SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Number of Crew”

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 253 records · Page 14

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of the occurrences of injury during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study. Injuries are classified as either contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), and Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), and then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings. The MDRI is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI also vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it will be important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles, and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning.

N Newby↗

NASA NTRS1977

Analysis of the Skylab flight crew health stabilization program

Isolation periods were established prior to launch as well as postflight in order to reduce the number of infectious illness contacts between crewmen. The most frequently reported illness contacts were upper respiratory infections. Enteric illnesses represented the next most common illness, but these were relatively rare compared to upper respiratory infections.

Ferguson, J. K.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Introduction to Trans Australia Airlines CRM training

Trans Australia believes that its excellent accident rate record is due to a number of factors. It has a good group of standard operating procedures, and its crews are pretty well self-disciplined and adhere to those procedures. But the other thing that it believes is a factor in its safety record is that perhaps it is also due to its preparedness to be innovative, to keep up with what is going on in the rest of the world and, if it looks to have value, then to be amongst the first to try it out. Trans Australia commenced a program similar to Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) fairly early in 1979--that being its first windshear program-- which leads to why they are doing a course of resource management training, which we have chosen to call Aircrew Team Management (ATM). This course is detailed in another presentation.

Davidson, Jim↗

NASA NTRS1990

A function-based approach to cockpit procedure aids

The objective of this research is to develop and test a cockpit procedural aid that can compose and present procedures that are appropriate for the given flight situation. The procedure would indicate the status of the aircraft engineering systems, and the environmental conditions. Prescribed procedures already exist for normal as well as for a number of non-normal and emergency situations, and can be presented to the crew using an interactive cockpit display. However, no procedures are prescribed or recommended for a host of plausible flight situations involving multiple malfunctions compounded by adverse environmental conditions. Under these circumstances, the cockpit procedural aid must review the prescribed procedures for the individual malfunction (when available), evaluate the alternatives or options, and present one or more composite procedures (prioritized or unprioritized) in response to the given situation. A top-down function-based conceptual approach towards composing and presenting cockpit procedures is being investigated. This approach is based upon the thought process that an operating crew must go through while attempting to meet the flight objectives given the current flight situation. In order to accomplish the flight objectives, certain critical functions must be maintained during each phase of the flight, using the appropriate procedures or success paths. The viability of these procedures depends upon the availability of required resources. If resources available are not sufficient to meet the requirements, alternative procedures (success paths) using the available resources must be constructed to maintain the critical functions and the corresponding objectives. If no success path exists that can satisfy the critical functions/objectives, then the next level of critical functions/objectives must be selected and the process repeated. Information is given in viewgraph form.

Phatak, Anil V.↗

NASA NTRS1993

The use of multiple models in case-based diagnosis

The work described in this paper has as its goal the integration of a number of reasoning techniques into a unified intelligent information system that will aid flight crews with malfunction diagnosis and prognostication. One of these approaches involves using the extensive archive of information contained in aircraft accident reports along with various models of the aircraft as the basis for case-based reasoning about malfunctions. Case-based reasoning draws conclusions on the basis of similarities between the present situation and prior experience. We maintain that the ability of a CBR program to reason about physical systems is significantly enhanced by the addition to the CBR program of various models. This paper describes the diagnostic concepts implemented in a prototypical case based reasoner that operates in the domain of in-flight fault diagnosis, the various models used in conjunction with the reasoner's CBR component, and results from a preliminary evaluation.

Karamouzis, Stamos T.↗

NASA NTRS2000

Crew/Automation Interaction in Space Transportation Systems: Lessons Learned from the Glass Cockpit

The progressive integration of automation technologies in commercial transport aircraft flight decks - the 'glass cockpit' - has had a major, and generally positive, impact on flight crew operations. Flight deck automation has provided significant benefits, such as economic efficiency, increased precision and safety, and enhanced functionality within the crew interface. These enhancements, however, may have been accrued at a price, such as complexity added to crew/automation interaction that has been implicated in a number of aircraft incidents and accidents. This report briefly describes 'glass cockpit' evolution. Some relevant aircraft accidents and incidents are described, followed by a more detailed description of human/automation issues and problems (e.g., crew error, monitoring, modes, command authority, crew coordination, workload, and training). This paper concludes with example principles and guidelines for considering 'glass cockpit' human/automation integration within space transportation systems.

