SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Habitat for Humanity”

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 271 records · Page 15

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1993

Crew interface analysis: Selected articles on space human factors research, 1987 - 1991

As part of the Flight Crew Support Division at NASA, the Crew Interface Analysis Section is dedicated to the study of human factors in the manned space program. It assumes a specialized role that focuses on answering operational questions pertaining to NASA's Space Shuttle and Space Station Freedom Programs. One of the section's key contributions is to provide knowledge and information about human capabilities and limitations that promote optimal spacecraft and habitat design and use to enhance crew safety and productivity. The section provides human factors engineering for the ongoing missions as well as proposed missions that aim to put human settlements on the Moon and Mars. Research providing solutions to operational issues is the primary objective of the Crew Interface Analysis Section. The studies represent such subdisciplines as ergonomics, space habitability, man-computer interaction, and remote operator interaction.

Bagian, Tandi↗

NASA NTRS2004

Human Space Flight

The first human space flight, in the early 1960s, was aimed primarily at determining whether humans could indeed survive and function in micro-gravity. Would eating and sleeping be possible? What mental and physical tasks could be performed? Subsequent programs increased the complexity of the tasks the crew performed. Table 1 summarizes the history of U.S. space flight, showing the projects, their dates, crew sizes, and mission durations. With over forty years of experience with human space flight, the emphasis now is on how to design space vehicles, habitats, and missions to produce the greatest returns to human knowledge. What are the roles of the humans in space flight in low earth orbit, on the moon, and in exploring Mars?

Woolford, Barbara↗

NASA NTRS2004

Fabrication and Testing of Habitat Components Using In-Situ Materials for Martian Exploration

The development of Mars for human activity will require the utilization of Martian materials in building habitats and working structures. One approach is to use polymer binders with regolith to form structural elements. Not only can useful composite materials be produced in this way but the radiation protection properties are also increased. This is important since only modest protection from space radiation is provided by the Martian atmosphere. We have studied composites fabricated using Martian regolith simulant and polymers which can be synthesized from local Martian materials for their potential use as radiation shields for manned Mars missions. To validate shielding effectiveness, composites are irradiated with a 55 MeV proton beam and neutron beams up to 800 MeV. Shielding effects on microelectronic devices are measured by placing them behind samples of the composites during irradiation. To measure structural properties of the composites, preliminary characterization and mechanical testing are made for the composites.

Kim, M.-H. Y.↗

NASA NTRS2024

3D Scanning System to Assess Gravity-Dependent Body Shape Changes

The human body shows unique physiological and morphological changes when exposed to different gravity conditions, including muscle atrophy, fluid shift, spinal elongation, and body posture adjustments. Such changes need to be incorporated for human-system integration in the vehicle habitat, garment, and spacesuit designs, as inaccurate body measurements can result in suboptimal crew protection that can potentially decrease injury tolerance. However, the traditional linear measurements, such as stature, segment lengths or circumferences measured using a caliper or tape measure, often show limited consistency and are unable to capture the nonlinear characteristics of the human body. While 3D body scanning can provide significant advantages over linear measurements, the technologies have not been fully developed or customized for in-flight scanning. For ground laboratory use, several different scanner types are commercially available. However, in-flight scanning requires additional technical considerations, such as minimal scan time, simplified calibration, and sufficient capture volume. This work aims to develop a prototype 3-D body scanning system that is customized for in-flight use to scan crewmembers, with the configuration and performance optimized for detecting known gravity-dependent body shape and posture changes. A hardware system will be custom built using a network of commercial off-the-shelf 3D sensors. The sensor parameters and settings will be optimized to detect the targeted body shape changes, specifically using body manikins of which the shape and size are iteratively permuted to simulate the known changes by fluid shift and spinal elongation. The capture volume will be also matched for a range of body sizes from a 1st percentile female to 99th percentile male. Unintentional body motions or floating in microgravity will be also simulated and incorporated. A data acquisition software will be developed for efficient in-flight operations with minimal overhead and easy-to-use user interface. A simplified calibration procedure will be designed for robust scanning against frequent vibration or unexpected sensor position shifts. The system will be tested in the ground laboratory for accuracy and reliability against a reference scanning system. New anthropometry measurements will be also identified to sensitively capture the gravity dependent body shape changes, in addition to the traditional anthropometry measurements. A novel landmark-based technique will be tested for consistent anthropometry measurements across posture variations. If successfully developed and deployed, the new system is expected to provide previously unavailable body shape and size data from different gravitational environments, including 0-g, 1/6-g, and 1-g. Such data can improve suit fit, habitat design, exercise efficacy quantification and sizing of orthostatic intolerance garments.

