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 199 records · Page 11

New Species of Fire Discovered: Fingering Flamelets Form a Dynamic Population

Poets and artists have long used fire as a metaphor for life. At the NASA Glenn Research Center, recent experiments in a subcritical Rayleigh number flow channel demonstrated that this analogy holds up surprisingly well when tools developed to characterize a biological population are applied to a class of fire that occurs in near-extinction, weakly convective environments (such as microgravity) or in vertically confined spaces (such as our apparatus). Under these conditions, the flame breaks into numerous 'flamelets" that form a Turing-type reaction-diffusion fingering pattern as they spread across the fuel. It is standard practice on U.S. spacecraft for the astronaut crew to turn off the ventilation to help extinguish a fire, both to eliminate the fresh oxygen supply and to reduce the distribution of the smoke. When crew members think that the fire is fully extinguished, they reactivate the ventilation system to clear the smoke. However, some flamelets can survive, and our experiments have demonstrated that flamelets quickly grow into a large fire when ventilation increases.

Olson, Sandra L.↗

Midodrine as a Countermeasure to Orthostatic Hypotension Immediately After Space Shuttle Landing

Midodrine prevents post-space flight orthostatic intolerance when testing is conducted in a controlled laboratory setting within 2-4 hours after Space Shuttle landing. It is unknown if midodrine is as effective during re-entry and immediately following landing. METHODS: Cardiovascular responses to 10 minutes of 80 head-up tilt in five male astronauts were compared before and immediately after Space Shuttle missions. Preflight tests were conducted in the Johnson Space Center Cardiovascular Laboratory without midodrine. Post-flight testing was performed in the Crew Transport Vehicle on the Space Shuttle runway within 60 minutes of landing; midodrine was self-administered before re-entry. Survival analysis was performed (Gehan-Breslow test) to compare presyncope rates pre- to post-flight. Cardiovascular responses (last minute standing minus supine) to tilt before and after space flight were compared using paired t-tests. RESULTS: Midodrine did not prevent post-flight orthostatic hypotension in two of the five astronauts, but the rate of presyncope across the group did not increase (p=0.17) from pre- to post-flight. Also, although the change in heart rate from supine to the last minute of standing was not affected by space flight, systolic blood pressure decreased more (p=0.05) and diastolic blood pressure tended to decrease (p=0.08) after space flight. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate interpretation of the current results requires that similar data be collected in control subjects (without midodrine) on the CTV. However, drug interaction concerns with commonly used anti-emetics and potentiation of prolonged QTc intervals observed in long duration astronauts make the routine use of midodrine for immediate post-flight orthostatic hypotension unlikely. 2

Platts, Steven H.↗

Designing A Lunar Terrain Vehicle: Thermal Challenges

The Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) is an unpressurized rover that will be used to transport astronauts on the South Pole of the moon under the Artemis Program. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will be partnering with an American industry partner to develop the LTV. This paper discusses the thermal challenges faced when designing a crewed lunar vehicle concept and shares a concept that addresses these constraints. One of the most difficult aspects of the design is surviving the cold lunar night on the South Pole which includes permanently shadowed regions (PSR) that can have an extended lunar night duration of 125 hours. Other challenges are critical component temperature limits and programmatic constraints.

Zaida Y. Hernandez↗

Surviving and Thriving in Space and on Earth's Oceans, Human Logistics and Sustainability: Comparisons and Considerations