Rudisill, Marianne↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA AND ESA Partnership on the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Service Module

In March 2011, NASA and ESA made a decision to partially offset the European obligations deriving from the extension of the ISS Program until the end of 2020 with different means than ATVs, following the ATV-5 mission foreseen in mid-2014. NASA and ESA considered a number of barter options, and concluded that the provision by ESA of the Service Module and Spacecraft Adaptor for the NASA Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) was the barter element with the most interest. A joint ESA - NASA working group was established to assess the feasibility of Europe developing this Module based on ATV heritage. The working group was supported by European and US industry namely Astrium, TAS-I and Lockheed-Martin. This paper gives an overview of the results of the on-going study as well as its projected utilization for the global space exploration endeavour.

Free, James M.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Biological and Medical Experiments on the Space Shuttle, 1981 - 1985

This volume is the first in a planned series of reports intended to provide a comprehensive record of all the biological and medical experiments and samples flown on the Space Shuttle. Experiments described have been conducted over a five-year period, beginning with the first plant studies conducted on STS-2 in November 1981, and extending through STS 61-C, the last mission to fly before the tragic Challenger accident of January 1986. Experiments were sponsored within NASA not only by the Life Sciences Division of the Office of Space Science and Applications, but also by the Shuttle Student Involvement Program (SSIP) and the Get Away Special (GAS) Program. Independent medical studies were conducted as well on the Shuttle crew under the auspices of the Space Biomedical Research Institute at Johnson Space Center. In addition, cooperative agreements between NASA and foreign government agencies led to a number of independent experiments and also paved the way for the joint US/ESA Spacelab 1 mission and the German (DFVLR) Spacelab D-1. Experiments included: (1) medically oriented studies of the crew aimed at identifying, preventing, or treating health problems due to space travel; (2) projects to study morphological, physiological, or behavioral effects of microgravity on animals and plants; (3) studies of the effects of microgravity on cells and tissues; and (4) radiation experiments monitoring the spacecraft environment with chemical or biological dosimeters or testing radiation effects on simple organisms and seeds.

Halstead, Thora W.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Psychosocial value of space simulation for extended spaceflight

There have been over 60 studies of Earth-bound activities that can be viewed as simulations of manned spaceflight. These analogs have involved Antarctic and Arctic expeditions, submarines and submersible simulators, land-based simulators, and hypodynamia environments. None of these analogs has accounted for all the variables related to extended spaceflight (e.g., microgravity, long-duration, heterogeneous crews), and some of the stimulation conditions have been found to be more representative of space conditions than others. A number of psychosocial factors have emerged from the simulation literature that correspond to important issues that have been reported from space. Psychological factors include sleep disorders, alterations in time sense, transcendent experiences, demographic issues, career motivation, homesickness, and increased perceptual sensitivities. Psychiatric factors include anxiety, depression, psychosis, psychosomatic symptoms, emotional reactions related to mission stage, asthenia, and postflight personality, and marital problems. Finally, interpersonal factors include tension resulting from crew heterogeneity, decreased cohesion over time, need for privacy, and issues involving leadership roles and lines of authority. Since future space missions will usually involve heterogeneous crews working on complicated objectives over long periods of time, these features require further study. Socio-cultural factors affecting confined crews (e.g., language and dialect, cultural differences, gender biases) should be explored in order to minimize tension and sustain performance. Career motivation also needs to be examined for the purpose of improving crew cohesion and preventing subgrouping, scapegoating, and territorial behavior. Periods of monotony and reduced activity should be addressed in order to maintain morale, provide meaningful use of leisure time, and prevent negative consequences of low stimulation, such as asthenia and crew member withdrawal. Leadership roles and lines of authority need to be studied further to understand the factors leading to status leveling, leadership competition, and role confusion. Finally, the relationship between crews and ground personnel should be characterized in order to minimize the displacement of anger and tension to the outside, to counter the effects of inter-group miscommunications, and to develop support strategies that can help to counter in-group/out-group conflicts. Ground-based space simulations still have a role to play in terms of understanding the impact of these factors and ways of dealing with them. In particular, issues involving language, cultural differences, gender biases, career motivation, monotonous conditions, use of free time, leadership, lines of authority, and the relationship between crews and outside monitoring personnel need to be further characterized and examined under controlled conditions. Until such time as these factors can be studied directly in space, simulations provide an opportunity to learn more about these psychosocial issues and to plan ways of minimizing their negative consequences during actual space missions.

