Results for “human system risk” — Page 11

NASA NTRS2007

Exploration Blueprint: Data Book

The material contained in this report was compiled to capture the work performed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Exploration study team in the late 2002 timeframe. The "Exploration Blueprint Data Book" documents the analyses and findings of the 90-day Agency-wide study conducted from September - November 2002. During the summer of 2002, the NASA Deputy Administrator requested that a study be performed with the following objectives: - Develop the rationale for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit - Develop roadmaps for how to accomplish the first steps through humans to Mars - Develop design reference missions as a basis for the roadmaps - Make recommendations on what can be done now to effect this future This planning team, termed the Exploration Blueprint, performed architecture analyses to develop roadmaps for how to accomplish the first steps beyond LEO through the human exploration of Mars. The previous NASA Exploration Team activities laid the foundation and framework for development of NASA's Integrated Space Plan. The reference missions resulting from the analysis performed by the Exploration Blueprint team formed the basis for requirement definition, systems development, technology roadmapping, and risk assessments for future human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Emphasis was placed on developing recommendations on what could be done now to effect future exploration activities. The Exploration Blueprint team embraced the "Stepping Stone" approach to exploration where human and robotic activities are conducted through progressive expansion outward beyond low-Earth orbit. Results from this study produced a long-term strategy for exploration with near-term implementation plans, program recommendations, and technology investments. Specific results included the development of a common exploration crew vehicle concept, a unified space nuclear strategy, focused bioastronautics research objectives, and an integrated human and robotic exploration strategy. Recommendations from the Exploration Blueprint included the endorsement of the Nuclear Systems Initiative, augmentation of the bioastronautics research, a focused space transportation program including heavy-lift launch and a common exploration vehicle design for ISS and exploration missions, as well as an integrated human and robotic exploration strategy for Mars.

Bret G Drake↗

NASA NTRS2018

Bridging the Engineering and Medicine Gap

A primary challenge NASA faces is communication between the disparate entities of engineers and human system experts in life sciences. Clear communication is critical for exploration mission success from the perspective of both risk analysis and data handling. The engineering community uses probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) models to inform their own risk analysis and has extensive experience managing mission data, but does not always fully consider human systems integration (HSI). The medical community, as a part of HSI, has been working 1) to develop a suite of tools to express medical risk in quantitative terms that are relatable to the engineering approaches commonly in use, and 2) to manage and integrate HSI data with engineering data. This talk will review the development of the Integrated Medical Model as an early attempt to bridge the communication gap between the medical and engineering communities in the language of PRA. This will also address data communication between the two entities in the context of data management considerations of the Medical Data Architecture. Lessons learned from these processes will help identify important elements to consider in future communication and integration of these two groups.

Walton, M.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Guidance for Human Error Analysis (HEA)

NASA’s Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.2C requires Program Managers to conduct a human error analysis (HEA) for all mission phases. The purpose of the HEA is to enable programs to understand and manage potential catastrophic hazards that could be caused by human error, understand the relative risks and uncertainties within the system design, and influence decisions throughout the system lifecycle. This document provides guidance to NASA civil servants and contractors on how the Agency’s HEA requirement can be fulfilled.

Human Error Analysis; NASA Procedural Requirement;↗

NASA NTRS2007

Validation of Procedures for Monitoring Crewmember Immune Function SDBI-1900, SMO-015 - Integrated Immune

There is ample evidence to suggest that space flight leads to immune system dysregulation. This may be a result of microgravity, confinement, physiological stress, radiation, environment or other mission-associated factors. The clinical risk from prolonged immune dysregulation during space flight are not yet determined, but may include increased incidence of infection, allergy, hypersensitivity, hematological malignancy or altered wound healing. Each of the clinical events resulting from immune dysfunction has the potential to impact mission critical objectives during exploration-class missions. To date, precious little in-flight immune data has been generated to assess this phenomenon. The majority of recent flight immune studies have been post-flight assessments, which may not accurately reflect the in-flight condition. There are no procedures currently in place to monitor immune function or its effect on crew health. The objective of this Supplemental Medical Objective (SMO) is to develop and validate an immune monitoring strategy consistent with operational flight requirements and constraints. This SMO will assess the clinical risks resulting from the adverse effects of space flight on the human immune system and will validate a flight-compatible immune monitoring strategy. Characterization of the clinical risk and the development of a monitoring strategy are necessary prerequisite activities prior to validating countermeasures. This study will determine, to the best level allowed by current technology, the in-flight status of crewmembers immune system. Pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight assessments of immune status, immune function, viral reactivation and physiological stress will be performed. The in-flight samples will allow a distinction between legitimate in-flight alterations and the physiological stresses of landing and readaptation which are believed to alter landing day assessments. The overall status of the immune system during flight (activation, deficiency, dysregulation) and the response of the immune system to specific latent virus reactivation (known to occur during space flight) will be thoroughly assessed. Following completion of the SMO the data will be evaluated to determine the optimal set of assays for routine monitoring of crewmember immune system function, should the clinical risk warrant such monitoring.