K H Kim↗

NASA NTRS2024

3D Scanning System to Assess Gravity-Dependent Body Shape Changes

K H Kim↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Internal Architecture of the Common Habitat

The core stage liquid oxygen tank of the Space Launch System can be manufactured as a habitat instead of as a propellant tank, with a common design such that it is equally suitable for use in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, 1g, or variable artificial gravity. This Common Habitat can be the central element of a human spaceflight architecture that encompasses the Moon, Mars, and other destinations within the inner solar system. The Common Habitat is specifically used within an alternative architecture study (that is not part of the current NASA baseline) as the core habitation element within a Lunar Basecamp, Mars Basecamp, and the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle. The Common Habitat internal architecture applies a design philosophy to separate crew functions according to deck. The lower deck is reserved for private functions. It includes eight private crew quarters and four waste and hygiene clusters – each with a private waste management compartment, private full body hygiene compartment, and foyer/clothes changing area. The mid deck is primarily allocated to mission-related working functions. It includes an exercise facility, fabrication / maintenance / repair facility, physical science laboratory (physics, geology, and astronomy), and life science laboratory (biology and human research). The mid deck also has four external hatches, clocked one every 90 degrees, centered on the vehicle vertical centerline. Each hatch has a 60-inch tall by 40-inch wide opening with the mid deck floor 16 inches below the bottom lip of the hatch opening. The upper deck is primarily allocated to group or social functions. It includes a large galley, wardroom with projector and display screen, plant growth chambers, bulk stowage, command and control station, medical facility, hygiene compartment, and vehicle subsystems. A Vertical Translation System, based in part on results from a GrabCAD public challenge, enables crew and equipment traverse between habitat decks in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, and 1g. A 40-inch by 60-inch vertical translation corridor ensures that anything that can fit through the external hatches can also be moved from deck to deck. The system includes three component systems: a deploying floor to safety barrier system that folds down to become a traversable floor when vertical translation is not in use and deploys to become a safety barrier during vertical translations; a folding ladder that stows in the ceiling when not in use; and an elevator platform that can attach to the ladder for cargo or incapacitated crew member transport. This system is complemented by a Horizontal Translation System, also based in part on the same GrabCAD challenge, provides for horizontal crew translation in microgravity but requires no vehicle reconfiguration for fractional or whole gravity operation. It relies primarily on gecko-inspired grippers, originally developed at Stanford and NASA JPL, attached to footwear to enable crew to emulate walking. Some handrails are also strategically placed throughout the Common Habitat to aid translation in both gravity and microgravity environments.

Common Habitat↗

NASA NTRS2013

NASA Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) Deep Space Habitat Analog

The NASA Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) vertical cylinder habitat was established as a exploration habitat testbed platform for integration and testing of a variety of technologies and subsystems that will be required in a human-occupied planetary surface outpost or Deep Space Habitat (DSH). The HDU functioned as a medium-fidelity habitat prototype from 2010-2012 and allowed teams from all over NASA to collaborate on field analog missions, mission operations tests, and system integration tests to help shake out equipment and provide feedback for technology development cycles and crew training. This paper documents the final 2012 configuration of the HDU, and discusses some of the testing that took place. Though much of the higher-fidelity functionality has 'graduated' into other NASA programs, as of this writing the HDU, renamed Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA), will continue to be available as a volumetric and operational mockup for NASA Human Research Program (HRP) research from 2013 onward.

Mars↗

NASA NTRS2003

Evaluation of Human vs. Teleoperated Robotic Performance in Field Geology Tasks at a Mars Analog Site

Exploration mission designers and planners have costing models used to assess the affordability of given missions - but very little data exists on the relative science return produced by different ways of exploring a given region. Doing cost-benefit analyses for future missions requires a way to compare the relative field science productivity of spacesuited humans vs. virtual presence/teleoperation from a nearby habitat or orbital station, vs. traditional terrestrial-controlled rover operations. The goal of this study was to define science-return metrics for comparing human and robotic fieldwork, and then obtain quantifiable science-return performance comparisons between teleoperated rovers and spacesuited humans. Test runs with a simulated 2015-class rover and with spacesuited geologists were conducted at Haughton Crater in the Canadian Arctic in July 2002. Early results imply that humans will be 1-2 orders of magnitude more productive per unit time in exploration than future terrestrially-controlled robots.