Ocean exploration sailing journeys from hundreds of years ago typically required large vessels and large crews (in comparison with today’s space capsules) to travel between the continents and around the world. Modern sailors of today are able to complete similar distant voyages, in small vessels, with a minimal crew, comparable in size to modern space travel crews. This paper uses a systems engineering approach (e.g. using the NASA Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH), NASA-SP-2010-3407, 2010 and the “Advanced Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions Document, (BVAD)” NASA-CR-2004-208941, 2004.), to examine and compare the logistics and sustainability aspects of a small crew traveling on Earth's oceans in sailing vessels versus humans traveling in space. The “Mālama Honua Worldwide Voyage” of the Hōkūleʻa, a replica of an ancient Hawaiian double hulled sailing canoe, will be used as a baseline minimalist case study. This is a good comparison case since the Polynesian exploration of the vast (and virtually empty) Pacific Ocean with limited resources is an analogue to human space travel. A modern sailboat is compared to the ancient Polynesian methods and then a space craft is assessed with similar functional decomposition methods. In 1992 during his second Space Shuttle mission (STS-52, Columbia) Astronaut Lacy Veach received a radio message from a student: "What are the similarities and differences between canoe and space travel?" Astronaut Charles Lacy Veach answered, "Both are voyages of exploration. Hōkūle‘a is in the past, Columbia is in the future." Navigator Nainoa Thompson added from the sailing canoe, "Columbia is the highest achievement of modern technology today, a voyaging canoe was the highest achievement of technology in its day." This paper is dedicated to the memory of two great Hawaiian astronauts: US Air Force Colonel Charles Lacy Veach and US Air Force Colonel Ellison Onizuka and to legendary waterman and Hōkūleʻa crew member Eddie Aikau who was lost at sea in 1978, at the beginning of a 30-day, 2,500-mile (4,000km) journey by the Hōkūleʻa to follow the ancient route of the Polynesian migration between the Hawaiian and Tahitian island chains.

Robert P Mueller↗

Probabilistic Survivability Versus Time Modeling

This technical paper documents Kennedy Space Centers Independent Assessment team work completed on three assessments for the Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) Program to assist the Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer (CSO) and GSDO management during key programmatic reviews. The assessments provided the GSDO Program with an analysis of how egress time affects the likelihood of astronaut and worker survival during an emergency. For each assessment, the team developed probability distributions for hazard scenarios to address statistical uncertainty, resulting in survivability plots over time. The first assessment developed a mathematical model of probabilistic survivability versus time to reach a safe location using an ideal Emergency Egress System at Launch Complex 39B (LC-39B); the second used the first model to evaluate and compare various egress systems under consideration at LC-39B. The third used a modified LC-39B model to determine if a specific hazard decreased survivability more rapidly than other events during flight hardware processing in Kennedys Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).Based on the composite survivability versus time graphs from the first two assessments, there was a soft knee in the Figure of Merit graphs at eight minutes (ten minutes after egress ordered). Thus, the graphs illustrated to the decision makers that the final emergency egress design selected should have the capability of transporting the flight crew from the top of LC 39B to a safe location in eight minutes or less. Results for the third assessment were dominated by hazards that were classified as instantaneous in nature (e.g. stacking mishaps) and therefore had no effect on survivability vs time to egress the VAB. VAB emergency scenarios that degraded over time (e.g. fire) produced survivability vs time graphs that were line with aerospace industry norms.

Joyner, James J., Sr.↗

Going beyond reliability to robustness and resilience in space 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 environments 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 damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes are usually unanticipated. They often 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 events. These three 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 disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems, the ability to perform after unanticipated events, would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness can be done by dealing with known sources of problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. Two contrasting approaches are reducing system complexity and adding supervisory control. The need for resilience has been claimed for decades but little has been accomplished. Systems designers assume that they understand requirements, technologies, designs, architectures, integration, testing, operations, and environments. The potential problems of changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns are ignored. Systems designers are typically overconfident and ignore the need for robustness and resilience.