Crucian, Brian↗

NASA NTRS2019

Program Promotion Can Distort Space Systems Engineering and Deny Risk

NASA's spectacular success in the Apollo moon landings was achieved against the odds by an obsessive dedication to reducing the great risk. But risk analysis predicted so many astronaut fatalities that it was thought to be unreasonably pessimistic and potentially damaging to the Apollo program. Risk analysis was discontinued, risk was neglected in space shuttle engineering, and so the space shuttle design was unnecessarily dangerous. Since the Apollo era it has been understood that long human space missions would recycle oxygen and water to avoid the very high launch cost of directly supplying them. The development of recycling systems was justified by the need to increase material closure and reduce launch mass. When it was recognized that increasing closure leads to rapidly diminishing returns, the program goal was changed to reducing launch mass and reliability, cost, and risk were considered irrelevant. Systems engineering and especially the discouraging problems of risk and cost have been deliberately ignored because they detract from program promotion, with unfortunate results. Current human launch system design does account for risk and the result strongly resembles Apollo. Current life support design continues to assume recycling, even though the recent great reduction in launch cost now allows direct supply of oxygen and water with significantly better quality, reliability, cost, and risk.

Advocacy↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantifying Medical Risk on a Long Duration Lunar Mission: A Demonstration of NASA’s IMPACT Tradespace Analysis Tool

Background NASA’s human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in-mission medical care. The distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and constraints on the medical evacuation of astronauts. Mass, volume, power, and data will be limited while higher demands will be placed on the crew to manage medical care. NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration strategy lays out increasingly complex Artemis missions both in terms of duration and operations. In these more challenging deep space missions, it is important to quantitatively estimate the human medical risk to inform a traditional heuristic approach to medical risk. Prior tools have been developed for missions in low Earth orbit, but a new tool is required to plan for future exploration missions. Methods IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a risk assessment tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design by quantitatively estimating mission medical risk. IMPACT v1.0 includes a novel evidence library baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; the addition of medical resources; and the ability for rapid and iterative analysis. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life, consideration of the need for return to definitive care (medical evacuation), and an estimate of crew time affected due to medical conditions. A notional long duration lunar orbit and lunar surface design reference mission (DRM) was chosen with a 4-astronaut crew to represent a sustained exploration Artemis mission. Results/Discussion Overall, IMPACT successfully quantified medical risk and derived an optimized medical system to support crew on a long duration lunar mission. In this DRM, the calculated loss of crew life from a medical event was 0.008 events per mission, risk of potential need for evacuation was 0.30 events per mission, and cumulative crew time affected by medical conditions was 103 days. The medical conditions that most contributed to overall medical risk were decompression sickness, trauma conditions, and respiratory failure. The conditions that had the largest effects on crew performance included musculoskeletal injuries and lunar dust exposure. The IMPACT-generated medical system included resources that target the most common and highest risk conditions. This systematic analysis demonstrates the value of the IMPACT tool in medical system design for human exploration spaceflight missions.