Glass, B.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Assessment and Mitigation of the Effects of Noise on Habitability in Deep Space Environments: Report on Non-Auditory Effects of Noise

This document reviews non-auditory effects of noise relevant to habitable volume requirements in cislunar space. The non-auditory effects of noise in future long-term space habitats are likely to be impactful on team and individual performance, sleep, and cognitive well-being. This report has provided several recommendations for future standards and procedures for long-term space flight habitats, along with recommendations for NASA's Human Research Program in support of DST mission success.

noise↗

DOE OSTI2021

Past agricultural land use affects multiple facets of ungulate antipredator behavior

Antipredator behavior affects prey fitness, prey demography, and the strength of ecological interactions. Although predator-prey interactions increasingly occur in habitats that experience multiple forms of human-generated disturbance, it is unclear how different forms of disturbance might affect antipredator behavior. Fire is a contemporary disturbance that has dramatic effects on terrestrial habitats. Such habitats may have also experienced past disturbances, like agricultural land use, that leave lasting legacies on habitat structure (e.g., overstory and understory composition). It is unclear how these past and present disturbances affect the use of different antipredator behaviors, like temporal avoidance and vigilance. We examined whether variation in disturbance regimes generates differences in ungulate antipredator behavior by using cameras to measure white-tailed deer vigilance and activity time across 24 longleaf pine woodlands that vary in past land use and contemporary fire regime. Regardless of land-use history, woodlands with high fire frequencies had 4 times less vegetation cover than low-fire woodlands, generating riskier habitats for deer; however, deer responded to fire with different antipredator strategies depending on land-use history. In nonagricultural woodlands, fire affected deer activity time such that activity was nocturnal in low-fire woodlands and crepuscular in high-fire woodlands. In post-agricultural woodlands, fire affected vigilance and not activity time such that deer were more vigilant in high-fire woodlands than in low-fire woodlands. Furthermore, these results suggest that ungulate antipredator behavior may vary spatially depending on past land use and contemporary fire regime, and such disturbances may generate “landscapes of fear” that persist for decades after agricultural use.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants

The Common Habitat is a large habitat developed as an alternative architecture study, not part of the current NASA baseline, that uses the SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as its primary structure. It has a gravity-independent internal architecture, such that identical units can be used on the lunar surface, Mars surface, and in microgravity. In developing the habitat, two key architectural questions emerged. Should the internal layout use a vertical or horizontal orientation of the tank? Should the crew size be four or eight? This led to the design of four variants: a four-crew horizontal, four-crew vertical, eight-crew horizontal, and eight-crew vertical. The four-crew variants use a shortened version of the tank while the eight-crew variants use the entire tank. The primary consideration applied for down-selection is the crew experience living and working in the habitat, inclusive of crew productivity, well-being, and survivability. Based on this consideration, a series of seven assessments were performed to compare the variants. This analysis was performed as an unfunded, volunteer activity leveraging civil servants across multiple field centers, most with expertise working in various Artemis teams. Additionally, the evaluation was limited to the use of CAD models, images, and spreadsheet data, with no resources available for mockups or Virtual Reality. A logistics analysis developed a standard logistics module and then estimated how much stowage could be carried onboard each Common Habitat and how many logistics modules are required by each variant for a given mission duration. It also considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the habitats, ranking them relative to each other. A crew time assessment first estimated the total crew time, building a weekly crew timeline for both four and eight-person crews. It then allocated time to activities linked to living and working functions, comparing how much time was available for each function in each variant. A science productivity assessment developed a relative metric using crew time, science stowage, and assumed rates of experiment consumables use to analytically compare the four variants. It also comparatively ranked the habitats with respect to a number of subjective parameters and a workstation acceptability rating. A maintenance capacity assessment identified and compared eleven generic maintenance capabilities across the variants and also ranked them for their predicted ability to complete twelve fabrication, maintenance, and repair scenarios. A contingency responsiveness analysis examined twelve serious in-flight contingencies. For each scenario, the number of crew needed to respond were predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response were evaluated, comparing the variants against each other. Finally, in a habitability assessment, 120 habitability characteristics reflecting 13 major categories were evaluated for each habitat. These results were compared to identify the most acceptable habitat in each category. Ultimately, the data favored the horizontal orientation over the vertical and an eight-person crew over four. Implications of selecting this variant are discussed, including specific architectural challenges that result from the use of the full tank.