NASA Discipline Number 00-00↗

NASA NTRS1984

Influence of spaceflight on erythrokinetics in man

It has been found in connection with American and Soviet manned space missions that a reduction in the circulating red blood cell mass (RCM) is a result of the effect of space flight on the human hematological system. An experiment conducted during the 10-day Spacelab 1 mission in November 1983 was designed to measure factors involved in the control of erythrokinetics which might be altered after exposure to microgravity. In this experiment a decrement in RCM approximately equal to that observed in crewmen returning from Apollo flights of similar duration (7) was measured. Erythropoietin decreased in flight in all crew members. The lack of significant change in erythropoietin with a significant decrease in reticulocyte number and a decrease of about 1 percent per day in mean RCM suggests that inhibition of erythropoiesis ms not the primary or only cause of the inflight RCM reduction.

Leach, C. S.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Aircrew coordination and decisionmaking: Peer ratings of video tapes made during a full mission simulation

Six professionally active, retired captains rated the coordination and decisionmaking performances of sixteen aircrews while viewing videotapes of a simulated commercial air transport operation. The scenario featured a required diversion and a probable minimum fuel situation. Seven point Likert-type scales were used in rating variables on the basis of a model of crew coordination and decisionmaking. The variables were based on concepts of, for example, decision difficulty, efficiency, and outcome quality; and leader-subordin ate concepts such as person and task-oriented leader behavior, and competency motivation of subordinate crewmembers. Five-front-end variables of the model were in turn dependent variables for a hierarchical regression procedure. The variance in safety performance was explained 46%, by decision efficiency, command reversal, and decision quality. The variance of decision quality, an alternative substantive dependent variable to safety performance, was explained 60% by decision efficiency and the captain's quality of within-crew communications. The variance of decision efficiency, crew coordination, and command reversal were in turn explained 78%, 80%, and 60% by small numbers of preceding independent variables. A principle component, varimax factor analysis supported the model structure suggested by regression analyses.

Murphy, M. R.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Orion GN&C Fault Management System Verification: Scope And Methodology

In order to ensure long-term ability to meet mission goals and to provide for the safety of the public, ground personnel, and any crew members, nearly all spacecraft include a fault management (FM) system. For a manned vehicle such as Orion, the safety of the crew is of paramount importance. The goal of the Orion Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) fault management system is to detect, isolate, and respond to faults before they can result in harm to the human crew or loss of the spacecraft. Verification of fault management/fault protection capability is challenging due to the large number of possible faults in a complex spacecraft, the inherent unpredictability of faults, the complexity of interactions among the various spacecraft components, and the inability to easily quantify human reactions to failure scenarios. The Orion GN&C Fault Detection, Isolation, and Recovery (FDIR) team has developed a methodology for bounding the scope of FM system verification while ensuring sufficient coverage of the failure space and providing high confidence that the fault management system meets all safety requirements. The methodology utilizes a swarm search algorithm to identify failure cases that can result in catastrophic loss of the crew or the vehicle and rare event sequential Monte Carlo to verify safety and FDIR performance requirements.