Harry W Jones↗

Experimental Tests of UltraFlex Array Designs in Low Earth Orbital and Geosynchronous Charging Environments

The present ground based investigations give the first definitive look describing the expected on-orbit charging behavior of Orion UltraFlex array coupons in the Low Earth Orbital and Geosynchronous Environments. Furthermore, it is important to note that the LEO charging environment also applies to the International Space Station as well as to the lunar mission charging environments. The GEO charging environment includes the bounding case for all lunar orbital and lunar surface mission environments. The UltraFlex thin film photovoltaic array technology has been targeted to become the sole power system for life support and on-orbit power for the manned Aires Crew Exploration Vehicle. It is therefore, crucial to gain an understanding of the complex charging behavior to answer some of the basic performance and survivability issues in an attempt to ascertain that a single UltraFlex array design will be able to cope with the projected worst case LEO and GEO charging environments. Testing was limited to four array coupons, two coupons each from two different array manufactures, Emcore and Spectrolab. The layout of each array design is identical and varies only in the actual cell technology used. The individual array cells from each manufacturer have an antireflection layered coating and come in two different varieties either uncoated (only AR coating) or coated with a thin conducting ITO layer. The LEO Plasma tests revealed that all four coupons passed the arc threshold -120 V bias tests. GEO electron gun charging tests revealed that only front side area of ITO coated coupons passed tests. Only the Emcore AR array passed backside Stage 2 GEO Tests.

Galofaro, Joel T.↗

Monitoring of Microbial Loads During Long Duration Missions as a Risk Reduction Tool

Humans have been exploring space for more than 40 years. For all those years microorganisms have accompanied, first un-manned spacecraft/cargo and later manned vessels. Microorganisms are everywhere on Earth, could easily adapt to new environments and/or can rapidly mutate to survive in very harsh conditions. Their presence in spacecraft and cargo have caused a few inconveniences over the years of humans spaceflight, ranging from crew health, life support systems challenges and material degradation. The sterilization of spacecraft that will host humans in long duration mission would be a costly operation that will not provide a long-term solution to the microbial colonization of the vessels. As soon as a human is exposed to the spacecraft, during the mission, microorganisms will start to populate the new environment. As the hum an presence in space increases in length, the risk from the microbial load, to hardware and crew will also increase. Mitigation of this risk includes several different strategies that will include minimizing the microbial load (in numbers and diversity) and monitoring. This presentation will provide a list of the risk mitigation strategies that should be implemented during ground processing, and during the mission. It will also discuss the areas that should be discussed before an effective in-flight microbial monitoring regimen is implemented. Microbial monitoring technologies will also be presented.

Roman, Monsi C.↗

Lunar Base Construction Planning

Previous lunar missions and campaigns have been restricted to using robotic landers and lunar orbiting satellites as well as sortie type of operations using astronaut crews(NASA Apollo program).Now, the next phase of lunar exploration has begun under NASA’s Artemis program and there has been an international response where other nations such as China, Russia, India, Canada, Japan and theEuropean Union of nations, have all expressed interest in either collaborating or competing with NASA on theMoon. This next phase has an overarching goal of achieving a permanent human presence on theMoon via sustainable methods. A lunar base with human occupancy will require infrastructure to provide shelter, utilities, landing/launch pads, roads, communications, power and all the other necessities to sustain human life and protect equipment.Since human biology is not well suited for surviving in the lunar environment, there will be many forms of automated equipment, autonomy and robotic helpers that will minimize the amount of Extra-Vehicular Activity(EVA) required by the crew. This will mean that the radiation dosage received by the crew will stay within acceptable and safe career doses. Radiation shielding via the use of regolith can also mitigate radiation dangers.The required infrastructure must be constructed, but the mass and logistics of bringing all the construction materials from Earth are prohibitive, which makes the necessary construction difficult to achieve.In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) aims to solve this challenge by sourcing construction materials locally or “in-situ”. This means that their transportation can be completely eliminated, resulting in large cost savings by avoiding the launch out of Earth’s deep gravity well and subsequent trans lunar injection, lunar orbit capture and landing. This paper will give ahistorical review and current status of lunar construction planning and a high level introduction to the required infrastructure and construction equipment that will be required to robotically build a lunar base using in-situ resources.It will also organize these tasks into logical groupings so that technology development and implementation can be pursued within a framework that can be referenced by all involved.