Habitability↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Functional Volume Assessment of an Early Version of the Mars Transit Habitat

During the summer of 2020, NASA assessed the transit habitat concept that was being used in Mars human exploration architecture studies. This assessment had six primary objectives: (1) provide a sanity check to the transit habitat concept layout; (2) understand if we can fit the hardware and functional tasks in the volume; (3) provide a high-level assessment of how aggressive the layout is; (4) generate a list of challenges or assumptions necessary to make it work; (5) generate a list of future work to refine understanding; and (6) identify proposed requirements. The results of this evaluation are discussed, including methodological challenges and rating challenges. Acceptability results are discussed for functions that the participants were able to rate and participant comments for functions that could not be evaluated are also described. Final conclusions are described, including challenges or assumptions needed to make the transit habitat concept design acceptable, future work needed to refine understanding of the transit habitat concept, and proposed habitat requirements based on test data. While NASA has since moved away from this architecture, the assessment is still useful to inform the design of future transit habitats or other deep space crewed vehicles.

Transit Habitat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants

The Common Habitat is a large habitat that uses the Space Launch System core stage liquid oxygen tank as its primary structure. It has a gravity-independent internal architecture, such that identical units can be used on the lunar surface, Mars surface, and in microgravity. In developing the habitat, two key architectural questions emerged. Should the internal layout use a vertical or horizontal orientation of the tank? Should the crew size be four or eight? This led to the design of four variants: a four-crew horizontal, four-crew vertical, eight-crew horizontal, and eight-crew vertical. The primary consideration applied for down-selection was the crew experience living and working in the habitat, inclusive of crew productivity, well-being, and survivability. Based on this consideration, a series of seven assessments was performed to compare the four variants. A stowage assessment developed a standard logistics module and then considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. It then estimated how much stowage could be carried onboard each Common Habitat and how many logistics modules are required by each variant for a given mission duration. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the four habitat, ranking them relative to each other. A crew time assessment first estimated the total crew time, building a weekly crew timeline for both four and eight-person crews. It then allocated time to activities linked to living and working functions, comparing how much time was available for each function in each variant. A science productivity assessment developed a relative metric using crew time, science stowage, and assumed rates of experiment consumables use to analytically compare the four variants. It also comparatively ranked the habitats with respect to a number of subjective parameters and a workstation acceptability rating. A maintenance capacity assessment identified and compared eleven generic maintenance capabilities across the four variants and also ranked the variants for their predicted ability to complete twelve fabrication, maintenance, and repair scenarios. A contingency responsiveness analysis examined twelve serious in-flight contingencies. For each scenario, the number of crew needed to respond was predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response was evaluated, comparing the four variants against each other. Finally, in a habitability assessment, 120 habitability characteristics reflecting 13 major categories were evaluated for each habitat. These results were compared to identify the most acceptable habitat in each category. Ultimately, the data was shown to favor the horizontal orientation over the vertical and an eight-person crew over four. Implications of selecting this variant are discussed, including specific architectural challenges that result from the use of the full SLS liquid oxygen tank.