Brown, Denise↗

NASA NTRS2000

Social and cultural issues during Shuttle/Mir space missions

A number of interpersonal issues relevant to manned space missions have been identified from the literature. These include crew tension, cohesion, leadership, language and cultural factors, and displacement. Ground-based studies by others and us have clarified some of the parameters of these issues and have indicated ways in which they could be studied during actual space missions. In this paper, we summarize some of our findings related to social and cultural issues from a NASA-funded study conducted during several Shuttle/Mir space missions. We used standardized mood and group climate measures that were completed on a weekly basis by American and Russian crew and mission control subjects who participated in these missions. Our results indicated that American subjects reported more dissatisfaction with their interpersonal environment than their Russian counterparts, especially American astronauts. Mission control personnel were more dysphoric than crewmembers, but both groups were significantly less dysphoric than other work groups on Earth. Countermeasures based on our findings are discussed which can be applied to future multicultural space missions. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

NASA Discipline Space Human Factors↗

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Crew Launch Vehicle Overview

The US. Vision for Space Exploration, announced January 2004, outlines the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) strategic goals and objectives. These include: 1) Flying the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010. 2) Bringing a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement. 3) Developing a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics at NASA, consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight program to focus on exploration. 4) Completing the International Space Station (ISS) in a manner consistent with international partner commitments and the needs of human exploration. 5) Encouraging the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector. 6) Establishing a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations. Following the confirmation of the new NASA Administrator in April 2005, the Agency commissioned a team of aerospace subject matter experts from government and industry to perform the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which provided in-depth information for selecting the follow-on launch vehicle designs to enable these goals, The ESAS team analyzed a number of potential launch systems, with a focus on: (1) a human-rated launch vehicle for crew transport and (2) a heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV) to carry cargo. After several months of intense study utilizing technical performance, budget, and schedule objectives, the results showed that the optimum architecture to meet the challenge of safe, reliable crew transport is a two-stage variant of the Space Shuttle propulsion system - utilizing the reusable Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) as the first stage, along with a new upper stage that uses a derivative of the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine to deliver 25 metric tons to low-Earth orbit. The CEV that this new Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) lofts into space early next decade will initially ferry astronauts to the Space Station and be capable of carrying crews back to lunar orbit and of supporting missions to Mars orbit. The HLLV system will utilize the Shuttle External Tank combined with SRBs. The focus of this paper is on the CLV system, giving an overview of plans and progress to date.

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Performance on Exploration Flight Test 1

This paper will present an overview of the flight test objectives and performance of the Orion Launch Abort System during Exploration Flight Test-1. Exploration Flight Test-1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. This flight test was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety. This test included the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. NASA is currently designing and testing the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Orion will serve as NASA's new exploration vehicle to carry astronauts to deep space destinations and safely return them to earth. The Orion spacecraft is composed of four main elements: the Launch Abort System, the Crew Module, the Service Module, and the Spacecraft Adapter (Fig. 1). The Launch Abort System (LAS) provides two functions; during nominal launches, the LAS provides protection for the Crew Module from atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight and during emergencies provides a reliable abort capability for aborts that occur within the atmosphere. The Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) consists of an Abort Motor to provide the abort separation from the Launch Vehicle, an Attitude Control Motor to provide attitude and rate control, and a Jettison Motor for crew module to LAS separation (Fig. 2). The jettison motor is used during a nominal launch to separate the LAS from the Launch Vehicle (LV) early in the flight of the second stage when it is no longer needed for aborts and at the end of an LAS abort sequence to enable deployment of the crew module's Landing Recovery System. The LAS also provides a Boost Protective Cover fairing that shields the crew module from debris and the aero-thermal environment during ascent. Although the Orion Program has tested a number of the critical systems of the Orion spacecraft on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. A number of flight tests have been conducted and are planned to demonstrate the performance and enable certification of the Orion Spacecraft. Exploration Flight Test 1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. Orion's first flight was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety, such as heat shield performance, separation events, avionics and software performance, attitude control and guidance, parachute deployment and recovery operations. One of the key separation events tested during this flight was the nominal jettison of the LAS. Data from this flight will be used to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. The LAS nominal jettison event on Exploration Flight Test 1 occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff (See Fig. 3). The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. A suite of developmental flight instrumentation was included on the flight test to provide data on spacecraft subsystems and separation events. This paper will focus on the flight test objectives and performance of the LAS during ascent and nominal jettison. Selected LAS subsystem flight test data will be presented and discussed in the paper. Exploration Flight Test -1 will provide critical data that will enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, R.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Transonic aerodynamic characteristics of a proposed Assured Crew Return Capability (ACRC) lifting-body configuration