Missions to Mars↗

NASA NTRS2024

Quantifying Medical Risk on a Long Duration Lunar Mission: A Demonstration of NASA’s IMPACT Tradespace Analysis Tool

Background NASA’s human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in-mission medical care. The distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and constraints on the medical evacuation of astronauts. Mass, volume, power, and data will be limited while higher demands will be placed on the crew to manage medical care. NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration strategy lays out increasingly complex Artemis missions both in terms of duration and operations. In these more challenging deep space missions, it is important to quantitatively estimate the human medical risk to inform a traditional heuristic approach to medical risk. Prior tools have been developed for missions in low Earth orbit, but a new tool is required to plan for future exploration missions. Methods IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a risk assessment tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design by quantitatively estimating mission medical risk. IMPACT v1.0 includes a novel evidence library baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; the addition of medical resources; and the ability for rapid and iterative analysis. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life, consideration of the need for return to definitive care (medical evacuation), and an estimate of crew time affected due to medical conditions. A notional long duration lunar orbit and lunar surface design reference mission (DRM) was chosen with a 4-astronaut crew to represent a sustained exploration Artemis mission. Results/Discussion Overall, IMPACT successfully quantified medical risk and derived an optimized medical system to support crew on a long duration lunar mission. In this DRM, the calculated loss of crew life from a medical event was 0.008 events per mission, risk of potential need for evacuation was 0.30 events per mission, and cumulative crew time affected by medical conditions was 103 days. The medical conditions that most contributed to overall medical risk were decompression sickness, trauma conditions, and respiratory failure. The conditions that had the largest effects on crew performance included musculoskeletal injuries and lunar dust exposure. The IMPACT-generated medical system included resources that target the most common and highest risk conditions. This systematic analysis demonstrates the value of the IMPACT tool in medical system design for human exploration spaceflight missions.

Missions to Mars↗

NASA NTRS2019

Human Performance Contributions to Safety in Commercial Aviation

In the commercial aviation domain, large volumes of data are collected and analyzed on the failures and errors that result in infrequent incidents and accidents, but in the absence of data on behaviors that contribute to routine successful outcomes, safety management and system design decisions are based on a small sample of non- representative safety data. Analysis of aviation accident data suggests that human error is implicated in up to 80% of accidents, which has been used to justify future visions for aviation in which the roles of human operators are greatly diminished or eliminated in the interest of creating a safer aviation system. However, failure to fully consider the human contributions to successful system performance in civil aviation represents a significant and largely unrecognized risk when making policy decisions about human roles and responsibilities. Opportunities exist to leverage the vast amount of data that has already been collected, or could be easily obtained, to increase our understanding of human contributions to “things going right” in commercial aviation. The principal focus of this assessment was to identify current gaps and explore methods for identifying human “success” data generated by the aviation system, from personnel and within the supporting infrastructure.

Holbrook, Jon B.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Extracting Lessons of Human Performance and Resilience Management from a Study of Weather-Related Safety Risks and Incidents Reported to NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)

We present a study of weather-related incident reports submitted to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) by air carrier pilots and air traffic controllers in the US. Using specific examples, we examine the weather-related risks reported and the relevant aspects of human performance and resilience management exhibited during these incidents. We describe our methods of lesson extraction to maximize learning, including the use of advance algorithms, and we conclude with a review of the weather-related risks encountered and the resilient practices employed to mitigate them.

resilience↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Neuroimmune Responses to Space Radiation

One of the main health risks in human deep space exploration is central nervous system (CNS) damage by ionizing radiation due to exposure to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). In animal models, irradiation with simulated GCRs or their components has been shown to cause neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation associated with cognitive and behavioral dysfunction. The extent of CNS damage is partially mediated by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which regulates the interaction between CNS and systemic responses to stressors in the rest of the body. The main cellular regulators of BBB permeability are astrocytes, which also modulate neuronal death, neuroinflammation and oxidative stress. However, studies on BBB and astrocyte functions in regulating CNS responses to ionizing radiation have been limited, especially in human tissue/organ analogs. Therefore, we developed a high-throughput 3D organ-on-a-chip system to study human CNS and BBB impairments caused by deep space radiation. We investigated both immediate and delayed CNS responses to major GCR components: 600MeV/n 56Fe ions. We observed ionizing radiation-mediated dose-dependent increases in BBB permeability that was exacerbated by astrocyte presence and accompanied by altered cytokine expression including interleukin-1 receptor alpha downregulation, and increased oxidative stress. In particular, 600MeV/n 56Fe particle irradiation selectively increased damage and blood-brain barrier permeability only in models that contained astrocytes in addition to endothelial cells, indicating astrocytes as a particularly radiosensitive component of the CNS that could therefore be a suitable a target for neuroprotection. Future studies will compare human and mouse CNS model responses to simulated GCRs and evaluate the induction of an anti-inflammatory phenotype in astrocytes as a potential countermeasure. Furthermore, in our lab we have been exploring the individual variability, genomic associations and secreted biomarkers of responses to space radiation, which could eventually be combined to address personalized CNS health risk and develop individual countermeasures. Ultimately, we aim to expand upon these results to uncover novel cellular and mechanistic targets for countermeasure development to mitigate human CNS damage in deep space exploration.

