SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Supportability”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria - performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and risk - are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost accounts for most of the cost of planetary missions, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated masses of the hardware and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in Advanced Life Support. A crew time mass-equivalent and sometimes other non-mass factors are added to equivalent mass to create ESM. Equivalent mass is an estimate of the launch cost only. For earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is usually exceeded by the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E). Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. Since LCC includes launch cost, it is always a more accurate cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission design, destination, and duration. Since DDT&E or operations may cost more than launch, LCC may give a more accurate cost ranking than equivalent mass. To be sure of identifying the lowest cost technology for a particular mission, we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria such as performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and technical and schedule risk are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost would account for much of the cost of a future planetary mission, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select advanced life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated mass of the hardware and of the spacecraft pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass of a system is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in the Advanced Life Support project. ESM adds a mass-equivalent of crew time and possibly other cost factors to equivalent mass. Traditional equivalent mass is strictly based on flown mass and reflects only the launch cost. ESM includes other important cost factors, but it complicates the simple flown mass definition of equivalent mass by adding a non-physical mass penalty for crew time that may exceed the actual flown mass. Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. For Earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is less than the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDTBE). LCC is a more inclusive cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission destination and duration. Since DDTBE or operations may cost more than launch, LCC gives a more accurate relative cost ranking than equivalent mass. To select the lowest cost technology for a particular application we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2004

Learning to Control Advanced Life Support Systems

Advanced life support systems have many interacting processes and limited resources. Controlling and optimizing advanced life support systems presents unique challenges. In particular, advanced life support systems are nonlinear coupled dynamical systems and it is difficult for humans to take all interactions into account to design an effective control strategy. In this project. we developed several reinforcement learning controllers that actively explore the space of possible control strategies, guided by rewards from a user specified long term objective function. We evaluated these controllers using a discrete event simulation of an advanced life support system. This simulation, called BioSim, designed by Nasa scientists David Kortenkamp and Scott Bell has multiple, interacting life support modules including crew, food production, air revitalization, water recovery, solid waste incineration and power. They are implemented in a consumer/producer relationship in which certain modules produce resources that are consumed by other modules. Stores hold resources between modules. Control of this simulation is via adjusting flows of resources between modules and into/out of stores. We developed adaptive algorithms that control the flow of resources in BioSim. Our learning algorithms discovered several ingenious strategies for maximizing mission length by controlling the air and water recycling systems as well as crop planting schedules. By exploiting non-linearities in the overall system dynamics, the learned controllers easily out- performed controllers written by human experts. In sum, we accomplished three goals. We (1) developed foundations for learning models of coupled dynamical systems by active exploration of the state space, (2) developed and tested algorithms that learn to efficiently control air and water recycling processes as well as crop scheduling in Biosim, and (3) developed an understanding of the role machine learning in designing control systems for advanced life support.

Subramanian, Devika↗

NASA NTRS2005

Research Opportunities Supporting the Vision for Space Exploration from the Transformation of the Former Microgravity Materials Science Program

The Microgravity Materials Science Program established a strong research capability through partnerships between NASA and the scientific research community. With the announcement of the vision for space exploration, additional emphasis in strategic materials science areas was necessary. The President's Commission recognized that achieving its exploration objectives would require significant technical innovation, research, and development in focal areas defined as "enabling technologies." Among the 17 enabling technologies identified for initial focus were: advanced structures, advanced power and propulsion; closed-loop life support and habitability; extravehicular activity systems; autonomous systems and robotics; scientific data collection and analysis, biomedical risk mitigation; and planetary in situ resource utilization. Mission success may depend upon use of local resources to fabricate a replacement part to repair a critical system. Future propulsion systems will require materials with a wide range of mechanical, thermophysical, and thermochemical properties, many of them well beyond capabilities of today's materials systems. Materials challenges have also been identified by experts working to develop advanced life support systems. In responding to the vision for space exploration, the Microgravity Materials Science Program aggressively transformed its research portfolio and focused materials science areas of emphasis to include space radiation shielding; in situ fabrication and repair for life support systems; in situ resource utilization for life support consumables; and advanced materials for exploration, including materials science for space propulsion systems and for life support systems. The purpose of this paper is to inform the scientific community of these new research directions and opportunities to utilize their materials science expertise and capabilities to support the vision for space exploration.

