Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

James L Broyan

Publications and source records attributed to James L Broyan.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Alignment of NASA’s Human System Risks with Technological Capability Gaps to Enable Integrated Research and Technology Development Strategic Planning

BACKGROUND: Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains a set of twenty-nine different Human System Risks with subject matter experts from across the agency providing regular updates to the estimated likelihood and consequence associated with each risk. The Human Research Program (HRP) has historically used these risk classifications as a primary basis for identifying and prioritizing human research investments aimed at characterizing and/or mitigating the respective human system risks. In many cases, technology development is required to mature and validate risk mitigation strategies, however, NASA’s primary technology development programs have not typically used Human System Risks as a basis for strategic planning. A primary function of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is to continually identify, review, and update technological capability gaps and to establish and oversee multiyear strategic roadmaps aimed at guiding NASA’s technology development priorities in these areas. These roadmaps are intended to be agency-wide and independent of any program, directorate, or other organization within NASA. DESCRIPTION: The SCLT and HRP collaborated to establish a set of Human System Capability Gaps, which establish a formal linkage between the capability gaps used to prioritize investments across much of NASA, and the Human System Risks that are primarily used to inform and prioritize human research. This set of twenty-eight gaps was developed by subject matter experts, and each gap mapped to the primary associated Human System Risks. The gaps and risk mapping were then reviewed and approved via the HSRB, thereby formally aligning the research-focused Human System Risks with the technology-focused capability gaps. DISCUSSION: This effort has enabled development of integrated roadmaps and budget coordination with research and technology development activities that are formally linked to agency-recognized capability gaps and Human System Risks. Close and ongoing coordination between the SCLT, HRP, Mars Campaign Office, and the Health & Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) is essential to ensure alignment and prioritization of CHP-related research and technology development to enable NASA’s future exploration missions.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
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 a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission 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) to defining 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, gaps, and 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. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This PowerPoint presentation supports the following paper submission's abstract (STRIVES 20210015025). This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. In many cases, research is required to characterize those risks and help identify risk mitigation strategies. Where new capabilities are necessary to maintain crew health and performance (CHP) during exploration missions, a multi-step process is followed: 1) a Capability Gap is defined; 2) a plan or “roadmap” to develop that capability is established based on agency priorities and anticipated mission development timelines; and 3) work defined on the roadmap is then initiated as resources allow, with the objective that the capability will be available in time to support the future mission. Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in CHP technology development, ground testbed development, ground-based testing, and in preparations for ISS technology demonstrations. This paper provides a development update in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures, EVA physiology and performance, food and nutrition, exploration medical capabilities, and radiation. Project overviews will include descriptions of CHP development activities over the past year, the human system risks and capability gaps being targeted, as well as planned follow-on activities and anticipated program infusion points.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2022 to 2023 Overview

NASA has identified twenty-eight specific risks to human health and performance that must be adequately understood and addressed to enable future crewed missions to Mars. These risks are due to radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and the effects of living within artificially created and controlled life support environments. Research and technology development is required to better understand these risks and to inform, develop, and test technologies and strategies to mitigate these risks. NASA’s System Capability Leads coordinate across the agency to continually identify, prioritize, and monitor technology investments in support of these future missions. This paper describes progress over the past year in strategic planning, coordination, and technology development related to crew health and performance capabilities that are needed for future Mars missions. Technology maturation progress and future plans are described in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures; spacesuit physiology and performance; food and nutrition; and exploration medical capabilities.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