Engineering topics

Caroline Austin

Publications and source records attributed to Caroline Austin.

5 records

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

1.9 MWe Nuclear Electric Propulsion-Chemical Propulsion Piloted Mars Opposition Vehicle

To assess ‘quick’ missions to Mars, a study was performed to determine the feasibility of a two-year roundtrip class mission concept of operation that enables boots on Mars in the 2030s. After performing a Phase 1.1 2036 Mars opposition design case, the more difficult 2039 opposition design was pursued. This Phase 1.2 also sought to further refine the concept, building on feasibility, and addressing several challenges brought by independent team reviews. Given the date of 2039, nearer-term technologies, primarily nuclear thermal and nuclear electric were deemed as the most viable for these missions. This paper explores a nuclear electric and chemical combined propulsion approach to achieve the desired mission timeline.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Strategies for Quantifying Human Space Flight Performance in the Crew Health and Performance System

The Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) team at NASA Glenn Research Center is planning a customized approach to quantify human spaceflight performance changes with respect to changes to the CHP system functions and capabilities. Using the Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) initiated by NASA’s Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB) [1], the team is surveying potential candidate models and novel strategies that generate metrics suitable for supporting decision making related to how the CHP system may influence human system performance risk. One such investigation includes classic Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) models. Traditionally, HRA methods estimate the occurrence of human errors and their impact on the success of an activity when designing and operating a system. While humans perceive, interpret, decide on, and carry out a course of action, the factors affecting performance and error likelihood are commonly referred to as performance shaping factors (PSFs). Originally developed to alleviate safety concerns related to nuclear power plant operations, HRA methods such as THERP [2] and CREAM [3] dismantle an activity into tasks, requiring elemental steps to be executed, and assess their failure due to predefined PSFs. In this study, we compare generic HRA methods and those that incorporate some human spaceflight aspects, such as sleep conditions (SCREAM [4]), with respect to how they may be adopted to capture performance with an intention to mitigate detrimental outcomes elucidated by the HSRB DAGs. We suggest strategies to quantify astronaut performance specific to spaceflight activities and illustrate how such concepts may help in optimizing the CHP system capabilities with respect to Artemis missions.

dag↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Systems Risk Network - A Ranking Analysis of Risks

INTRODUCTION The Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB) is responsible for understanding, managing, and mitigating the risks associated with spaceflight. For a particular mission, the HSRB assigns each human system risk a rating on a 5x5 grid assessing its likelihood and consequence, which is ultimately used to compare and rank the risks. The HSRB approaches risk management by primarily establishing the context of each human system risk individually with the understanding that mitigating one risk might affect the likelihood, consequence, and mitigation approaches of another. To support this effort the HSRB, subject matter experts, and risk custodian teams created directed acyclic graphs (DAG), often called a causal graph, for the twenty-nine risks. In this presentation, we propose a new ranking algorithm for the risks which includes the downstream influence of each risk according to the information in the DAGs and provide an application of graph theoretic tools. METHODS In 2014, Mindock and Klaus proposed a taxonomy for human system risk influences which we have adopted to categorize the nodes in each DAG. Analyzing the nodes that correspond to the risks in this taxonomy allows us to analyze and understand how each risk influences the others. We construct an auxiliary network, which we call the Primary Risk Network (PRN), where the nodes are the twenty-nine space flight risks and, a directed edge connects Risk A to Risk B if Risk A has some influence on the likelihood or consequence of Risk B as described in the DAGS. We perform a variety of graph theoretic ranking methods on the nodes (or risks) in the PRN, including Katz centrality. RESULTS We rank the nodes in the PRN using the Katz centrality score. The ten risks with the highest score are pictured in Figure 1, colored (light to dark) according to their score. We analyze other centrality measures like betweenness centrality, eigenvector centrality, and the Estrada index, and provide the meaning of the corresponding rankings in terms of the risks. Future work includes analyzing the other categories in the taxonomy defined by Mindock and Klaus [1]. For example, we are interested in analyzing the nodes that are labeled as countermeasures or capabilities and perform similar analysis to measure their effect on certain medical conditions.

dag↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance Risk Model (PRisM) Proof-of-Concept: An Operational Decision Support Tool to Predict Crew Performance in Space from Available Performance Tests

The Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) team at NASA Glenn Research Center has developed a range of tools to evaluate astronaut health during spaceflight and to optimize the medical set required for missions. Among these, the Performance Risk Model (PRisM) represents a novel advancement, extending CHP-PRA’s focus beyond medical systems into the domain of human performance. Such tool could be pivotal in optimizing astronaut capabilities during space travel, thereby enhancing overall mission success. PRisM leverages data from well-established performance assessments conducted during previous crewed space missions and Earth analogs to strategically predict outcomes for planned tasks, even when direct performance testing has not been conducted for those specific tasks. To evaluate performance, PRisM references the various metrics outlined in NASA-STD-3001 and employs a methodology to integrate different performance scales. This framework analyzes the contribution of various human system task categories (HSTCs) to task execution and compares these contributions to the HSTCs’ involvement in other known tests. The model further employs a Monte Carlo simulation to sample performance scores from their distribution in operationally relevant tests such as those in Mulavara et al. (2018) and, by leveraging similarities in HSTC involvement, transfers this knowledge to actual mission tasks, such as those outlined in the "Human Exploration of Mars: Preliminary List of Crew Tasks”. The current PRisM proof-of-concept includes analyses of the impact of exercise and specific medications on astronauts’ performance, with provisions to incorporate additional countermeasures as data becomes available. Furthermore, the tool is customizable to include any system necessary to fully encompass the domain of human systems and can be adapted to evaluate performance for any spaceflight activities as requested by operational stakeholders. PRisM has the potential to assist the Human Research Program in exploring the capabilities trade space for optimized crew performance.

performance modeling↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance Risk Model Validation with Operationally Relevant Tasks

Human Research Program aims to develop methods to support astronauts’ health and productivity during spaceflight. The Crew Health and Performance Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) team uses powerful computational methods to predict mission risk in both domains: medical and performance. Here, we show how CHP-PRA uses the Performance Risk Model (PRisM) to quantify the performance risk and show an application of the model on operationally relevant tasks. There are various metrics adopted across performance researchers that PRisM can accommodate. For data analysis, interpretation, and integration, we use a method of unifying data from multiple sources by converting each to a single metric. We consult subject matter experts prior to integrating the converted data into PRisM. The method we use is inspired by the Cooper-Harper rating scale [1]. Using this unified metric, we can easily combine data from various tests and lab groups. We explain our conversion method in detail and show how it pertains to the process of testing and validation of PRisM on operational tasks. We conducted an initial validation in collaboration with the Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) lab. We test PRisM using data on their operationally relevant task ROBoT-r, a track-and-capture task for grappling incoming resupply vehicles [2]. Several other labs at NASA Johnson Space Center worked together to design 7 Functional Task Tests (FTTs) in pursuit of simulating the tasks required after landing on a planetary surface and after return to Earth [3]. Here we use the results from both ROBoT-r and the 7 FTTs and compare their experiment data to PRisM’s computational output to demonstrate how PRisM can support operations by predicting crew performance on future missions.

performance modeling↗