Lunar↗

Lunar Base Construction Overview

Previous lunar missions and campaigns have been restricted to using robotic landers and lunar orbiting satellites as well as sortie type of operations using astronaut crews (NASA Apollo program). The next phase of lunar exploration has begun under NASA’s Artemis program and there has been an international response where other nations such as China, Russia, India, Canada, Japan and the European Union of nations, have all expressed interest in either collaborating or competing with NASA on the Moon. This next phase has an over arching goal of achieving a permanent human presence on the Moon via sustainable methods. A lunar base with human occupancy will require infrastructure to provide shelter, utilities, landing/launch pads, roads, communications, power and all the other necessities to sustain human life and protect equipment. Since human biology is not well suited for surviving in the lunar environment, there will be many forms of automated equipment, autonomy and robotic helpers that will minimize the amount of Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) required by the crew. This will mean that the radiation dosage received by the crew will stay within acceptable and safe career doses. The required infrastructure must be constructed, but the mass and logistics of bringing all the construction materials from Earth are prohibitive, which makes the necessary construction difficult to achieve. In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) aims to solve this challenge by sourcing construction materials locally or “in-situ”. This means that their transportation can be completely eliminated, resulting in large cost savings by avoiding the launch out of Earth’s deep gravity well and subsequent trans lunar injection, lunar orbit capture and landing. This paper will give an overview of the required construction tasks and related equipment that will be required to robotically build a lunar base using in-situ resources. It will also organize these tasks into logical groupings so that technology development and implementation can be pursued within a framework that can be referenced by all involved.

Construction↗

Lunar Base Construction Overview

Previous lunar missions and campaigns have been restricted to using robotic landers and lunar orbiting satellites as well as sortie type of operations using astronaut crews (NASA Apollo program). Now, the next phase of lunar exploration has begun under NASA’s Artemis program and there has been an international response where other nations such as China, Russia, India, Canada, Japan and the European Union of nations, have all expressed interest in either collaborating or competing with NASA on the Moon. This next phase has an over arching goal of achieving a permanent human presence on the Moon via sustainable methods. A lunar base with human occupancy will require infrastructure to provide shelter, utilities, landing/launch pads, roads, communications, power and all the other necessities to sustain human life and protect equipment. Since human biology is not well suited for surviving in the lunar environment, there will be many forms of automated equipment, autonomy and robotic helpers that will minimize the amount of Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) required by the crew. This will mean that the radiation dosage received by the crew will stay within acceptable and safe career doses. Radiation shielding via the use of regolith can also mitigate radiation dangers. The required infrastructure must be constructed, but the mass and logistics of bringing all the construction materials from Earth are prohibitive, which makes the necessary construction difficult to achieve. In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) aims to solve this challenge by sourcing construction materials locally or “in-situ”. This means that their transportation can be completely eliminated, resulting in large cost savings by avoiding the launch out of Earth’s deep gravity well and subsequent trans lunar injection, lunar orbit capture and landing. This paper will give an overview of the required construction tasks and related equipment that will be required to robotically build a lunar base using in-situ resources. It will also organize these tasks into logical groupings so that technology development and implementation can be pursued within a framework that can be referenced by all involved.