Habitability↗

NASA NTRS2008

Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar: Lunar Habitat Concepts

This paper will describe lunar habitat concepts that were defined as part of the Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar (CxAT-Lunar) in support of the Vision for Space Exploration. There are many challenges to designing lunar habitats such as mission objectives, launch packaging, lander capability, and risks. Surface habitats are required in support of sustaining human life to meet the mission objectives of lunar exploration, operations, and sustainability. Lunar surface operations consist of crew operations, mission operations, EVA operations, science operations, and logistics operations. Habitats are crewed pressurized vessels that include surface mission operations, science laboratories, living support capabilities, EVA support, logistics, and maintenance facilities. The challenge is to deliver, unload, and deploy self-contained habitats and laboratories to the lunar surface. The CxAT-Lunar surface campaign analysis focused on three primary trade sets of analysis. Trade set one (TS1) investigated sustaining a crew of four for six months with full outpost capability and the ability to perform long surface mission excursions using large mobility systems. Two basic habitat concepts of a hard metallic horizontal cylinder and a larger inflatable torus concept were investigated as options in response to the surface exploration architecture campaign analysis. Figure 1 and 2 depicts the notional outpost configurations for this trade set. Trade set two (TS2) investigated a mobile architecture approach with the campaign focused on early exploration using two small pressurized rovers and a mobile logistics support capability. This exploration concept will not be described in this paper. Trade set three (TS3) investigated delivery of a "core' habitation capability in support of an early outpost that would mature into the TS1 full outpost capability. Three core habitat concepts were defined for this campaign analysis. One with a four port core habitat, another with a 2 port core habitat, and the third investigated leveraging commonality of the lander ascent module and airlock pressure vessel hard shell. The paper will describe an overview of the various habitat concepts and their functionality. The Crew Operations area includes basic crew accommodations such as sleeping, eating, hygiene and stowage. The EVA Operations area includes additional EVA capability beyond the suit-port airlock function such as redundant airlock(s), suit maintenance, spares stowage, and suit stowage. The Logistics Operations area includes the enhanced accommodations for 180 days such as closed loop life support systems hardware, consumable stowage, spares stowage, interconnection to the other Hab units, and a common interface mechanism for future growth and mating to a pressurized rover. The Mission & Science Operations area includes enhanced outpost autonomy such as an IVA glove box, life support, and medical operations.

Toups, Larry↗

NASA NTRS2005

On Structural Design of a Mobile Lunar Habitat with Multi-Layered Environmental Shielding

The future human lunar missions are expected to undertake far more ambitious activities than those of the Apollo program with the possibility of some missions lasting up to several months. Such extended missions require the use of large-size lunar outposts to accommodate living quarters for the astronauts as well as indoor laboratory facilities. The greatest obstacle to the prolonged human presence on the Moon is the threat posed by the harsh lunar environment that is plagued with multi-source high-energy radiation exposure as well as frequent barrage of meteoroids. Hence, for such extended missions to succeed, it is vital that the future lunar outposts be designed to provide a safe habitat for the astronauts. Over the past few years, a variety of ideas and concepts for future lunar outposts and bases have been proposed. With shielding as the primary concern, some have suggested the use of natural structures such as lava tubes while others have taken a more industrial approach and suggested the construction of fixed structures in the form of inflatable, inflatable with rigid elements, and tent-style membrane. For evaluation of these structural design concepts, Drake and Richter1 have proposed a rating system based on such factors as effectiveness, importance, and timing. While all of these designs, in general, benefit from in-situ resource utilization (i.e., lunar regolith) for shielding, they share a common disadvantage of being fixed to one particular location that would limit exploration to the region in close proximity of the outpost.

Rais-Rohani, Masoud↗

NASA NTRS2005

Challenges in Predicting Planetary Granular Mechanics

Through the course of human history, our needs in agriculture, habitat construction, and resource extraction have driven us to gain more experience working with the granular materials of planet Earth than with any other type of substance in nature, with the possible exception being water. Furthermore, throughout the past two centuries we have seen a dramatic and ever growing interest among scientists and engineers to understand and predict both its static and rheological properties. Ironically, however, despite this wealth of experience we still do not have a fundamental understanding of the complex physical phenomena that emerge even as just ordinary sand is shaken, squeezed or poured. As humanity is now reaching outward through the solar system, not only robotic ally but also with our immediate human presence, the need to understand and predict granular mechanics has taken on a new dimension. We must learn to farm, build and mine the regoliths of other planets where the environmental conditions are different than on Earth, and we are rapidly discovering that the effects of these environmental conditions are not trivial. Some of the relevant environmental features include the regolith formation processes throughout a planet's geologic and hydrologic history, the unknown mixtures of volatiles residing within the soil, the relative strength of gravitation, ~d the atm9spheric pressure and its seasonal variations. The need to work with soils outside our terrestrial experience base provides us with both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to learn how to extrapolate our experience into these new planetary conditions, enabling the engineering decisions that are needed right now as we take the next few steps in solar system exploration. The opportunity is to use these new planetary environments as laboratories that will help us to see granular mechanics in new ways, to challenge our assumptions, and to help us finally unravel the elusive physics that lie behind complex granular phenomena. Toward these goals, a workshop was held recently at NASA's John F. Kennedy Space Center, attracting over a hundred scientists and engineers from around the world and from a broad crosssection of scientific and engineering disciplines. This talk will provide an out-briefing from that workshop, communicating some of its early findings in regard to lunar and Martian exploration: (1) the requirements for working with granular materials, (2) the challenges that granular materials will pose, (3) the environmental conditions that affect granular mechanics, (4) instruments and measurements that are needed on the Moon and Mars to support granular material research, and (5) some of the possible research avenues that should be pursued.