space radiation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Neuroimmune responses to space radiation

One of the main health risks in human deep space exploration is central nervous system (CNS) damage by ionizing radiation due to exposure to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). In animal models, irradiation with simulated GCRs or their components has been shown to cause neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation associated with cognitive and behavioral dysfunction. The extent of CNS damage is partially mediated by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which regulates the interaction between CNS and systemic responses to stressors in the rest of the body. The main cellular regulators of BBB permeability are astrocytes, which also modulate neuronal death, neuroinflammation and oxidative stress. However, studies on BBB and astrocyte functions in regulating CNS responses to ionizing radiation have been limited, especially in human tissue/organ analogs. Therefore, we developed a high-throughput 3D organ-on-a-chip system to study human CNS and BBB impairments caused by deep space radiation. We investigated both immediate and delayed CNS responses to major GCR components: 0.3-0.8Gy 600MeV/n 56Fe ions; as well as to 0.5-1Gy X-rays. We observed ionizing radiation-mediated increases in BBB permeability that was exacerbated by astrocyte presence and accompanied by damage to endothelial cells and tight junctions, altered cytokine expression including TNFalpha upregulation, and increased oxidative stress. In particular, 600MeV/n 56Fe particle irradiation selectively induced astrocyte damage and increased blood-brain barrier permeability only in models that contained astrocytes in addition to endothelial cells, indicating astrocytes as a particularly radiosensitive component of the CNS that could therefore be a suitable a target for neuroprotection. Future studies will compare human and mouse CNS model responses to simulated GCRs and evaluate the induction of an anti-inflammatory phenotype in astrocytes as a potential countermeasure. Furthermore, in our lab we have been exploring the individual variability, genomic associations and secreted biomarkers of responses to space radiation, which could eventually be combined to address personalized CNS health risk and develop individual countermeasures. Ultimately, we aim to expand upon these results to uncover novel cellular and mechanistic targets for countermeasure development to mitigate human CNS damage in deep space exploration.

space radiation↗

NASA NTRS2022

Evidence Report: Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations

During future missions to the Moon and Mars, each crewmember will most likely perform up to 24 hours a week of extravehicular activity (EVA) in support of exploration, science, construction, and maintenance tasks. Achieving mission objectives will require EVA systems and operations concepts that maximize human performance and efficiency while minimizing health and safety risks for crewmembers. Currently, over 450 EVAs have been performed in microgravity using the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The EMU space suit has enabled the successful assembly and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS) for over 20 years, as well as deployment of payload experiments, solar arrays, satellite launches and repairs. This EVA work was accomplished at a slower cadence than is expected for Moon and Mars, with ISS crewmembers performing no more than 7 EVAs during a single mission and without any back-to-back EVAs. Despite their success, ISS EVAs have resulted in more injury to EVA crewmembers than may be acceptable for long-duration exploration missions. The Apollo astronauts completed EVA tasks in suits that were designed for their short-duration lunar missions, although suit mobility problems were evident. The more frequent EVAs and more varied EVA tasks that are anticipated during the future longer-duration exploration missions will require EVA suits and systems that are better oriented to human health and performance than those used during the Apollo Program. Many of the problems that were encountered with the Apollo EVA suits (e.g., limited mobility and dexterity, high and aft center of gravity, and other features requiring significant crew compensation) will need to be corrected or mitigated to optimize EVA objectives of exploration missions. It is critical that we understand how EVA system design variables such as suit pressure, weight/mass, center-of-gravity location, joint ranges of motion, and biomedical monitoring, affects the ability of astronauts to perform safe, efficient, and effective EVAs. To achieve this understanding, EVA researchers will need to develop and execute an integrated human testing program across multiple environments. The research will provide objective data that will enable informed design decisions and crewmember standards, thereby ensuring EVA systems that optimize crewmember health, safety, efficiency, and performance. This report describes the risks to crew health, safety, performance, and efficiency caused by EVA operations, and it provides the evidence base to substantiate the importance of the risk.