Lunar Base↗

Hybrid Thermal Control System for Extreme Thermal Environments

NASA’s return to the moon brings about many challenges, including issues with survival on the Lunar surface. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has been developing a hybrid thermal control system that can be utilized for various surface assets that must survive in extreme lunar environments. This scalable system is targeted for human-rated systems and utilizes a combination of a- pumped fluid loop (PFL) and a loop heat pipe (LHP) with thermal control valve (TCV). Pumped fluid loops have a long history of use in human rated systems. They can collect large amounts of waste heat and transport it over long distances in rovers, habitats, and other systems. By utilizing a non-toxic working fluid in the habitable volume, the PFL is easily serviceable by the crew and does not pose a risk during any unexpected leaks or failures. The addition of a LHP for the exterior heat transport and rejection adds several benefits to the system for extreme environment survival. The quantity of LHP scan be tailored to optimize heat rejection for different systems and allows for larger adiative surfaces. By utilizing a TCV in combination with the LHP, there can be high heat transfer during the daytime with minimal heat transfer during the night. The TCV passively controls the amount of heat transfer through the LHP based on the environmental temperature. A prototype system has been tested in bench top and thermal vacuum conditions. Results are presented showing the feasibility of the system concept.

Thermal Control↗

Hybrid Thermal Control System for Extreme Thermal Environments

NASA’s return to the moon brings about many challenges, including issues with survival on the Lunar surface. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has been developing a hybrid thermal control system that can be utilized for various surface assets that must survive in extreme lunar environments. This scalable system is targeted for human-rated systems and utilizes a combination of a- pumped fluid loop (PFL) and a loop heat pipe (LHP) with thermal control valve (TCV). Pumped fluid loops have a long history of use in human rated systems. They can collect large amounts of waste heat and transport it over long distances in rovers, habitats, and other systems. By utilizing a non-toxic working fluid in the habitable volume, the PFL is easily serviceable by the crew and does not pose a risk during any unexpected leaks or failures. The addition of a LHP for the exterior heat transport and rejection adds several benefits to the system for extreme environment survival. The quantity of LHP scan be tailored to optimize heat rejection for different systems and allows for larger adiative surfaces. By utilizing a TCV in combination with the LHP, there can be high heat transfer during the daytime with minimal heat transfer during the night. The TCV passively controls the amount of heat transfer through the LHP based on the environmental temperature. A prototype system has been tested in bench top and thermal vacuum conditions. Results are presented showing the feasibility of the system concept.

Thermal Control↗

U.S. experience in satellite servicing and linkage to the Space Station era

A history of on-orbit servicing and repair is given with emphasis placed on the Solar Maximum Repair Mission. The experience gained thus far in on-orbit servicing and the design of the Space Station's servicing capabilities impose the following requirements on users: (1) satellites must have a standard grapple for capture and a standard berthing interface, (2) Space Station safety requirements must meet to preclude damage to the Space Station or injury to the EVA crew, (3) sensitive instruments will need to implement remotely controlled protective devices to prevent damage, and (4) satellite thermal systems must be designed to maintain survival temperatures during transfer from orbit to the Space Station servicing facility.

Browning, R. K.↗

Orion Exploration Mission Entry Interface Target Line

The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle is required to return to the continental United States at any time during the month. In addition, it is required to provide a survivable entry from a wide range of trans-lunar abort trajectories. The Entry Interface (EI) state must be targeted to ensure that all requirements are met for all possible return scenarios, even in the event of no communication with the Mission Control Center to provide an updated EI target. The challenge then is to functionalize an EI state constraint manifold that can be used in the on-board targeting algorithm, as well as the ground-based trajectory optimization programs. This paper presents the techniques used to define the EI constraint manifold and to functionalize it as a set of polynomials in several dimensions.

Rea, Jeremy R.↗

The Need for Earth-Based Experiments to Inform Microbial Evolution on Planetary Surfaces

