Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “crew survival”

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.

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

At least 181 records · Page 10

Sextant Navigation on the International Space Station: A Human Space Exploration Demo

Astronauts on board the International Space Station (ISS) tested a hand-held sextant to demonstrate potential use on future human exploration missions such as Orion and Gateway. The investigation, designed to aid in the development of emergency navigation methods for future crewed spacecraft, took place from June-December 2018. A sextant provides manual capability to perform star/planet-limb sightings and estimate vehicle state during loss of communication or other contingencies. Its simplicity and independence from primary systems make it useful as an emergency survival backup or confirming measurement source. The concept of using a sextant has heritage in Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab. This paper discusses the instrument selection, flight certification, crew training, product development, experiment execution, and data analysis. Preflight training consisted of a hands-on session with the instrument and practice in a Cupola mock-up with star field projector dome. The experiment itself consisted of several sessions with sextant sightings in the ISS Cupola module by two crew members. Sightings were taken on star pairs, star/moon limb, and moon diameter. The sessions were designed to demonstrate star identification and acquisition, sighting stability, accuracy, and lunar sights. Results are presented which demonstrate sightings within the accuracy goal of 60 arcseconds, even in the presence of window refraction effects and minimal crew training. The crew members provided valuable feedback on sighting products and microgravity stability techniques.

Exploration↗

Expedition 1 Crew Resource Reel

This video shows footage of the Expedition 1 crew, William Shepherd, Yuri Gidzenko, and Sergei Krikalev, training for their stay on the International Space Station. Shepherd is seen training in the Soyuz spacecraft and inspecting the Service Module and Node 1. The three crewmembers are seen training for winter survival and extravehicular activity (in the Neutral Buoyancy Lab). They are taught how to use the fire extinguishers and extravehicular activity tools. Scenes show Gidzenko training in the crew compartment trainer and on the Mir Space Station and Krikalev on the STS-60 mission. A computer animation shows the Soyuz spacecraft docking with the Service Module.

Source record↗

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.

Harry W. Jones↗

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.

Harry W. Jones↗

STS-104 Crew Training Clips

The crewmembers of STS-104, Commander Steven Lindsey, Pilot Charles Hobaugh, and Mission Specialists Michael Gernhardt, James Reilly, and Janet Kavandi, are seen during various stages of their training. Footage shows the following: (1) Water Survival Training at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL); (2) Rendezvous and Docking Training in the Shuttle Mission Simulator; (3) Training in the Space Station Airlock; (4) Training in the Virtual Reality Lab; (5) Post-insertion Operations in the Fixed Base Simulator; (6) Extravehicular Activity Training at the NBL; (7) Crew Stowage Training in the Space Station Mock-up Training Facility; and (8) Water Transfer Training in the Crew Compartment Trainer.

Source record↗

Crew Exploration Vehicle Ascent Abort Coverage Analysis

An important element in the design of NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is the consideration given to crew safety during various ascent phase failure scenarios. To help ensure crew safety during this critical and dynamic flight phase, the CEV requirements specify that an abort capability must be continuously available from lift-off through orbit insertion. To address this requirement, various CEV ascent abort modes are analyzed using 3-DOF (Degree Of Freedom) and 6-DOF simulations. The analysis involves an evaluation of the feasibility and survivability of each abort mode and an assessment of the abort mode coverage using the current baseline vehicle design. Factors such as abort system performance, crew load limits, thermal environments, crew recovery, and vehicle element disposal are investigated to determine if the current vehicle requirements are appropriate and achievable. Sensitivity studies and design trades are also completed so that more informed decisions can be made regarding the vehicle design. An overview of the CEV ascent abort modes is presented along with the driving requirements for abort scenarios. The results of the analysis completed as part of the requirements validation process are then discussed. Finally, the conclusions of the study are presented, and future analysis tasks are recommended.

Abadie, Marc J.↗

Hypervelocity Technology (HVT) crew escape

Conceptual designs are being investigated for escape systems applicable to hypervelocity technology class aerospace vehicles. The concepts selected for further development will provide survivable escape and recovery throughout all phases of flight. Sixteen conceptual escape systems were identified, of which two were viable. The study vehicles included a horizontally launched vehicle (HLV) and a vertically launched vehicle (VLV). Computer-aided design models of the candidate escape systems were developed. State-of-the-art or near-term enabling technologies were identified in such areas as propulsion, life support, thermal protection, and deceleration.