EVA↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probabilistic Modeling of a Three-Stage Human Landing System Architecture

Unmitigated uncertainties are known to have previously led to failed development programs; in order to combat these uncertainties, risks and their impacts must be understood and handled to ensure program success. In this paper, a probabilistic methodology to handle uncertainties is demonstrated on a three-element Human Landing System (HLS) concept, which allows tracking of current best estimates of the vehicle’s performance and assessment of its robustness against uncertainties. This methodology has two key parts: ﬁrst, the creation of a dynamic architecture model of a three-element HLS concept; and second, its use with surrogate modeling and range estimating techniques to capture and propagate uncertainties. The DYnamic Rocket EQuation Tool (DYREQT), a space systems synthesis and sizing framework used by NASA, was used as to model the HLS architecture. For the probabilistic analysis, uncertainties of interest within the HLS concept were enumerated and represented as parameters within the DYREQT model as inputs for vehicle stages or mission proﬁle events. Range estimating — a probabilistic method that combines Monte Carlo sampling, focus on critical parameters, and heuristics to assess risk and opportunities — is then adapted with operational parameters as well as vehicle parameters in the DYREQT model to capture mission uncertainty alongside vehicle uncertainty. To perform the range estimation portion of this methodology, the DYREQT model was sampled using a Design of Experiments (DoE) to eﬃciently explore the architecture design space with respect to the set of uncertainty parameters. Then, the results were used to create surrogate models, multivariate regressions that can visualize hypercube trends in the design space, of the architecture with respect to the uncertainty parameters. Using a correlation matrix constructed for the uncertainty parameters, previously independent samples were transformed to perform a Correlated Monte Carlo on the surrogate models. This probabilistic methodology was proved to provide insight into the underlying uncertainties of the three-element HLS architecture.

Stephanie Y Zhu↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probabilistic Modeling of a Three-Stage Human Landing System Architecture

Unmitigated uncertainties are known to have previously led to failed development programs; in order to combat these uncertainties, risks and their impacts must be understood and handled to ensure program success. In this paper, a probabilistic methodology to handle uncertainties is demonstrated on a three-element Human Landing System (HLS) concept, which allows tracking of current best estimates of the vehicle’s performance and assessment of its robustness against uncertainties. This methodology has two key parts: ﬁrst, the creation of a dynamic architecture model of a three-element HLS concept; and second, its use with surrogate modeling and range estimating techniques to capture and propagate uncertainties. The DYnamic Rocket EQuation Tool (DYREQT), a space systems synthesis and sizing framework used by NASA, was used as to model the HLS architecture. For the probabilistic analysis, uncertainties of interest within the HLS concept were enumerated and represented as parameters within the DYREQT model as inputs for vehicle stages or mission proﬁle events. Range estimating — a probabilistic method that combines Monte Carlo sampling, focus on critical parameters, and heuristics to assess risk and opportunities — is then adapted with operational parameters as well as vehicle parameters in the DYREQT model to capture mission uncertainty alongside vehicle uncertainty. To perform the range estimation portion of this methodology, the DYREQT model was sampled using a Design of Experiments (DoE) to eﬃciently explore the architecture design space with respect to the set of uncertainty parameters. Then, the results were used to create surrogate models, multivariate regressions that can visualize hypercube trends in the design space, of the architecture with respect to the uncertainty parameters. Using a correlation matrix constructed for the uncertainty parameters, previously independent samples were transformed to perform a Correlated Monte Carlo on the surrogate models. This probabilistic methodology was proved to provide insight into the underlying uncertainties of the three-element HLS architecture.