Clinton, R. G., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Proposed Project Selection Method for Human Support Research and Technology Development (HSR&TD)

The purpose of HSR&TD is to deliver human support technologies to the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) that will be selected for future missions. This requires identifying promising candidate technologies and advancing them in technology readiness until they are acceptable. HSR&TD must select an may of technology development projects, guide them, and either terminate or continue them, so as to maximize the resulting number of usable advanced human support technologies. This paper proposes an effective project scoring methodology to support managing the HSR&TD project portfolio. Researchers strongly disagree as to what are the best technology project selection methods, or even if there are any proven ones. Technology development is risky and outstanding achievements are rare and unpredictable. There is no simple formula for success. Organizations that are satisfied with their project selection approach typically use a mix of financial, strategic, and scoring methods in an open, established, explicit, formal process. This approach helps to build consensus and develop management insight. It encourages better project proposals by clarifying the desired project attributes. We propose a project scoring technique based on a method previously used in a federal laboratory and supported by recent research. Projects are ranked by their perceived relevance, risk, and return - a new 3 R's. Relevance is the degree to which the project objective supports the HSR&TD goal of developing usable advanced human support technologies. Risk is the estimated probability that the project will achieve its specific objective. Return is the reduction in mission life cycle cost obtained if the project is successful. If the project objective technology performs a new function with no current cost, its return is the estimated cash value of performing the new function. The proposed project selection scoring method includes definitions of the criteria, a project evaluation questionnaire, and a scoring formula.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2005

Contingency Operations Support to NASA Johnson Space Center Medical Operations Division

The Wyle Laboratories Contingency Operations Group provides support to the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Medical Operations Division in the event of a space flight vehicle accident or JSC mishap. Support includes development of Emergency Medical System (EMS) requirements, procedures, training briefings and real-time support of mishap investigations. The Contingency Operations Group is compliant with NASA documentation that provides guidance in these areas and maintains contact with the United States Department of Defense (DOD) to remain current on military plans to support NASA. The contingency group also participates in Space Operations Medical Support Training Courses (SOMSTC) and represents the NASA JSC Medical Operations Division at contingency exercises conducted worldwide by the DOD or NASA. The events of September 11, 2001 have changed how this country prepares and protects itself from possible terrorist attacks on high-profile targets. As a result, JSC is now considered a high-profile target and thus, must prepare for and develop a response to a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) incident. The Wyle Laboratories Contingency Operations Group supports this plan, specifically the medical response, by providing expertise and manpower.

Stepaniak, Philip↗

NASA NTRS2006

New Direction of NASA Exploration Life Support

NASA's activities in life support Research and Technology Development (R&TD) have changed in both focus and scope following implementation of recommendations from the Exploration System Architecture Study (ESAS). The limited resources available and the compressed schedule to conduct life support R&TD have required that future efforts address the needs of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) and Lunar Outpost (LO). Advanced Life Support (ALS) efforts related to long duration planetary bases have been deferred or canceled. This paper describes the scope of the new Exploration Life Support (ELS) project; how it differs from ALS, and how it supports critical needs for the CEV, LSAM and LO. In addition, this paper provides rationale for changes in the scope and focus of technical content within ongoing life support R&TD activities.

Chambliss, Joe↗

NASA NTRS2006

The Effect of Sensory Noise Created by Compliant and Sway-Referenced Support Surfaces on Postural Stability

The purpose of the present experiment was to compare in normal human subjects the differential effects on postural stability of introducing somatosensory noise via compliant and/or sway-referenced support surfaces during quiet standing. The use of foam surfaces (two thicknesses: thin (0.95cm) and thick (7.62cm)) and sway-referenced support allowed comparison between two different types of destabilizing factors that increased ankle/foot somatosensory noise. Under some conditions neck extensions were used to increase sensory noise by deviating the vestibular system from its optimal orientation for balance control. The impact of these conditions on postural control was assessed through objective measures of instability. Thick foam and sway-referenced support conditions generated comparable instability in subjects, as measured by equilibrium score and minimum time-to-contact. However, simultaneous application of the conditions resulted in greater instability, suggesting a higher level of generated sensory noise and thus, different receptor types affected during each manipulation. Indeed, sway-referenced support generated greater anterior-posterior center-of-mass (COM) sway, while thick foam generated greater medio-lateral COM sway and velocity. Neck extension had minimal effect on postural stability until combined with simultaneous thick foam and sway-referenced support. Thin foam never generated enough sensory noise to affect postural stability even with noise added by sway-reference support or neck extension. These results provide an interesting window into the central integration of redundant sensory information and indicate the postural impact of sensory inputs is not solely based on their existence, but also their level of noise.

