Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Bekdash, Omar S.

Publications and source records attributed to Bekdash, Omar S..

9 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

Evidence-based Approach to Establish Space Suit Carbon Dioxide Limits

A literature survey was conducted to assess if published data (evidence) could help inform a space suit carbon dioxide (CO2) limit. The search identified more than 120 documents about human interaction with elevated CO2. Until now, the guiding philosophy has been to drive space suit CO2 as low as reasonably achievable. NASA’s EVA Office requested an evidencebased approach to support a new generation of exploration-class extravehicular activity (EVA) space suits. Specific literature data about CO2 are not available for EVA in microgravity because EVA is an operational activity and not a research platform. However, enough data from groundbased research are available to facilitate a consensus of expert opinion on space suit CO2 limits. The compilation of data in this report can answer many but not all concerns about the consequences of hypercapnic exercise in a space suit. Inspired partial pressure of CO2 (PICO2) and not dry-gas partial pressure of CO2 (PCO2) is the appropriate metric for hypercapnic dose to establish space suit CO2 limits. The reduction of inspired gas partial pressures by saturation of the inspired gases with water vapor at 37°C is a significant factor under conditions of hypobaric space suit operation. Otherwise healthy EVA astronauts will exhibit wide variability in responses to acute hypercapnia while at rest and during exercise. What is clear from the literature is the absence of prospective (objective) accept or reject criteria for CO2 exposure in general, and no such criteria exist for operating a space suit. There is no absolute “Gold Standard” for an acceptable acute hypercapnic limit, just a gradual decrease in performance as CO2 increases. Acceptable CO2 exposure limits are occupation, situation (learned or novel tasks), and personspecific. Investigators who measured hypercapnic physiology rarely correlated those changes to neurocognitive symptoms, and those that measured hypercapnic neurocognition rarely correlated those changes with physiology. Some answers about changes in neurocognition and functional EVA performance during hypercapnic exercise in a space suit await new research.

Conkin, Johnny↗
NASA NTRS2018

Development of a Ground Test and Analysis Protocol to Support NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support extensive human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts have been tasked with developing the ground test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototype habitats will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational products, tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate the different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3.

Beaton, Kara H.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Development of a Ground Test and Analysis Protocol for NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Simulation Based Studies of Low Latency Teleoperations for NASA Exploration Missions

Human exploration of Mars will involve both crewed and robotic systems. Many mission concepts involve the deployment and assembly of mission support assets prior to crew arrival on the surface. Some of these deployment and assembly activities will be performed autonomously while others will be performed using teleoperations. However, significant communications latencies between the Earth and Mars make teleoperations challenging. Alternatively, low latency teleoperations are possible from locations in Mars orbit like Mars' moons Phobos and Deimos. To explore these latency opportunities, NASA is conducting a series of studies to investigate the effects of latency on telerobotic deployment and assembly activities. These studies are being conducted in laboratory environments at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC), the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) at JSC and the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) underwater habitat off the coast of Florida. The studies involve two human-in-the-loop interactive simulations developed by the NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) team at JSC. The first simulation investigates manipulation related activities while the second simulation investigates mobility related activities. The first simulation provides a simple real-time operator interface with displays and controls for a simulated 6 degree of freedom end effector. The initial version of the simulation uses a simple control mode to decouple the robotic kinematic constraints and a communications delay to model latency effects. This provides the basis for early testing with more detailed manipulation simulations planned for the future. Subjects are tested using five operating latencies that represent teleoperation conditions from local surface operations to orbital operations at Phobos, Deimos and ultimately high Martian orbit. Subject performance is measured and correlated with three distance-to-target zones of interest. Each zone represents a target distance ranging from beyond 10m in Zone 1, through 1 cm to contact in Zone 5 with a step size factor of 10. Collected data consists of both objective simulation data (time, distance, hand controller inputs, velocity) and subjective questionnaire data. The second simulation provides a simple real-time operator interface with displays and control of a simulated surface rover. The rover traverses a synthetic Mars-like terrain and must be maneuvered to avoid obstacles while progressing to its destination. Like the manipulator simulation, subjects are tested using five operating latencies that represent teleoperation conditions from local surface operations to orbital operations at Phobos, Deimos and ultimately high Martian orbit. The rover is also operated at three different traverse speeds to assess the correlation between latency and speed. Collected data consisted of both objective simulation data (time, distance, hand controller inputs, braking) and subjective questionnaire data. These studies are exploring relationships between task complexity, operating speeds, operator efficiencies, and communications latencies for low latency teleoperations in support of human planetary exploration. This paper presents early results from these studies along with the current observations and conclusions. These and planned future studies will help to inform NASA on the potential for low latency teleoperations to support human exploration of Mars and inform the design of robotic systems and exploration missions.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Human and Robotic Exploration Missions to Phobos Prior to Crewed Mars Surface Missions

