Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

James Broyan

Publications and source records attributed to James Broyan.

14 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the Moon and to eventually enable humans to explore Mars. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the research and technology development (R&TD) that will be necessary to enable crew health and performance (CHP) during these future missions. These organizations include flight programs, the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), the Human Research Program, the Space Technology Mission Directorate, System Capability Leadership Teams, and other organizations, many 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 managing risks and supporting 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 to identify and prioritize R&TD needs. These strategic planning constructs are evolving to allow M2M objectives and R&TD investments to be aligned and traced at a detailed level. A recognized need exists among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&TD priorities in a unified and digestible way that addresses the perspectives of NASA’s CHP community. To achieve this, the HMTA arranged a series of discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, during which the 8 highest priority CHP capabilities that will enable human missions to Mars, referred to as the “top human system capability needs for Mars”, were identified. The list includes Earth-independent human operations; Mars-duration food system; Mars-duration effects on human physiology; risk mitigations for vehicle atmospheres; computational injury and anthropometric models; exploration exercise countermeasures; individual variability in responses to spaceflight; and sensorimotor countermeasures. Existing tools and processes for strategic planning and risk management were evaluated, as well as the technical practicalities, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&TD investments in different capability need areas. This capability needs report is not owned by any one NASA 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. These top capability needs will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&TD progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

technology gaps↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Should Astronauts throw out their Trash? And if so, How?

We don’t think much about taking out the trash on Earth, but in space, it requires some thought. Should it even be thrown overboard? Besides the implications of littering in space, there are also practical considerations of whether waste materials can be reused for other purposes onboard or do they reduce mission efficiency. In a previous study, gasifying and venting trash along the way to Mars was found to noticeably reduce propellant needs and launch mass of the spacecraft, whereas keeping processed trash on board in the form of radiation shielding tiles would significantly lower the crew’s radiation dose during a solar particle event. The latest human exploration mission proposals will be considered with an eye toward answering the questions, “Should Astronauts throw out their Trash?” and “If so, what is the best way?” Besides reviewing the propulsion and radiation shielding aspects of the question, equivalent system mass factors of mass, power, volume, and crew time, as well as human factors, like smell, will be studied. Disposal options include jettison of an entire module containing waste, regular disposal of trash via an airlock, or gasifying waste products for easier disposal or reuse. Jettison via an airlock could take many forms, from “taking out the trash” on a spacewalk to launching trash tiles or pods with different mechanisms. Likewise, the “trash-to-gas” concept, which would allow for overboard venting via a pipe, has many thermochemical processes to choose from, each with their own pros and cons. Unraveling these various tradeoff studies is the goal of this paper.

trash↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of a NASA Centennial Challenges Prize Competition to Address Crew Nutritional Needs for Long-Duration Space Exploration Missions

Historically, competitions and prizes such as those executed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Centennial Challenges (CC) program have created broader avenues through which to spur innovation from unlikely sources. In 2005, Congress amended the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to authorize NASA to create challenges through which prizes could be awarded to United States citizens or entities that succeeded in meeting challenge objectives. Over the past 15 years, the CC program has initiated more than 20 challenges in a variety of technology areas, including: propulsion, robotics, communications and navigation, human health, science instrumentation, nanotech, materials/structures and aerodynamics. This paper provides the background, status and ongoing plans by NASA’s CC program in developing a Deep Space Food Challenge (formerly the Lunar Nutrition Challenge) as one approach to fulfilling Space Policy Directive 1 (To the Moon, then Mars”).

Centennial Challenges↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Centennial Challenges Deep Space Food Challenge Competition to Incentivize Innovation in Food Systems for Long-Duration Space Exploration Missions

The Centennial Challenges (CC) program, currently part of NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), is one of the vehicles NASA uses to develop and execute public prize competitions. Since opening its first challenge in 2005, the CC program has initiated more than 20 challenges in a variety of technology areas. This paper provides the background, development and execution of the Deep Space Food Challenge as one approach to fulfilling NASA’s Space Policy Directive 1 (“To the Moon, then Mars”). Specifics about the CC program’s accomplishments will also be discussed. The Deep Space Food Challenge (DSF) was developed in collaboration with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) to create novel food production technologies with minimal inputs, and maximum safe, nutritious, palatable food outputs for long-duration space missions, which have potential to benefit people on Earth. When humans return to the lunar surface in the mid-2020s, the early missions will use prepackaged foods similar to those in use on the International Space Station (ISS) today. However, extending the duration of lunar missions requires reducing resupply dependency on Earth. Testing a sustainable system on the Moon that meets lunar crews’ needs is a fundamental step for lunar sustainability and future Mars exploration. NASA and CSA are focused on how to furnish crew members with a viable food system for long duration space missions that provides all daily nutritional needs through a variety of palatable, safe food with limited resource requirements and no dependency on resupply from Earth; and enables acceptable, safe and quick preparation methods. On Earth, technology solutions for food systems could also be used to produce nutritional sources for urban and rural environments; potentially leading to a reduced impact on our Earth’s resources. Challenges, such as the DSF, are an embodiment of NASA’s continuing commitment to technological advancement and innovation through non-traditional programs.

Centennial Challenges↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in technology development, ground testing, and ISS technology demonstrations within the NASA Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) community. This paper provides a technology development update in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. Technologies for exploration missions must be reliable in their operation which support crewed mission phases. However, they also need to be put into a reduced use or dormant states to support uncrewed mission phases and then successfully and reliably returned to a nominal state to support crew. Multi-year demonstration of systems operation across this range of conditions are essential to mission success. Project overviews will include how the current activity supports the goal of multi-year demonstrations, planned follow-on activities, and what type of exploration mission elements are targeted for infusion. Technologies must be demonstrated and validated early enough to inform early exploration element milestone reviews (mission concept reviews, systems requirement reviews and no later than preliminary design reviews) so that supporting vehicle systems can also be matured. Consequently, for low technology readiness activities, it is important to also identify which mission elements they might infuse into and how they may offer potential operational, dormancy, or mass benefits. While low TRL technology timelines may not support initial mission needs, early infusion is still reasonable with sufficient testing to validate performance and reliability.

Life Support↗
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 NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the Moon and to eventually enable humans to explore Mars. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the research and technology development (R&TD) that will be necessary to enable crew health and performance (CHP) during these future missions. These organizations include flight programs, the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), the Human Research Program, the Space Technology Mission Directorate, System Capability Leadership Teams, and other organizations, many 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 managing risks and supporting 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 to identify and prioritize R&TD needs. These strategic planning constructs are evolving to allow M2M objectives and R&TD investments to be aligned and traced at a detailed level. A recognized need exists among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&TD priorities in a unified and digestible way that addresses the perspectives of NASA’s CHP community. To achieve this, the HMTA arranged a series of discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, during which the 8 highest priority CHP capabilities that will enable human missions to Mars, referred to as the “top human system capability needs for Mars”, were identified. The list includes Earth-independent human operations; Mars-duration food system; Mars-duration effects on human physiology; risk mitigations for vehicle atmospheres; computational injury and anthropometric models; exploration exercise countermeasures; individual variability in responses to spaceflight; and sensorimotor countermeasures. Existing tools and processes for strategic planning and risk management were evaluated, as well as the technical practicalities, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&TD investments in different capability need areas. This capability needs report is not owned by any one NASA 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. These top capability needs will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&TD progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

technology gaps↗