Forth, Katharine E.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Telemetry carrier ring and support

A telemetry carrier ring for use in a gas turbine engine includes an annular support ring connected to the engine and an annular carrier ring coupled to the support ring, each ring exhibiting different growth characteristics in response to thermal and mechanical loading. The carrier ring is coupled to the support ring by a plurality of circumferentially spaced web members which are relatively thin in an engine radial direction to provide a predetermined degree of radial flexibility. the web members have a circumferential width and straight axial line of action selected to transfer torque and thrust between the support ring and the carrier ring without substantial deflection. The use of the web members with radial flexibility provides compensation between the support ring and the carrier ring since the carrier ring grows at a different rate than the supporting ring.

Wakeman, Thomas G.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Proposed Facility Modifications to Support Propulsion Systems Testing Under Simulated Space Conditions at Plum Brook Station's Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2)

Preparing NASA's Plum Brook Station's Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2) to support NASA's new generation of launch vehicles has raised many challenges for B-2 s support staff. The facility provides a unique capability to test chemical propulsion systems/vehicles while simulating space thermal and vacuum environments. Designed and constructed 4 decades ago to support upper stage cryogenic engine/vehicle system development, the Plum Brook Station B-2 facility will require modifications to support the larger, more powerful, and more advanced engine systems for the next generation of vehicles leaving earth's orbit. Engine design improvements over the years have included large area expansion ratio nozzles, greater combustion chamber pressures, and advanced materials. Consequently, it has become necessary to determine what facility changes are required and how the facility can be adapted to support varying customers and their specific test needs. Instrumental in this task is understanding the present facility capabilities and identifying what reasonable changes can be implemented. A variety of approaches and analytical tools are being employed to gain this understanding. This paper discusses some of the challenges in applying these tools to this project and expected facility configuration to support the varying customer needs.

Edwards, Daryl A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

New Directions for NASA's Advanced Life Support Program

Advanced Life Support (ALS), an element of Human Systems Research and Technology s (HSRT) Life Support and Habitation Program (LSH), has been NASA s primary sponsor of life support research and technology development for the agency. Over its history, ALS sponsored tasks across a diverse set of institutions, including field centers, colleges and universities, industry, and governmental laboratories, resulting in numerous publications and scientific articles, patents and new technologies, as well as education and training for primary, secondary and graduate students, including minority serving institutions. Prior to the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) announced on January 14th, 2004 by the President, ALS had been focused on research and technology development for long duration exploration missions, emphasizing closed-loop regenerative systems, including both biological and physicochemical. Taking a robust and flexible approach, ALS focused on capabilities to enable visits to multiple potential destinations beyond low Earth orbit. ALS developed requirements, reference missions, and assumptions upon which to structure and focus its development program. The VSE gave NASA a plan for steady human and robotic space exploration based on specific, achievable goals. Recently, the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) was chartered by NASA s Administrator to determine the best exploration architecture and strategy to implement the Vision. The study identified key technologies required to enable and significantly enhance the reference exploration missions and to prioritize near-term and far-term technology investments. This technology assessment resulted in a revised Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) technology investment plan. A set of new technology development projects were initiated as part of the plan s implementation, replacing tasks previously initiated under HSRT and its sister program, Exploration Systems Research and Technology (ESRT). The Exploration Life Support (ELS) Project, under the Exploration Technology Development Program, has recently been initiated to perform directed life support technology development in support of Constellation and the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). ELS) has replaced ALS, with several major differences. Thermal Control Systems have been separated into a new stand alone project (Thermal Systems for Exploration Missions). Tasks in Advanced Food Technology have been relocated to the Human Research Program. Tasks in a new discipline area, Habitation Engineering, have been added. Research and technology development for capabilities required for longer duration stays on the Moon and Mars, including bioregenerative system, have been deferred.

Barta, Daniel J.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Proposed Facility Modifications to Support Propulsion Systems Testing Under Simulated Space Conditions at Plum Brook Station's Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2)

Preparing NASA's Plum Brook Station's Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2) to support NASA's new generation of launch vehicles has raised many challenges for B-2's support staff. The facility provides a unique capability to test chemical propulsion systems/vehicles while simulating space thermal and vacuum environments. Designed and constructed in the early 1960s to support upper stage cryogenic engine/vehicle system development, the Plum Brook Station B-2 facility will require modifications to support the larger, more powerful, and more advanced engine systems for the next generation of vehicles leaving earth's orbit. Engine design improvements over the years have included large area expansion ratio nozzles, greater combustion chamber pressures, and advanced materials. Consequently, it has become necessary to determine what facility changes are required and how the facility can be adapted to support varying customers and their specific test needs. Exhaust system performance, including understanding the present facility capabilities, is the primary focus of this work. A variety of approaches and analytical tools are being employed to gain this understanding. This presentation discusses some of the challenges in applying these tools to this project and expected facility configuration to support the varying customer needs.

