SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “std”

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 NTRS2018

Vehicle Design Data Format and Process for a Complete TARIS and OLTARIS Radiation Analysis for Designers and Engineers

Protecting astronauts from space radiation is a complex task when it comes to modeling and simulation. This document shows what information is needed from a spacecraft designer using CAD (Computer-Assisted Design) at each phase of the design to enable the engineers to evaluate the design phase against space radiation limits to determine the suitability of the design for space flight. The current personal exposure limits are listed in NASA STD-3001. A proxy to determine the REID (Radiation Exposure Induced Death) in NASA STD-3001 is the whole body effective dose equivalent (E or effective dose). For short-term tissue effects, organ-averaged gray equivalent (G (sub T)) is used. The TARIS (Tool for the Assessment of Radiation In Space - for LaRC (Langley Research Center) engineers) and OLTARIS (On-Line TARIS) - for designers) systems are used to generate these response functions. The E can use ICRP60 or NASA Q-values. A possible space radiation design basis environment for short-term tissue effects is described and used in all analyses. A single space vehicle was designed with three astronaut configurations and two of those configurations were used in a storm shelter thickness perturbation analysis. Conversion of the data from the CAD model to input necessary for TARIS and OLTARIS is also discussed in detail with relevant examples.

Singleterry, Robert C.↗

NASA NTRS2019

NASA's Approach to Additive Manufacturing Certification: Methodologies for Qualification of Additively Manufactured Aerospace Hardware

NASA's Approach to Additive Manufacturing Certification: Methodologies for Qualification of Additively Manufactured Aerospace Hardware. This course is intended to provide guidance and practical methodologies on how to establish a qualified process and deliver certifiable hardware per the requirements in MSFC-STD-3716 and MSFC-SPEC-3717. Course Objectives: Reinforce a basic understanding of AM processes; Become familiar with MSFC-STD-3716 and MSFC-SPEC-3717 requirements for metallic spaceflight hardware; Appreciate integrated path to Qualification and Certification; Understand products necessary to get you to Qualification and Certification.

West, Brian↗

NASA NTRS2019

History of NASA's Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7)

NASA's Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7) from materials and assembled articles for spaceflight has evolved since the Apollo program for over 50 years to meet various habitable spacecraft nonmetallic programmatic requirements. Now mandated by NASA STD-6016A, Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft, all nonmetallic materials used in habitable flight compartments, with the exception of ceramics, metal oxides, inorganic glasses, and materials used in sealed containers, must meet the offgassing requirements in NASA-STD-6001B Test 7. This manuscript presents the history of Test 7, beginning with the Apollo spacecraft nonmetallic materials selection guidelines and test requirements in 1967, in which tests were performed in mostly oxygen atmospheres. It progresses through Skylab, Space Shuttle, International Space Station nonmetals testing, and acceptance requirements with milder test environments. This review of the history of Test 7 presents the reader with a perspective on the development and changes undergone since inception to the present. Related NASA standard tests (some now former, discontinued, combined, or supplemental) including Test 6, Odor Assessment, Test 16, Determination of Offgassed Products from Assembled Articles, and Test 12, Total Spacecraft Cabin Offgassing, are discussed in context

Greene, Benjamin↗

NASA NTRS2019

History of NASA's Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7)

Greene, Benjamin↗

NASA NTRS2018

NASA’s Plans for Development of Standards for Additive Manufactured Components

There are currently no NASA standards providing specific design and construction requirements for certification of additively manufactured parts. Several international standards organizations are developing standards for additive manufacturing; however, NASA mission schedules preclude the Agency from relying on these organizations to develop standards that are both timely and applicable. NASA and its program partners in manned spaceflight (the Commercial Crew Program, the Space Launch System and the Orion Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle) are actively developing additively manufactured parts for flight as early as 2018. To bridge this gap, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has authored a center-level standard (MSFC-STD-3716)1 to establish standard practices for the Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) process. In its draft form, the MSFC standard has been used as a basis for L-PBF process implementation for each of the manned space flight programs. The development of an Agency-level standard is proposed, which based upon the principles of MSFC-STD-3716, would have application to multiple additive manufacturing processes and be readily adaptable to all NASA programs.