Introduction: Historically, the focus of planetary protection at NASA has been on unmanned, robotic missions. Such missions have paved the way for understanding how to implement planetary protection in a feasible and cost-sensitive way. However, with the introduction of crewed missions to Mars in the not-sodistant future, there is a need to better define and understand how to implement planetary protection under new circumstances, as well as understand the risk of contaminating Mars. One unavoidable fact is that microbes will go where humans go. Therefore, it is critical to understand how these microbes may (and will) impact our ability to conduct meaningful, reliable astrobiological science. Microorganisms have spent millions of years evolving to survive in extreme environments here on Earth. Already there are indications that microbes aboard the International Space Station evolve and adapt to life in low earth orbit. The microbes that are eventually taken to Mars with humans will also adapt, potentially causing harmful effects to crew and/or the planetary or astrobiological science conducted. Therefore, it is of critical interest that we evaluate and characterize the potential risks of microbial evolution on Mars. It is expected that microbes carried by humans will begin to evolve to new environments even before landing on Mars, during the several month cruise phase. Once landed, microbes will encounter different stressors within the crew habitats on Mars. During extravehicular activities, venting, or other release events, microbes will find their way out onto the Martian surface. The induced environments around crewed systems will create potentially-favorable conditions for microbes to continue evolving on Mars. Eventually, microbes may find their way beyond the close confines of the crewed area and continue evolving so as to fill new or distant niches on the Martian surface. It is challenging to replicate Martian environments here on Earth, making it nearly impossible to predict the evolutionary changes that microbes would undergo on Mars. But this work is critical. Serial passaging experiments performed by Richard Lenski on E. coli show the dramatic changes microbes can undergo even within a laboratory setting. Furthermore, experiments performed by Michael Baym also demonstrate the power of single mutations in microbial development of antibiotic resistance [3]. Long duration experiments should be performed on a suite of microbes exposed to environments likely to be experienced on the Martian surface. While simulating space environments can be challenging, facilities exist that can achieve individual and combinatorial environmental conditions to simulate space and planetary conditions. Such chambers should be employed for microbial studies. Currently, at the Marshall Space Flight Center, we have used various stressors like drying, vacuum, proton radiation, and ultraviolet light both separately and in combination, to evaluate the survival of cleanroom microbes. Shockingly, several non-spore forming isolates have demonstrated the ability to survive many extreme conditions (manuscript in preparation). These short duration exposures must be augmented with larger and more gradual studies to replicate what microbes might experience in the transition from cruise, to surface habitats, to induced surface environments, and finally true Martian environments. While no Earth-based experiment can perfectly replicate the Martian environment, nor could we test every possible microbe in simulation experimental regimes, efforts should be made to examine the evolutionary potential of the “usual suspects” seen on the ISS or in other crewed environments to begin to fill this important knowledge gap.

Chelsi D. Cassilly↗

Applications of living systems theory to life in space

The conceptual system and methodology of living systems theory appear to be of value to research on life in isolated environments. A space station, which must provide suitable conditions for human life in a stressful environment that meets none of the basic needs of life, is an extreme example of such isolation. A space station would include living systems at levels of individual human beings, groups of people engaged in a variety of activities, and the entire space crew as an organization. It could also carry living systems of other species, such as other animals and plants. Using the subsystem analysis of living systems theory, planners of a station, either in space or on a celestial body, would make sure that all the requirements for survival at all these levels had been considered. Attention would be given not only to the necessary matter and energy, but also the essential information flows that integrate and control living systems. Many variables for each subsystem could be monitored and kept in steady states. Use of living systems process analysis of the five flows of matter energy and information would assure that all members of the crew received what they needed.

Miller, James Grier↗

Space Shuttle launch pad rescue plan

The final preparation of the Space Shuttle Orbiter for flight involves the loading of large quantities of hazardous propellants. Additionally, many pyrotechnially operated mechanical joints are armed and ready for flight. The personnel manning at the pad is minimized during these operations to reduce the risk. Upon completion of propellant loading, the flight crew must be boarded onto the vehicle which at this point has tremendous potential energy. Plans have been made to safely and quickly evacuate the crew should some unforeseen contigency occur. Both aided and unaided egress scenarios have been planned. Personnel protective equipment is an important consideration to assure the highest chance for survival. Rapid movement of personnel is enhanced by the use of the slidewire system and specially prepared armored personnel carriers. The end result is a system that provides a reasonable chance of survival should an emergency occur during late countdown at the pad.

Doerr, Donald F.↗