Edwards, Daryl A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Ikhana: A NASA UAS Supporting Long Duration Earth Science Missions

NASA's Ikhana unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a General Atomics MQ-9 Predator-B modified to support the conduct of Earth science missions for the NASA Science Mission Directorate through partnerships, other government agencies and universities. Ikhana, a Native American word meaning 'intelligence', can carry over 2000 lbs of atmospheric and remote sensing instruments in the payload bay and external pods. The aircraft is capable of mission durations in excess of 24 hours at altitudes above 40,000 ft. Redundant flight control, avionics, power, and network systems increase the system reliability and allow easier access to public airspace. The aircraft is remotely piloted from a mobile ground control station (GCS) using both C-band line-of-sight and Ku-band over-the-horizon satellite datalinks. NASA's GCS has been modified to support on-site science monitoring, or the downlink data can be networked to remote sites. All ground support systems are designed to be deployable to support global Eart science investigations. On-board support capabilities include an instrumentation system and an Airborne Research Test System (ARTS). The ARTS can host research algorithms that will autonomously command and control on-board sensors, perform sensor health monitoring, conduct data analysis, and request changes to the flight plan to maximize data collection. The ARTS also has the ability to host algorithms that will autonomously control the aircraft trajectory based on sensor needs, (e.g. precision trajectory for repeat pass interferometry) or to optimize mission objectives (e.g. search for specific atmospheric conditions). Standard on-board networks will collect science data for recording and for inclusion in the aircraft's high bandwidth downlink. The Ikhana project will complete GCS development, science support systems integration, external pod integration and flight clearance, and operations crew training in early 2007. A large-area remote sensing mission is currently scheduled for the Summer 2007.

Cobleigh, Brent R.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Exploration Life Support Technology Development for Lunar Missions

Exploration Life Support (ELS) is one of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Projects. ELS plans, coordinates and implements the development of new life support technologies for human exploration missions as outlined in NASA's Vision for Space Exploration. ELS technology development currently supports three major projects of the Constellation Program - the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the Altair Lunar Lander and Lunar Surface Systems. ELS content includes Air Revitalization Systems (ARS), Water Recovery Systems (WRS), Waste Management Systems (WMS), Habitation Engineering, Systems Integration, Modeling and Analysis (SIMA), and Validation and Testing. The primary goal of the ELS project is to provide different technology options to Constellation which fill gaps or provide substantial improvements over the state-of-the-art in life support systems. Since the Constellation missions are so challenging, mass, power, and volume must be reduced from Space Shuttle and Space Station technologies. Systems engineering analysis also optimizes the overall architecture by considering all interfaces with the life support system and potential for reduction or reuse of resources. For long duration missions, technologies which aid in closure of air and water loops with increased reliability are essential as well as techniques to minimize or deal with waste. The ELS project utilizes in-house efforts at five NASA centers, aerospace industry contracts, Small Business Innovative Research contracts and other means to develop advanced life support technologies. Testing, analysis and reduced gravity flight experiments are also conducted at the NASA field centers. This paper gives a current status of technologies under development by ELS and relates them to the Constellation customers who will eventually use them.

Ewert, Michael K.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Exploration Life Support Critical Questions for Future Human Space Missions

Exploration Life Support (ELS) is a current project under NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. The ELS Project plans, coordinates and implements the development of advanced life support technologies for human exploration missions in space. Recent work has focused on closed loop atmosphere and water systems for long duration missions, including habitats and pressurized rovers. But, what are the critical questions facing life support system developers for these and other future human missions? This paper explores those questions and how progress in the development of ELS technologies can help answer them. The ELS Project includes the following Elements: Atmosphere Revitalization Systems, Water Recovery Systems, Waste Management Systems, Habitation Engineering, Systems Integration, Modeling and Analysis, and Validation and Testing, which includes the Sub-Elements Flight Experiments and Integrated Testing. Systems engineering analysis by ELS seeks to optimize overall mission architectures by considering all the internal and external interfaces of the life support system and the potential for reduction or reuse of commodities. In particular, various sources and sinks of water and oxygen are considered along with the implications on loop closure and the resulting launch mass requirements. Systems analysis will be validated through the data gathered from integrated testing, which will demonstrate the interfaces of a closed loop life support system. By applying a systematic process for defining, sorting and answering critical life support questions, the ELS project is preparing for a variety of future human space missions