Russell, Richard W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Pull Force Test Results for Crimped Connections

Crimped electrical contacts are reliable when strict process controls are followed during manufacturing and accompanied by continuous process verification through pull force testing. Cable and wire harness assemblies’ standards are developed and refined over time to provide the minimum pull force that a crimp contact must meet before it breaks from the wire. However, in practice the failures occur at a much higher tensile strength than the minimum required. The first section of this paper reviewed 780 pull force test results provided by NASA Centers that were collected and analyzed to determine how the data compare to NASA’s pre-existing requirements from the cable/harness standards NASA-STD-8739.4 and IPC/WHMA-A-620B-S. The measured tensile strength of most of the contact/conductor pairs (i.e., Contact/Wires or C/W) exceeded the minimum pull force values of NASA-STD-8739.4 and IPC/WHMA-A-620 standards by at least 100%. The C/W pair samples’ tensile strength values followed a normal distribution with an average tensile strength value that was at least 182% of the minimum requirement, and all the samples analyzed passed the pull force testing. In addition, the 95% confidence interval of the average tensile strength distributions for several C/W pairs was determined and plotted as error bars to show that the C/W pairs will meet and surpass the requirements. The frequency of pull force testing can be problematic for projects because of the cost and availability of spare contacts for the destructive test. It is possible to reduce the frequency of pull force testing if at the beginning of the production run, the conditions of the crimp tool and materials are verified, and the settings of the tool remain unchanged throughout the process. However, the project needs to understand and evaluate the impact to risk from reducing the frequency of testing prior to implementing process changes.

Alejandra Constante↗

NASA NTRS2022

Evaluation of Multiple Methods for Calculating Gray Equivalent

The assessment of different algorithms to determine the Gray-Equivalent as defined in NASA-STD-3001 from a source of space radiation has been evaluated in this paper. The Gray-Equivalent applies an RBE (Relative Biological Effectiveness) to the dose seen at the organ of interest in a human phantom. The current design basis solar particle event was used in the assessments along with the August 1972 event modeled by J.H. King and with idealized spheres and two vehicle designs. Three different algorithms were used and compared. One of the algorithms was the current OLTARIS algorithm. This algorithm is astronaut orientation averaged, which is not what happens in a storm shelter during a solar particle event. Two other algorithms were proposed to eliminate this issue. It is clear that either algorithm will be adequate to satisfy NASA-STD-3001 requirements. This work recommends the algorithm which applies the RBEs to the phantom points instead of at the surface of the phantom as with the current OLTARIS algorithm.

Gray Equivalent↗

NASA NTRS2022

Guidebook for the Design and Analysis of a NASA Standard Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Probability of Detection (POD) Study

Purpose: This document provides guidance on the design and analysis of a NASA Standard nondestructive evaluation (NDE) probability of detection (POD) study. A Standard NDE flaw size is considered to be conservative such that most inspectors, trained and certified in the specific NDE method, are expected to provide at least 90/95 POD for that flaw size to inspect fracture-critical hardware. Scope: This document is specifically applicable to NASA Technical Standards that establish the NDE requirements for any NASA system or component, flight or ground, where fracture control and a quantitative demonstration of POD is a requirement, including NASA-STD-5009B, Nondestructive Evaluation Requirements for Fracture-Critical Metallic Components, and NASA-STD-5019A,Fracture Control Requirements for Spaceflight Hardware.

Probability of Detection↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancing Dust Tolerant Mechanisms for a Sustained Exploration of the Moon