Metzger, Philip T.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Integration Process for the Habitat Demonstration Unit

The Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) is an experimental exploration habitat technology and architecture test platform designed for analog demonstration activities. The HDU previously served as a test bed for testing technologies and sub-systems in a terrestrial surface environment. in 2010 in the Pressurized Excursion Module (PEM) configuration. Due to the amount of work involved to make the HDU project successful, the HDU project has required a team to integrate a variety of contributions from NASA centers and outside collaborators The size of the team and number of systems involved With the HDU makes Integration a complicated process. However, because the HDU shell manufacturing is complete, the team has a head start on FY--11 integration activities and can focus on integrating upgrades to existing systems as well as integrating new additions. To complete the development of the FY-11 HDU from conception to rollout for operations in July 2011, a cohesive integration strategy has been developed to integrate the various systems of HDU and the payloads. The highlighted HDU work for FY-11 will focus on performing upgrades to the PEM configuration, adding the X-Hab as a second level, adding a new porch providing the astronauts a larger work area outside the HDU for EVA preparations, and adding a Hygiene module. Together these upgrades result in a prototype configuration of the Deep Space Habitat (DSH), an element under evaluation by NASA's Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) Scheduled activates include early fit-checks and the utilization of a Habitat avionics test bed prior to installation into HDU. A coordinated effort to utilize modeling and simulation systems has aided in design and integration concept development. Modeling tools have been effective in hardware systems layout, cable routing, sub-system interface length estimation and human factors analysis. Decision processes on integration and use of all new subsystems will be defined early in the project to maximize the efficiency of both integration and field operations. In addition a series of tailored design reviews are utilized to quickly define the systems and their integration into the DSH configuration. These processes are necessary to ensure activities, such as partially reversing integration of the X-Hab second story of the HDU and deploying and stowing the new work porch for transportation to the JSC Rock Yard and to the Arizona Black Point Lava Flow Site are performed with minimal or no complications. In addition, incremental test operations leading up to an Integrated systems test allows for an orderly systems test program. For FY-11 activities, the HDU DSH will act as a laboratory utilizing a new X-Hab inflatable second floor with crew habitation features. In addition to the day to day operations involving maintenance of the HDU and exploring the surrounding terrain, testing and optimizing the use of the new X-Hab, work porch, Hygiene Module, and other sub-system enhancements will be the focus of the FY-11 test objectives. The HDU team requires a successful integration strategy using a variety of tools and approaches to prepare the DSH for these test objectives. In a challenging environment where the prototyping influences the system design, as well as Vice versa, results of the HDU DSH field tests will influence future designs of habitat systems.

Gill, Tracy↗

NASA NTRS2003

A Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) of Human Space Missions for the Advanced Integration Matrix (AIM)

The Advanced Integration Matrix (AIM) Project u7ill study and solve systems-level integration issues for exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), through the design and development of a ground-based facility for developing revolutionary integrated systems for joint human-robotic missions. This paper describes a Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) of human space missions that was developed to help define the direction and priorities for AIM. Risk analysis is required for all major NASA programs and has been used for shuttle, station, and Mars lander programs. It is a prescribed part of early planning and is necessary during concept definition, even before mission scenarios and system designs exist. PRA cm begin when little failure data are available, and be continually updated and refined as detail becomes available. PRA provides a basis for examining tradeoffs among safety, reliability, performance, and cost. The objective of AIM's PRA is to indicate how risk can be managed and future human space missions enabled by the AIM Project. Many critical events can cause injuries and fatalities to the crew without causing loss of vehicle or mission. Some critical systems are beyond AIM's scope, such as propulsion and guidance. Many failure-causing events can be mitigated by conducting operational tests in AIM, such as testing equipment and evaluating operational procedures, especially in the areas of communications and computers, autonomous operations, life support, thermal design, EVA and rover activities, physiological factors including habitation, medical equipment, and food, and multifunctional tools and repairable systems. AIM is well suited to test and demonstrate the habitat, life support, crew operations, and human interface. Because these account for significant crew, systems performance, and science risks, AIM will help reduce mission risk, and missions beyond LEO are far enough in the future that AIM can have significant impact.

Jones, Harry W.↗