Jines, Lanny A.↗

Li/BCX (thionyl chloride) battery for the NASA AN/PRC-112 survival radio

As part of the NASA contingency planning related to aborting a launch after liftoff, an emergency radio is required for use by the crew when they return to Earth at some unplanned location. The power source for the radio must be able to satisfy the performance requirements for the radio's mission as well as be compatible with in-cabin storage in the space shuttle. The radio needs a base load power of about 1 W with capability to handle power spikes greater then 6.5 W. A slightly enlarged battery pack using the Li/BCX chemistry in C-size cells was developed that meets these power levels and extends the operational life of the radio by over a factor of four compared to its operation using a Li/SO2 cell battery pack. In addition, the cells meet the requirements for the Li/BCX cells used for extra-vehicular activities by the crew of the shuttle. One of the major qualifying tests is the ability of the cells to withstand exposure to high temperature (149 C) without leaking. Electrical performance and thermal abuse test data will be presented for the cells.

Ebel, Steven J.↗

Validation of Finite Element Crash Test Dummy Models for Predicting Orion Crew Member Injuries During a Simulated Vehicle Landing

A series of crash tests were conducted with dummies during simulated Orion crew module landings at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. These tests consisted of several crew configurations with and without astronaut suits. Some test results were collected and are presented. In addition, finite element models of the tests were developed and are presented. The finite element models were validated using the experimental data, and the test responses were compared with the computed results. Occupant crash data, such as forces, moments, and accelerations, were collected from the simulations and compared with injury criteria to assess occupant survivability and injury. Some of the injury criteria published in the literature is summarized for completeness. These criteria were used to determine potential injury during crew impact events.

Tabiei, Al↗

ISS External Microorganisms: A Payload to Close Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Crewed Missions

Before NASA or COSPAR is able to set planetary protection requirements for crewed missions to locations like Mars there are a number of critical knowledge gaps that must be addressed (1). One of the most important knowledge gaps is an understanding of microbial leakage from crewed habitats and space suits. Current ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) and PLSS (Portable Life Support System) requirements do not include any provisions to control microbes that may escape along with vented or leaked gasses. The current generation of NASA space suits can leak at rates as high as 100 cm2 /min. during nominal operation (2). ISS (International Space Station) intentionally vents atmospheric gases like CO2 to maintain habitable conditions for the crew. Furthermore, every time an airlock is used for EVA (extravehicular activity)there is an accompanying release of internal atmosphere. Since it is not possible to sterilize a crewed mission, it is important that we understand what if any microbes are entrained in these vented and leaked products. It is also important to understand if these microbes can survive on exterior surfaces. Recent sampling of the Russian segments of ISS suggest that bacteria and fungi from inside ISS may be capable of surviving on external surfaces(3). NASA is developing an aseptic sampling tool for use during EVA and plans to collect samples from vents on ISS to build on these results. The results of this work will be used to develop planetary protection requirements for vented and leaked gasses from crewed volumes. NASA has developed and tested a tool kit for collecting microbiological samples during EVA(4). This tool kit contains eight commercially available, 23 mm. diameter, foam swabs that can be used to aseptically collect samples while at vacuum. The swabs are individually housed in aluminum canisters that are equipped with 0.2 μm Teflon filters. These filters allow the canisters to equilibrate to pressure changes while preventing microbiological contamination. The canisters will be cleaned and sterilized before flight. Results from ground-based testing indicate that this tool kit is capable of aseptically collecting microbes while at vacuum without becoming contaminated during pressure changes(5). Based on the results of this ground testing we have modified the tool kit to meet NASA safety requirements and improve the ergonomics. We added additional mounting points to the tool kit to give astronauts more options for securing it during use. We also changed the opening mechanism to improve the precision with which swabs can be extracted from the tool kit. We plan to use this kit on an upcoming EVA to collect samples from non-propulsive vents and areas near the U.S. airlock on ISS. These samples will be frozen at -80 ̊C and stored on station until they can be returned to Earth. We will analyze these returned samples using next generation DNA sequencing to determine the community composition and function of external ISS environments. The results of this study will close planetary protection knowledge gaps for crewed missions and will help NASA determine appropriate planetary protection requirements for life support systems. The tool kit will also be useful for collecting aseptic samples on upcoming crewed or robotic missions and could easily be modified to collect samples with organic contamination control requirements as well.