Introduction: “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the Moon. I think we can overcome other physio-logical or physical or mechanical problems except dust.”– Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 Technical Debrief The Apollo missions revealed the impact of lu-nar dust on mechanisms. Lunar dust particles are jagged and electrostatically charged, giving them the ability to bind or damage mechanisms and alter thermal properties. Reports documented clogged equipment and jammed mechanisms in every mission, regardless of surface duration, as well as clogged mechanisms in the Extravehicular Mobility Suit (EMS), including zippers, wrist and hose locks, faceplates, and sunshades [1-2]. Several astronauts remarked they could not have sustained surface activity much longer because clogged joints would have frozen up completely [2]. Effective dust mitigation strategies are need-ed to support longer duration stays on the lunar surface [3-4]. State of the Art: Technology for mechanisms able to operate in dusty enviroments is advancing rapidly due to the needs of both Mars rovers and the Artemis program. Vacuum-tight connectors are essential for spacesuits and habitats, and their performance can be dependent on cleaning technologies, which have proven difficult on the lunar surface. Several TRL 3-5 technologies are undergoing tests with the expectation to reach TRL 6 within 1-2 years. Some mechanisms will be infused and tested on the VIPER (Volatiles Inves-tigating Polar Exploration Rover) mission planned for mid-2020s. NASA Funded Efforts: NASA has recognized the need for dust tolerant mechanisms, and has partnered with industry to advance the state-of-the-art. At NASA GRC, KSC, and JSC, the Dust Tolerant Mechanisms Project is working to devel-op advanced actuator seals for rotary joints and rotary bearing technologies for long-term sus-tained operation in lunar dust environments. An-other NASA project at NASA GRC, partnered with GSFC, JPL, and KSC is Motors for Dusty & Ex-treme Cold Environments (MDECE). MDECE is developing an unheated magnetically-geared mo-tor that can operate continuously for a long dura-tion at an ambient temperature of -243 ºC (33 K). NASA GRC has the capability to characterize the effects of dust on seals, mechanisms, and other mating surfaces and components under lunar conditions [5]. Through the SBIR/STTR program, NASA has funded several companies to advance dust toler-ant mechanisms via the Dust Tolerant Mecha-nisms sub-topic with applications in surface mobil-ity, spacesuits, connectors, joints, and more. LSIC and Community Efforts: The Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC) Dust Miti-gation focus group has fostered collaborations across NASA, industry, and academia to develop solutions that minimizes the impact of lunar dust on robotic and human systems. Community ef-forts have included topical meetings on dust tol-erant mechanisms, featured technology presenta-tions, and feedback to NASA on potential gaps and needs. Testing: In 2021, NASA released NASA-STD-1008 [6]. This NASA Technical Standard estab-lishes minimum requirements and provides guid-ance for testing systems and hardware to be ex-posed to dust in planetary environments. The standard has specific sections dedicated to Mechanisms Testing (e.g. bearings, gears) as well as Seals and Mating Surfaces Testing (e.g. hatches, docking systems). Gaps and Needs: NASA is tracking dust tol-erant mechanisms as a gap in a cross-directorate analysis of capability areas needed to enable fu-ture human space-flight architectures. Two high-priority gap areas include additional facilities for testing mechanisms in lunar-surface conditions, and a better understanding of vulnerabilities to the smallest, nanometer-scale dust particles. Conclusion: Understanding and mitigating lu-nar dust is critical to successful, sustained opera-tions on the lunar surface – whether autonomous or otherwise. This presentation will discuss both the state-of-the-art and open needs in lunar dust tolerant mechanisms, technology impacts, mitiga-tion approaches, testing, LSIC community efforts, and more. References: [1] Gaier, J. R. (2020). The Im-pact of Dust on Lunar Surface Equipment During Apollo. Lunar Dust 2020. [2] GRC, & Gaier, J. R. (2005). The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Sys-tems During the Apollo Missions. [3] Johansen, M. R. (2020). An Update on NASA’s Lunar Dust Mitigation Strategy. Lunar Dust 2020. [4] ASI, CSA, ESA, JAXA, & NASA. (2016). Dust Mitiga-tion Gap Assessment Report. [5] Jimenez, N. et al (2022), LPSC Abstract 2572. [6] NASA-STD-1008, 2021.

J I Nunez↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operational Implications from Field Test Results: Sensorimotor Guidelines for Exploration Missions

Two key sensorimotor objectives of the joint NASA-Russian Field Test (FT) study were (1) to quantify functional performance on long duration crewmembers as close to landing as possible, and (2) to develop a recovery timeline back to preflight baseline. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of the FT results and discuss the operational implications for future exploration missions. The NASA and Russian teams conducted a total of 48 Field Tests, including 18 using a reduced Pilot FT (PFT) protocol. The combined PFT/FT cohort included 14 first-time fliers, 4F, and nine cosmonauts who repeated FT during a second mission. The mission durations were 185 ± 42 days, mean ± std. Nominally, the initial postflight session was performed in the medical test at the Soyuz landing site or at the nearby airport (R+2.2 ± 1.3 hrs, mean ± std), and then repeated multiple times throughout the postflight recovery. The common tasks performed across PFT and full FT protocols included sit-to-stand, recovery from fall (prone to stand) and tandem walk, performed in that order of increasing difficulty. The full FT protocol also included seated tasks (eccentric gaze, dysmetria finger to nose, eye-hand coordination on a tablet, grip force discrimination), a standing posture test with an upper body perturbation, a timed up and go mobility test with obstacles, and a dynamic visual acuity task during vertical oscillations. While there was considerable variability in the postflight outcome measures across crewmembers, the level of vestibular/cerebellar and sensorimotor impairment was greater than previously observed during shorter spaceflight missions. Most striking was the higher incidence of motion sickness even without constraining the standard medical interventions. Motion sensitivity prevented some crewmembers from attempting and/or completing the early testing. The recovery timeline varied with task complexity, generally taking longer when either the basis of support was limited (e.g., tandem walk) or visual cues were deprived (eyes closed). Based on this evidence, mission planners need to expect a range of response across individuals and tasks following G-transitions. Individual health assessments are recommended along with development of pre-worked, prioritized content and timelines, with the ability to change roles depending on crew readiness. Handholds and balance aids are recommended to help stabilize the crewmembers to perform specific tasks (e.g., touch screen selection) or to allow the crewmember the ability to rest with onset of symptoms. Based on anecdotal reports and performance on computerized dynamic posturography, multiple testing on landing day appeared to be beneficial for some participants, while others may have pushed beyond their motion tolerance limit in an effort to complete more FT objectives. Instead of delaying planetary surface operations to allow for recovery, our results suggest that early mobility may be important. Early active self-administered retraining, individualized based on the level of initial impairment and motion sensitivity, will enable a more efficient motor learning and enhance crew performance.