Kwert, Michael K.↗

NASA NTRS2010

International Space Station Aeromedical Support in Star City, Russia

The Space Medicine Division at Johnson Space Center works with the International Space Station s international partners (IP) to accomplish assigned health care tasks. Each IP may assign a flight surgeon to support their assigned crewmembers during all phases of training, in-flight operations, and postflight activities. Because of the extensive amount of astronaut training conducted in Star City; NASA, in collaboration with its IPs, has elected to keep a flight surgeon assigned to NASA s Star City office to provide support to the U.S., Canadian, Japanese, and European astronauts during hazardous training activities and provide support for any contingency landings of Soyuz spacecraft in Kazakhstan. The physician also provides support as necessary to the Mission Control Center in Moscow for non-Russian crew-related activities. In addition, the physician in Star City provides ambulatory medical care to the non-Russian-assigned personnel in Star City and visiting dependents. Additional work involves all medical supplies, administration, and inventory. The Star City physician assists in medical evacuation and/or in obtaining support from western clinics in Moscow when required care exceeds local resources. Overall, the Russians are responsible for operations and the medical care of the entire crew when training in Star City and during launch/landing operations. However, they allow international partner flight surgeons to care for their crewmembers as agreed to in the ISS Medical Operations Requirements Document. Medical support focuses on pressurized, monitored, and other hazardous training activities. One of the most important jobs is to act as a medical advocate for the astronauts and to reduce the threat that these hazardous activities pose. Although the Russians have a robust medical system, evacuation may be needed to facilitate ongoing medical care. There are several international medical evacuation companies that provide this care.

Cole, Richard↗

NASA NTRS2004

Subsystem Details for the Fiscal Year 2004 Advanced Life Support Research and Technology Development Metric

This document provides values at the assembly level for the subsystems described in the Fiscal Year 2004 Advanced Life Support Research and Technology Development Metric (Hanford, 2004). Hanford (2004) summarizes the subordinate computational values for the Advanced Life Support Research and Technology Development (ALS R&TD) Metric at the subsystem level, while this manuscript provides a summary at the assembly level. Hanford (2004) lists mass, volume, power, cooling, and crewtime for each mission examined by the ALS R&TD Metric according to the nominal organization for the Advanced Life Support (ALS) elements. The values in the tables below, Table 2.1 through Table 2.8, list the assemblies, using the organization and names within the Advanced Life Support Sizing Analysis Tool (ALSSAT) for each ALS element. These tables specifically detail mass, volume, power, cooling, and crewtime. Additionally, mass and volume are designated in terms of values associated with initial hardware and resupplied hardware just as they are within ALSSAT. The overall subsystem values are listed on the line following each subsystem entry. These values are consistent with those reported in Hanford (2004) for each listed mission. Any deviations between these values and those in Hanford (2004) arise from differences in when individual numerical values are rounded within each report, and therefore the resulting minor differences should not concern even a careful reader. Hanford (2004) u es the uni ts kW(sub e) and kW(sub th) for power and cooling, respectively, while the nomenclature below uses W(sub e) and W(sub th), which is consistent with the native units within ALSSAT. The assemblies, as specified within ALSSAT, are listed in bold below their respective subsystems. When recognizable assembly components are not listed within ALSSAT, a summary of the assembly is provided on the same line as the entry for the assembly. Assemblies with one or more recognizable components are further described by the indented entries below them. See Yeh, et al. (2002), Yeh, et al. (2003), and Yeh, et al. (2004) for details about ALSSAT organization. Except for the dry food mass listed within the Food Processing, Packaging, and Storage within the Food Subsystem, total values for assemblies would be the sum of their components. The Dry Food Mass, however, is that portion of the food system that was neglected during the computation of the Fiscal Year 2004 ALS R&TD Metric. It is listed here to provide a reference, but it is otherwise ignored in the overall totals. See Hanford (2004) for details of this process and supporting rationale. When applicable, the technology label from ALSSAT is listed in the second column, and the associated abbreviations are listed below in Section 4. For more details of the technologies assumed for each mission, please see Hanford (2004) for descriptions of each subsystem and an overall life support system schematic.

Hanford, Anthony J.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Examining the Relationships Between Education, Social Networks and Democratic Support With ABM

This paper introduces an agent-based model that explores the relationships between education, social networks, and support for democratic ideals. This study examines two factors thai affect democratic support, education, and social networks. Current theory concerning these two variables suggests that positive relationships exist between education and democratic support and between social networks and the spread of ideas. The model contains multiple variables of democratic support, two of which are evaluated through experimentation. The model allows individual entities within the system to make "decisions" about their democratic support independent of one another. The agent based approach also allows entities to utilize their social networks to spread ideas. Current theory supports experimentation results. In add~ion , these results show the model is capable of reproducing real world outcomes. This paper addresses the model creation process and the experimentation procedure, as well as future research avenues and potential shortcomings of the model

Drucker, Nick↗