Phobos is a scientifically significant destination that would facilitate the development and operation of the human Mars transportation infrastructure, unmanned cargo delivery systems and other Mars surface systems. In addition to developing systems relevant to Mars surface missions, Phobos offers engineering, operational, and public engagement opportunities that could enhance subsequent Mars surface operations. These opportunities include the use of low latency teleoperations to control Mars surface assets associated with exploration science, human landing‐site selection and infrastructure development which may include in situ resource utilization (ISRU) to provide liquid oxygen for the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). A human mission to Mars' moons would be preceded by a cargo predeploy of a surface habitat and a pressurized excursion vehicle (PEV) to Mars orbit. Once in Mars orbit, the habitat and PEV would spiral to Phobos using solar electric propulsion based systems, with the habitat descending to the surface and the PEV remaining in orbit. When a crewed mission is launched to Phobos, it would include the remaining systems to support the crew during the Earth‐Mars transit and to reach Phobos after insertion in to Mars orbit. The crew would taxi from Mars orbit to Phobos to join with the predeployed systems in a spacecraft that is based on a MAV, dock with and transfer to the PEV in Phobos orbit, and descend in the PEV to the surface habitat. A static Phobos surface habitat was chosen as a baseline architecture, in combination with the PEV that was used to descend from orbit as the main exploration vehicle. The habitat would, however, have limited capability to relocate on the surface to shorten excursion distances required by the PEV during exploration and to provide rescue capability should the PEV become disabled. To supplement exploration capabilities of the PEV, the surface habitat would utilize deployable EVA support structures that allow astronauts to work from portable foot restraints or body restrain tethers in the vicinity of the habitat. Prototype structures were tested as part of NEEMO 20. PEVs would contain closed loop guidance and provide life support and consumables for two crew for 2 weeks plus reserves. The PEV has a cabin that uses the exploration atmosphere of 8.2 psi with 34% oxygen, enabling use of suit ports for rapid EVA with minimal oxygen prebreathe as well as dust control by keeping the suits outside the pressurized volume. When equipped with outriggers and control moment gyros, the PEV enables EVA tasks of up to 8 pounds of force application without the need to anchor. Tasks with higher force requirements can be performed with PEV propulsion providing the necessary thrust to react forces. Exploration of Phobos builds heavily from the developments of the cis‐lunar proving ground, and significantly reduces Mars surface risk by facilitating the development and testing of habitats, MAVs, and pressurized rover cabins that are all Mars surface forward. A robotic precursor mission to Phobos and Deimos is also under consideration and would need to launch in 2022 to support a 2031 human Phobos mission.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Human and Robotic Exploration Missions to Phobos Prior to Crewed Mars Surface Missions

Phobos is a scientifically significant destination that would facilitate the development and operation of the human Mars transportation infrastructure, unmanned cargo delivery systems and other Mars surface systems. In addition to developing systems relevant to Mars surface missions, Phobos offers engineering, operational, and public engagement opportunities that could enhance subsequent Mars surface operations. These opportunities include the use of low latency teleoperations to control Mars surface assets associated with exploration science, human landing-site selection and infrastructure development, which may include in situ resource utilization (ISRU) to provide liquid oxygen for the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). A human mission to Mars' moons would be preceded by a cargo pre-deploy of a surface habitat and a pressurized excursion vehicle (PEV) to Mars orbit. Once in Mars orbit, the habitat and PEV would spiral to Phobos using solar electric propulsion based systems, with the habitat descending to the surface and the PEV remaining in orbit. When a crewed mission is launched to Phobos, it would include the remaining systems to support the crew during the Earth-Mars transit and to reach Phobos after insertion in to Mars orbit. The crew would taxi from Mars orbit to Phobos to join with the predeployed systems in a spacecraft that is based on a MAV, dock with and transfer to the PEV in Phobos orbit, and descend in the PEV to the surface habitat. A static Phobos surface habitat was chosen as a baseline architecture, in combination with the PEV that was used to descend from orbit as the main exploration vehicle. The habitat would, however, have limited capability to relocate on the surface to shorten excursion distances required by the PEV during exploration and to provide rescue capability should the PEV become disabled. To supplement exploration capabilities of the PEV, the surface habitat would utilize deployable EVA support structures that allow astronauts to work from portable foot restraints or body restrain tethers in the vicinity of the habitat. Prototype structures were tested as part of NEEMO 20.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