Earth-Independent Human Operations; Mars Duration Food System; Mars Duration Effects on Human Physiology; Risks Mitigations for Vehicle Atmospheres; Computational Injury & Anthropometric Models; Exploration Exercise Countermeasures; Individual Variability in Responses to Spaceflight; and Sensorimotor Countermeasures. Existing strategic planning and risk management tools and processes were considered, as well as practicalities of technical, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&D risk mitigations and technology solutions. The product is not owned by any one organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. It is anticipated that this list will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&D progress and the evolving M2M architecture.
The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) Systems Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is a community of practice (not a funded program) sponsored by Headquarters to develop, retain, and infuse the ECLSS and CHP capabilities necessary to enable the human exploration of the Moon and Mars through the integration and empowerment of experts across NASA, other government agencies, commercial industry, and academia. The goals of the SCLT are as follows: Use the Architecture Definition Document use cases and functions to identify gaps in NASA’s current technological capabilities to meet Agency objectives and develop strategies and roadmaps for closing such gaps Make technical/strategic recommendations on ECLSS and CHP technology development efforts and investments for PPBE, acquisition strategies, and leveraging NASA’s critical capabilities Establish key performance parameters and participate in key program and project reviews Maintain cognizance of relevant ECLSS and CHP national and international technology activities in government, industry, and academia, specifically, emerging innovations and technologies, trends, and opportunities Coordinate with commercial and international partners to identify areas of mutual interest and cooperation Support future mission and system architecture studies for human exploration This document is intended to be a comprehensive overview of the strategic development plans, or Roadmaps, of key technologies and capabilities identified by the SCLT. Each Roadmap is organized by Capability Gap as the gap name and number appears in STARPort, follows a fiscal year timeline, and displays any additional information on milestones, decision points, or important details on the right-hand side of the page. The Roadmaps should be used to facilitate discussion, decision making, and planning for programs and development projects, but are not expected to accurately depict the details and statuses of the projects and tasks appearing within the plans.