A B Regberg↗

ISS External Microorganisms: A Payload to Close Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Crewed Missions

Before NASA or COSPAR is able to set planetary protection requirements for crewed missions to locations like Mars there are a number of critical knowledge gaps that must be addressed (1). One of the most important knowledge gaps is an understanding of microbial leakage from crewed habitats and space suits. Current ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) and PLSS (Portable Life Support System) requirements do not include any provisions to control microbes that may escape along with vented or leaked gasses. The current generation of NASA space suits can leak at rates as high as 100 cm2 /min. during nominal operation (2). ISS (International Space Station) intentionally vents atmospheric gases like CO2 to maintain habitable conditions for the crew. Furthermore, every time an airlock is used for EVA (extravehicular activity)there is an accompanying release of internal atmosphere. Since it is not possible to sterilize a crewed mission, it is important that we understand what if any microbes are entrained in these vented and leaked products. It is also important to understand if these microbes can survive on exterior surfaces. Recent sampling of the Russian segments of ISS suggest that bacteria and fungi from inside ISS may be capable of surviving on external surfaces(3). NASA is developing an aseptic sampling tool for use during EVA and plans to collect samples from vents on ISS to build on these results. The results of this work will be used to develop planetary protection requirements for vented and leaked gasses from crewed volumes. NASA has developed and tested a tool kit for collecting microbiological samples during EVA(4). This tool kit contains eight commercially available, 23 mm. diameter, foam swabs that can be used to aseptically collect samples while at vacuum. The swabs are individually housed in aluminum canisters that are equipped with 0.2 μm Teflon filters. These filters allow the canisters to equilibrate to pressure changes while preventing microbiological contamination. The canisters will be cleaned and sterilized before flight. Results from ground-based testing indicate that this tool kit is capable of aseptically collecting microbes while at vacuum without becoming contaminated during pressure changes(5). Based on the results of this ground testing we have modified the tool kit to meet NASA safety requirements and improve the ergonomics. We added additional mounting points to the tool kit to give astronauts more options for securing it during use. We also changed the opening mechanism to improve the precision with which swabs can be extracted from the tool kit. We plan to use this kit on an upcoming EVA to collect samples from non-propulsive vents and areas near the U.S. airlock on ISS. These samples will be frozen at -80 ̊C and stored on station until they can be returned to Earth. We will analyze these returned samples using next generation DNA sequencing to determine the community composition and function of external ISS environments. The results of this study will close planetary protection knowledge gaps for crewed missions and will help NASA determine appropriate planetary protection requirements for life support systems. The tool kit will also be useful for collecting aseptic samples on upcoming crewed or robotic missions and could easily be modified to collect samples with organic contamination control requirements as well.

A B Regberg↗

ISS External Microorganisms: A Planetary Protection Payload Ready-for-Flight

Before NASA or COSPAR is able to set planetary protection requirements for crewed missions to locations like Mars there are a number of critical knowledge gaps that must be addressed (1). One of the most important knowledge gaps is an understanding of microbial leakage from crewed habitats and space suits. Current ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) and PLSS (Portable Life Support System) requirements do not include any provisions to control microbes that may escape along with vented or leaked gasses. The current generation of NASA space suits can leak at rates as high as 100 cm3/min. during nominal operation (2). ISS (International Space Station) intentionally vents atmospheric gases like CO2to maintain habitable conditions for the crew. Furthermore, every time an airlock is used for EVA (extravehicular activity) there is an accompanying release of internal atmosphere. Since it is not possible to sterilize a crewed mission, it is important that we understand what if any microbes are entrained in these vented and leaked products. It is also important to understand if these microbes can survive on exterior surfaces. Recent sampling of the Russian segments of ISS suggest that bacteria and fungi from inside ISS may be capable of surviving on external surfaces (3). NASA has developed an aseptic sampling tool for use during EVA and plans to collect samples from vents on ISS to build on these results. The results of this work will be used to develop planetary protection requirements for vented and leaked gasses from crewed volumes.

M S Bell↗

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗

Experiment M115: Special hematologic effects: Dynamic changes in red cell shape in response to the space-flight environment

The significance of the transformations in red cell shape observed during the Skylab study must be considered relative to the limitation of man's participation in extended space flight missions. The results of this one study are not conclusive with respect to this question. Based on these examinations of red cells in normal, healthy men and based on other Skylab experiment data relative to the functional capacity of the red cells in vitro and the performance capacity of man as an integrated system, the changes observed would not appear to be the limiting factor in determining man's stay in space. However, the results of this experiment and the documented red cell mass loss during space flight raise serious questions at this time relative to the selection criteria utilized for passengers and crews of future space flights. Until the specific cause and impact of the red cell shape change on cell survival in vivo can be resolved, individuals with diagnosed hematologic abnormalities should not be considered as prime candidates for missions, especially those of longer duration.

Kimzey, S. L.↗

Bioregenerative life support

Bioregenerative life support systems utilize plant growth for food, water, and atmosphere revitalization. Simulation studies of a simplified model are presented that suggest survivability in the face of partial plant growth chamber failure. Simulation studies demonstrate the potential for a bioregenerative life support system on an extended mission. In addition to robustness and survivability in terms of the food supply, the plant growth chamber produces exactly the right amount of oxygen for the crew's metabolic needs. The amount of water taken up by the plants during food production is balanced by the crew's metabolic water production.