S J Wood↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Pull Force Test Results for Crimped Connections

Crimped electrical contacts are reliable when strict process controls are followed during manufacturing and accompanied by continuous process verification through pull force testing. Cable and wire harness assemblies’ standards are developed and refined over time to provide the minimum pull force that a crimp contact must meet before it breaks from the wire. However, in practice the failures occur at a much higher tensile strength than the minimum required. The first section of this paper reviewed 780 pull force test results provided by NASA Centers were collected and analyzed to determine how the data compares to NASA’s pre-existing requirements from the cable/harness standards NASA-STD-8739.4 and IPC/WHMA-A-620B-S. The measured tensile strength of most of the contact/conductor pairs (i.e. Contact/Wires or C/W) exceeded the minimum pull force values of NASA-STD-8739.4 and IPC/WHMA-A-620 standards by at least 100 %. The tensile strength samples of the C/W pairs values followed a normal distribution with an average tensile strength value that was at least 182 % of the minimum requirement, and all the samples analyzed passed the pull force testing. In addition, the 95 % confidence interval of the average tensile strength distributions for several C/W pairs was determined and plotted as error bars to show that there is good likelihood to observe C/W pair normal distribution with a 95 % confidence interval that will meet and surpass the standard requirements. The frequency of pull force testing can be problematic for projects because of the cost and availability of spare contacts for the destructive test. It could be possible to reduce the frequency of pull force testing if at the beginning of the production run, the conditions of the crimp tool and materials are verified, and the settings of the tool remain unchanged throughout the process. However, the project must evaluate the impact to risk from reducing the frequency of testing.

Crimped connections↗

NASA NTRS2023

Guidelines for Mapping Reliably Detectable Dye Penetrant Crack Size at External Corners with Fillet Radii

The technical memorandum addresses some concerns with dye penetrant crack sizes stated in Table 1 (and Table 2) of NASA-STD-5009B. Table 1 corner crack size of a = 0.100” and c = 0.150” is reasoned to be larger than it should be based on the original Standard dye penetrant qualification. In the original Standard dye penetrant qualification, surface crack size with depth a = 0.075” x length 2c = 0.150” was qualified with minimum 90% Probability of Detection (POD) with 95% confidence (conf.). No corner crack size was qualified by direct POD testing in original dye penetrant qualification. Standard dye penetrant detectable crack size for radiused corner is not addressed in NASA-STD-5009B.

