Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Callini, Gianluca

Publications and source records attributed to Callini, Gianluca.

4 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

A Tale of Two Chambers: Iterative Approaches and Lessons Learned from Life Support Systems Testing in Altitude Chambers

The drive for the journey to Mars is in a higher gear than ever before. We are developing new spacecraft and life support systems to take humans to the Red Planet. The journey that development hardware takes before its final incarnation in a fully integrated spacecraft can take years, as is the case for the Orion environmental control and life support system (ECLSS). Through the Pressure Integrated Suit Test (PIST) series, NASA personnel at Johnson Space Center have been characterizing the behavior of a closed loop ECLSS in the event of cabin depressurization. This kind of testing - one of the most hazardous activities performed at JSC - requires an iterative approach, increasing in complexity and hazards). The PIST series, conducted in the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) 11-ft Chamber, started with unmanned test precursors before moving to a human-in-the-loop phase, and continues to evolve with the eventual goal of a qualification test for the final system that will be installed on Orion. Meanwhile, the Human Exploration Spacecraft Testbed for Integration and Advancement (HESTIA) program is an effort to research and develop technologies that will work in concert to support habitation on Mars. September 2015 marked the first unmanned HESTIA test, with the goal of characterizing how ECLSS technologies work together in a closed environment. HESTIA will culminate in crewed testing, but it can benefit from the lessons learned from another test that is farther ahead in its development and life cycle. Discussing PIST and HESTIA, this paper illustrates how we approach testing, the kind of information that facility teams need to ensure efficient collaborations and successful testing, and how we can apply what we learn to execute future tests.

Callini, Gianluca↗
NASA NTRS2016

A Tale of Two Chambers: Iterative Approaches and Lessons Learned from Life Support Systems Testing in Altitude Chambers

With a brand new fire set ablaze by a serendipitous convergence of events ranging from a science fiction novel and movie ("The Martian"), to ground-breaking recent discoveries of flowing water on its surface, the drive for the journey to Mars seems to be in a higher gear than ever before. We are developing new spacecraft and support systems to take humans to the Red Planet, while scientists on Earth continue using the International Space Station as a laboratory to evaluate the effects of long duration space flight on the human body. Written from the perspective of a facility test director rather than a researcher, and using past and current life support systems tests as examples, this paper seeks to provide an overview on how facility teams approach testing, the kind of information they need to ensure efficient collaborations and successful tests, and how, together with researchers and principal investigators, we can collectively apply what we learn to execute future tests.

Callini, Gianluca↗
NASA NTRS1998

Effectiveness of an Expert System for Astronaut Assistance on a Sleep Experiment

Principal Investigator-in-a-Box ([PI]) is an expert system designed to train and assist astronauts with the performance of an experiment outside their field of expertise, particularly when contact with the Principal Investigators on the ground is limited or impossible. In the current case, [PI] was designed to assist with the calibration and troubleshooting procedures of the Neurolab Sleep and Respiration Experiment during the pre-sleep period of no ground contact. It displays physiological signals in real time during the pre-sleep instrumentation period, and alerts the astronauts when a poor signal quality is detected. Results of the first study indicated a beneficial effect of [PI] and training in reducing anomaly detection time and the number of undetected anomalies. For the in-flight performance, excluding the saturated signals, the expert system had an 84.2% detection accuracy, and the questionnaires filled out by the astronauts showed positive crew reactions to the expert system.

Heher, Dennis↗