Stephanie Y. Zhu↗

NASA NTRS1994

Advanced automated glass cockpit certification: Being wary of human factors

This paper presents some facets of the French experience with human factors in the process of certification of advanced automated cockpits. Three types of difficulties are described: first, the difficulties concerning the hotly debated concept of human error and its non-linear relationship to risk of accident; a typology of errors to be taken into account in the certification process is put forward to respond to this issue. Next, the difficulties connected to the basically gradual and evolving nature of pilot expertise on a given type of aircraft, which contrasts with the immediate and definitive style of certifying systems. The last difficulties to be considered are those related to the goals of certification itself on these new aircraft and the status of findings from human factor analyses (in particular, what should be done with disappointing results, how much can the changes induced by human factors investigation economically affect aircraft design, how many errors do we need to accumulate before we revise the system, what should be remedied when human factor problems are discovered at the certification stage: the machine? pilot training? the rules? or everything?). The growth of advanced-automated glass cockpits has forced the international aeronautical community to pay more attention to human factors during the design phase, the certification phase and pilot training. The recent creation of a human factor desk at the DGAC-SFACT (Official French services) is a direct consequence of this. The paper is divided into three parts. Part one debates human error and its relationship with system design and accident risk. Part two describes difficulties connected to the basically gradual and evolving nature of pilot expertise on a given type of aircraft, which contrasts with the immediate and definitive style of certifying systems. Part three focuses on concrete outcomes of human factors for certification purposes.

Amalberti, Rene↗

NASA NTRS2004

Toward a Systematic Approach for Selection of NASA Technology Portfolios

There is an important need for a consistent analytical foundation supporting the selection and monitoring of R&D tasks that support new system concepts that enable future NASA missions. This capability should be applicable at various degrees of abstraction, depending upon whether one is interested in formulation, development, or operations. It should also be applicable to a single project, a program comprised of a group of projects, an enterprise typically including multiple programs, and the overall agency itself. Emphasis here is on technology selection and new initiatives, but the same approach can be generalized to other applications, dealing, for example, with new system architectures, risk reduction, and task allocation among humans and machines. The purpose of this paper is to describe one such approach, which is in its early stages of implementation within NASA programs, and to discuss several illustrative examples.

return on investment↗

NASA NTRS2011

Human-in-the-Loop Integrated Life Support Systems Ground Testing

Human exploration missions beyond low earth orbit will be long duration with abort scenarios of days to months. This necessitates provisioning the crew with all the things they will need to sustain themselves while carrying out mission objectives. Systems engineering and integration is critical to the point where extensive integrated testing of life support systems on the ground is required to identify and mitigate risks. Ground test facilities (human-rated altitude chamber) at the Johnson Space Center are being readied to integrate all the systems for a mission along with a human test crew. The relevant environment will include deep space habitat human accommodations, sealed atmosphere of 8 psi total pressure and 32% oxygen concentration, life support systems (food, air, water), communications, crew accommodations, medical, EVA, tools, etc. Testing periods will approximate those of the expected missions (such as a near Earth asteroid, Earth-Moon L2 or L1, the moon). This type of integrated testing is needed for research and technology development as well as later during the mission design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) phases of an approved program. Testing will evolve to be carried out at the mission level fly the mission on the ground . Mission testing will also serve to inform the public and provide the opportunity for active participation by international partners.

Henninger, Donald L.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Human in the Loop Integrated Life Support Systems Ground Testing

Human exploration missions beyond low earth orbit will be long duration with abort scenarios of days to months. This necessitates provisioning the crew with all the things they will need to sustain themselves while carrying out mission objectives. Systems engineering and integration is critical to the point where extensive integrated testing of life support systems on the ground is required to identify and mitigate risks. Ground test facilities (human-rated altitude chambers) at the Johnson Space Center are being readied to integrate all the systems for a mission along with a human test crew. The relevant environment will include deep space habitat human accommodations, sealed atmosphere capable of 14.7 to 8 psi total pressure and 21 to 32% oxygen concentration, life support systems (food, air, and water), communications, crew accommodations, medical, EVA, tools, etc. Testing periods will approximate those of the expected missions (such as a near Earth asteroid, Earth-Moon L2 or L1, the moon, Mars). This type of integrated testing is needed for research and technology development as well as later during the mission design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) phases of an approved program. Testing will evolve to be carried out at the mission level fly the mission on the ground . Mission testing will also serve to inform the public and provide the opportunity for active participation by international, industrial and academic partners.

Henninger, Donald L.↗