Dye Penetrant Testing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

2023 Artemis Crew Health and Performance System Model Development

While the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) utilizes a Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System to represent all the Agency’s efforts to ensure the health and performance of NASA astronauts, there is no shared mental model of a CHP system at NASA. Some groups may consider a CHP system to be only a medical kit, while others may not be using the concept at all. To facilitate the integration of functions and capabilities to ensure astronaut health and performance during vehicle development, HRP has proposed a CHP Shared Mental Model derived from the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards (NASA-STD-3001 Vol.1/Vol.2). [1] Even though many vehicle, ground, and communication systems as well as mission operations are modeled for the Artemis Campaigns, no mission level CHP system model was created to achieve the intent of the HRP CHP Shared Mental Model. The lack of this model renders it difficult to visualize and understand how the many programs work together to provide the necessary cross program functions and capabilities to ensure the health and performance of the crew throughout an Artemis mission. For this purpose, the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element of HRP developed a CHP system model for the Artemis III and IV missions to provide a view of how each program contributes to and interacts with the overall CHP system. To develop the 2023 Artemis CHP system model, ExMC leveraged existing data and models from the Moon to Mars Program Office, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) and the Orion, Gateway, Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) and Human Landing System (HLS) programs. By using a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach, existing requirements, functions, and concepts of operations were combined to create a single system model focused on representing CHP from the launch to the return to Earth segments of the Artemis III and IV missions. Additionally, by incorporating the HRP Systems Platform for Aggregating and Relating Capabilities, or SPARC tool, the data from the programs was also related back to the 2nd volume of the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standard (NASA-STD-3001, Vol.2) and the human system risks identified by the Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The first version of the 2023 Artemis CHP system model was baselined in Fall of 2023 after the model was demonstrated to be a potentially useful tool for systems engineers integrating CHP capabilities in vehicle development as well as members of the Health and Medical Technical Authority providing oversight of those programs. The model may also be useful to any stakeholder of astronaut health and performance by providing insights on how an Artemis mission satisfies the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards as well as how they mitigate the HSRB Human System Risks. This presentation highlights how the model was developed and the possible benefits of the model. [1] NASA HRP (2022), Crew Health and Performance System Whitepaper

Systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2017

Development of NASA Standards for Enabling Certification of Additively Manufactured Parts

There are currently no NASA standards providing specific design and construction requirements for certification of additively manufactured parts. Several international standards organizations are developing standards for additive manufacturing; however, NASA mission schedules preclude the Agency from relying on these organizations to develop standards that are both timely and applicable. NASA and its partners in human spaceflight (Commercial Crew, Space Launch System, and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Programs) are actively developing additively manufactured parts for flight as early as 2018. To bridge this gap, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is authoring a Center-level standard (MSFC-STD-3716) 1 to establish standard practices for the Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) process. In its draft form, the MSFC standard has been used as a basis for L-PBF process implementation for each of the human spaceflight programs. The development of an Agency-level standard is proposed, based upon the principles of MSFC-STD-3716, which would have application to multiple additive manufacturing processes and be readily adaptable to all NASA programs.

NASA Standards↗

NASA NTRS2024

2023 Artemis Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Model Development

Systems engineering↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High Risk Spacecraft Materials Offgassing

NASA-STD-6001B, Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7), provides the offgassing characteristics under standardized conditions for materials and assembled articles to be located within habitable spacecraft environments. Experience with Test 7 has found certain material types to be of higher risk for offgassing undesirable compounds aboard spacecraft than others. Formaldehyde and acrolein are historically high T value offgassed components of the offgassed compound target list because they have low spacecraft maximum allowable concentration (SMAC) values assigned by the JSC Toxicology Group. Carbon disulfide, benzene, acrylonitrile, and furan are additional target compounds of concern due to their lower thresholds of toxicity as determined by the JSC Toxicology Group. Materials offgassing siloxanes are also of concern due to their degradation effects on environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) components and performance. Spacecraft materials and articles defined in this manuscript as high risk were identified after examining and condensing data for these compounds of concern from approximately 3000 tests performed over 30 years. Summaries of high risk material and article types based on highest Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) T values are also presented. Historical analysis shows high risk components are produced largely from test materials and articles in the general categories of electronic/powered components, foams, paints/coatings/films, adhesives/tapes, epoxy/resins, liquids/gels, Nomex® with surface treatments, markers/pens/inks, dry film lubricants, thermoplastics, hygiene items (deodorants, lip balms), and silicone rubber. These data are intended to be a resource for spacecraft materials and processes managers, designers, and toxicologists. High risk materials and articles intended for use aboard spacecraft should be tested in accordance with NASA-STD-6001B Test 7.

Vanessa D Buchanan↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Volumetric Assessment of UPRITE Exercises From Marker-Based Motion Capture