The investigation was conducted in the Calspan 8-Ft Transonic wind tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.6 to 1.2. The 0.07-scale model had a low aspect ratio body with a flat undersurface. A center fin and two tip fins were mounted on the aft upper body. The tip fins were rolled outboard 40 deg from the vertical. Elevon surfaces made up the trailing edges of the outboard fins and body flaps were located on the upper and lower aft fuselage. Results of the investigation indicated that the model was longitudinally and laterally stable about a center-of-gravity position of 0.54 body length. The maximum trimmed lift-drag ratio was about 3.1 at M = 0.6. The small center fin contributed only a small positive increment to lateral stability but was effective as a yaw control device. Protuberances on the forebody had little effect on the aerodynamic characteristics of the configuration. The model with pitch controls undeflected had desirable longitudinal trim characteristics.

Ware, George M.↗

NASA NTRS1992

An on-orbit viewpoint of life sciences research

As a Payload Specialist and a life science researcher, I want to present several issues that impact life science research in space. During early space station operations, life science and other experiments will be conducted in a time-critical manner and there will be the added duties of both space shuttle and space station systems operation (and the concomittent training overhead). Life sciences research is different from other science research done in space because the crew is involved both as an operator and as a subject. There is a need for pre- and post-flight data collection as well as in flight data collection. It is imperative that the life science researcher incorporate the crew members into their team early enough in the training cycle to fully explain the science and to make the crew aware of the importance and sensitivities of the experiment. During the pre-flight phase, the crew is incredibly busy with a myriad of duties. Therefore, it is difficult to get 'pristine' subjects for the baseline data collection. There are also circadian shifts, travel, and late nights to confound the data. During this time it is imperative that the researcher develop, along with the crew, a realistic estimate of crew-time required for their experiment. In flight issues that affect the researcher are the additional activities of the crew, the stresses inherent in space flight, and the difficulty of getting early in-flight data. During SSF activities, the first day or two will be taken up with rendezvous and docking. Other issues are the small number of subjects on any given flight, the importance of complete and concise procedures, and the vagaries of on-board data collection. Post flight, the crew is tired and experiences a 'relaxation.' This along with circadian shifts and rapid re-adaptation to 1-g make immediate post-flight data collection difficult. Finally, the blending of operational medicine and research can result in either competition for resources (crew time, etc.) or influence on the physiological state of the crew. However, the unique opportunity to conduct research in an environment that cannot be duplicated on Earth outweighs the 'challenges' that exist for space life researchers.

Lichtenberg, Byron K.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Electrochemical Solutions for Advanced Life Support

The Oxygen Generating Assembly (OGA) on-board the International Space Station (ISS) employs a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) water electrolysis cell stack to electrochemically dissociate water into its two components – oxygen and hydrogen. Oxygen is provided to the cabin atmosphere for crew respiration while the hydrogen is delivered to a carbon dioxide reduction system to recover oxygen as water. The design of the OGA evolved over a number of years to arrive at the system solution that is currently operational on ISS. Future manned missions to space will require advanced technologies that eliminate the need for resupply from earth and feature in-situ resource utilization to sustain crew life and to provide useful materials to the crew. The architects planning such missions should consider all potential solutions at their disposal to arrive at an optimal vehicle solution that minimizes crew maintenance time, launch weight, installed volume and energy consumption demands. Skyre is developing new technologies through funding from NASA, the Department of Energy, and internal investment based on PEM technology that could become an integral part of these new vehicle solutions. At varying stages of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) are: an oxygen concentrator and compressor that can separate oxygen from an air stream and provide an enriched oxygen resource for crew medical use and space suit recharge without any moving parts in the pure oxygen stream; a regenerative carbon dioxide removal system featuring a PEM-based sorbent regenerator; a carbon dioxide reduction system that electrochemically produces organic compounds that could serve as fuels or as a useful intermediary to more beneficial compounds; and an electrochemical hydrogen separator and compressor for hydrogen recycle. The technical maturity of these projects is presented along with pertinent performance test data that could be beneficial in future study efforts.

Roy, Robert J.↗