Taylor, Bill↗

Advanced Power and Propulsion: Insuring Human Survival and Productivity in Deep Space Missions

Dr. Chang-Diaz gave an intriguing presentation of his research in advanced rocket propulsion and its relevance for planning and executing crewed deep space explorations. Though not necessarily exclusively Martian, his thrust looks critically at future Mars missions. Initially Dr. Chang-Diaz showed the time constraints of Mars missions due to orbital mechanics and our present chemically powered rocket technology. Since essentially all the energy required to place current generation spacecraft into a Martian trajectory must be expended in the early minutes of a flight, most of such a mission is spent in free-fall drift, captive to the gravitational forces among Earth, the Sun, and Mars. The simple physics of such chemically powered missions requires nearly a year in transit for each direction of a Mars mission. And the optimal orientations of Earth and Mars for rendezvous require further time on or around Mars to await return. These extensions of mission duration place any crew under a three-fold jeopardy: (1) physiological deconditioning (which in some aspects is still unknown and unpreventable), (2) psychological stress, and (3) ionizing radiation. This latter risk is due to exposure of crew members for extended time to the highly unpredictable and potentially lethal radiations of open space. Any gains in shortening mission duration would reap equivalent or greater benefits for these crew concerns. Dr. Chang-Diaz has applied his training and expertise (Ph.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in applied plasma physics) toward development of continuous rocket propulsion which would offer great time advantages in travel, and also more launch options than are now available. He clearly explained the enormous gains from a relatively low thrust accelerative force applied essentially continuously versus the high, but short-lived propulsion of present chemical rockets. In fact, such spacecraft could be powered throughout the mission, accelerating to approximately the midpoint and decelerating during the latter half. This would not only provide some level of gravity (acceleration) throughout the mission but also allow very high velocities to be achieved, thus saving many months of travel time. In proposing the design of such a spacecraft propulsion system, Dr. Chang-Diaz was quick to acknowledge the need for a large power source, which undoubtedly must be nuclear fueled at the solar distances involved. He calls his system the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR). The other major ingredient is a mass (deuterium, which could also function as a radiation shield for crews) for energizing into the ultra hot, high velocity exhaust plasma. He foresees models now functional in the laboratory soon to be tested in space. In fact, some of these concepts have already been tried there. His optimism and determination would have operational rockets in the next decades.

Chang-Diaz, Franklin R.↗

Risk Reduction of Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program Government-Furnished Equipment for Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS)

The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) was requested to conduct technical risk-reduction activities for safety-critical government-furnished environmental control and life support (ECLS) equipment for the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Program. These items include the post-landing anomaly gas monitor, the in-flight anomaly gas monitor, the emergency breathing mask, the 144-hour in-suit survival capability, the portable fire extinguisher, the smoke eater, and the post-landing carbon dioxide control system. This document contains the outcome of the NESC assessment.

Environmental Control and Life Support↗

Life On Mars: Past, Present and Future

Mars appears to be cold dry and dead world. However there is good evidence that early in its history it had liquid water, more active volcanism, and a thicker atmosphere. Mars had this earth-like environment over three and a half billion years ago, during the same time that life appeared on Earth. The main question in the exploration of Mars then is the search for a independent origin of life on that planet. Ecosystems in cold, dry locations on Earth - such as the Antarctic - provide examples of how life on Mars might have survived and where to look for fossils. Although the Viking results may indicate that Mars has no life today, there is direct geomorphological evidence that, in the past, Mars had large amounts of liquid water on its surface - possibly due to a thicker atmosphere. From a biological perspective the existence of liquid water, by itself motivates the question of the origin of life on Mars. One of the martian meteorites dates back to this early period and may contain evidence consistent with life. From studies of the Earth's earliest biosphere we know that by 3.5 Cyr. ago, life had originated on Earth and reached a fair degree of biological sophistication. Surface activity and erosion on Earth make it difficult to trace the history of life before the 3.5 Cyr timeframe. Ecosystems in cold, dry locations on Earth - such as the Antarctic - provide examples of how life on Mars might have survived and where to look for fossils. Human exploration of Mars will probably begin with a small base manned by a temporary crew, a necessary first start. But exploration of the entire planet will require a continued presence on the Martian surface and the development of a self sustaining community in which humans can live and work for very long periods of time. A permanent Mars research base can be compared to the permanent research bases which several nations maintain in Antarctica at the South Pole, the geomagnetic pole, and elsewhere. In the long run, a continued human presence on Mars will be the most economical way to study that planet in detail. It is possible that at some time in the future we might recreate a habitable climate on Mars, returning it to the life-bearing state it may have enjoyed early in its history. Our studies of Mars are still in a preliminary state but everything we have learned suggests that it may be possible to restore Mars to a habitable climate.

McKay, Christopher P.↗