BACKGROUND Lack of volumetric data on full-body movement of exercises presents a challenge to ensuring the fit of crew member’s full range of motion on the International Space Station (ISS). The Upright Proprioception Retention via In-flight Training and Evaluation (UPRITE) is a sensorimotor countermeasure device designed for maintaining crew members’ proprioception in a microgravity environment. A footplate—attached to a static base—rotates in two degrees of freedom (pitch and roll) up to a 20 deg angle. An initial volumetric assessment assuming an upright standing posture produced a cone-like shape with a narrow bottom and wide top. Such general volumetric assessments risk creating an overly conservative volume estimate, taking up more space than is necessary on the already limited interior space of the ISS, and neglecting necessary volume due to oversimplifying assumptions. Rather, higher-fidelity volumetric assessments offer more comprehensive insights in an environment where every area counts. The main objective of this work is to provide the spatial parameters of exercises on the UPRITE such that it is placed on the ISS according to its volumetric demands or that usage is adjusted to fit the available space. METHODS In 2023, a data collection was performed originally to inform loads and dynamics of system use and was recently leveraged for volumetric assessment. Three human subjects representing different body types (~63-76 inches in stature) performed a variety of board manipulations using UPRITE with body weight offload. The test collected the 3D positional data of a modified full-body Plug-in Gait marker set [1] via a 16-camera OptiTrack MoCap system. After processing – filling marker gaps and trimming data – in OptiTrack Motive, the recorded marker location data, which included device markers, was exported to a readable trajectory file. To accurately represent the full volume defining landmarks, additional markers were digitally added to an unscaled Modified Full Body Model [2]. The model was then scaled according to its subject parameters upon which an inverse kinematics analysis was performed. A custom plugin yielded model marker location data files. Volumetric analyses were performed on the recorded trajectory and model trajectory files using a custom Python-built tool that extracted the marker location data and plotted it in a 3D space. Concerned with only the maximum volume of the motion, a 3D convex hull analysis was applied to the plot, extracting the vertices or external points of the eventual 3D CAD output, dubbed aptly as a “volume shell”. This overall approach was based on guidance in a NASA-STD-3001 Technical Brief [3]. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Batch volumetric assessment on the exercises for each subject was performed, producing high-fidelity volume shells in minimal time. Preliminary results highlighted the value in higher-fidelity volumes based on collected data when possible. For example, revolving a single posture in the cone assessment would not have sufficiently captured a single leg stance; rather, it would need to involve swinging the leg both forward and back. Additional observations and the maximal dimensions of the volumes, including those based on scaled data for ISS anthropometric requirements, will be presented at the Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop. CONCLUSIONS While this work’s primary objective was for the UPRITE-to-ISS integration, the tool built to conduct this analysis has wide applications for future exercise systems as an informational tool for optimal device placement. The tool and its findings also have implications for exercise device design and spacecraft interior considerations on Gateway, the Lunar Pressurized Rover, and beyond. REFERENCES [1] Bell, C. A., et al. (2023) Recent Improvements and Verification of a Full Body Model in OpenSim. NASA Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230001080 [2] Lostroscio, K., et al (2023) The Digital Astronaut Simulation. AHFE International Conference on Human Factors in Design, Engineering, and Computing for All. [3] Exercise Overview. (2023) NASA-STD-3001 Technical Brief. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ochmo-tb-031-exercise-overview.pdf?emrc=9d454c?emrc=9d454c

L D Quinto↗

NASA NTRS2026

Performance Optimization for Lunar Extravehicular Activity Readiness (POLAR) Study: Methods Paper

To better understand which aspects of physical fitness may be most related to performance during Lunar surface operations and thereby help to inform the current NASA fitness standards, much can be learned from fields encompassing the “tactical athlete.” Other physically demanding professions such as law enforcement, military, or rescue professionals often require candidates to meet occupationally-relevant fitness standards. The determination of such standards is a multistep process, including both objective and subjective measures, to determine tasks essential to occupational performance and identify the minimal fitness profile needed to meet physical demands of the job. Notably, fitness is only one component which may contribute to the demands of astronaut selection, flight assignment, and occupational performance. Utilizing a framework to systematically determine which domains of fitness most contribute to relevant job tasks can aid in the refinement of current NASA-STD-3001 fitness standards. Therefore, NASA’s Exercise Physiology & Countermeasures Laboratory conducted the Performance Optimization for Lunar Extravehicular Activity Readiness (POLAR) study to identify and examine a comprehensive list of fitness tests (including NASA-STD-3001 assessments: 1-Repetition Maximum [1-RM] bench press and deadlift) and determine preliminary relationships between identified fitness parameters and novel Artemis-relevant tasks to help inform future investigations for the continued development of aerobic and muscular fitness standards for surface EVAs. This was accomplished through 1) a review of the literature relating fitness assessments to simulated or real EVA performance to identify fitness tests that are most correlated with simulated EVA task performance; 2) a task analysis following a modified framework for physical employment standards development to down select mission critical tasks; and 3) development and pilot testing of a novel, portable Artemis-relevant EVA task circuit to relate to a battery of fitness assessments. The current report describes the methodology used to complete the task analysis, EVA task circuit development, and the pilot study.

Nicole C Strock↗