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 289 records · Page 16

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact Real World System Validation

Introduction NASA has developed a new evidence-based data-driven probabilistic risk assessment and tradespace analysis tool as a successor to the Integrated Medical Model. This updated decision support tool is known as IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces). IMPACT estimates the frequency and consequences of medical conditions that might arise during exploration missions. A validation analysis of IMPACT was performed with respect to a set of International Space Station (ISS) and Shuttle Transportation System (STS) real world system (RWS) referent data due to the limited referent data available from exploration missions. Methods Observed mission and crew characteristics from STS and ISS missions were used as model inputs within MEDPRAT (Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool). For each mission, two hundred thousand simulations were generated. For each mission, model outputs included occurrence counts for each condition, total medical events (TME), and the probability of loss of crew life (LOCL). These simulated model outputs were compared to the RWS referent data. Results The predicted number of total medical events exceeded the total RWS medical events for ISS missions and combined ISS and STS missions and fell within the 90% confidence interval for STS missions. For the 32 ISS missions simulated by IMPACT, the number of total medical events was overpredicted for 19 missions and fell within the 90% confidence interval for 13 missions. For the 21 STS missions, the total number of medical events was overpredicted for 3 missions, fell within the 90% confidence interval for 16 missions, and was underpredicted for 2 missions. Combined, 29 missions were in range, 22 were overpredicted, and 2 were underpredicted. The predicted LOCL probability for the 32 ISS missions, the 21 STS missions, and the combined ISS and STS missions was consistent with the zero LOCL events observed in the RWS referent data. The validation analysis included a comparison of the number of medical events predicted by IMPACT and the number of medical events observed in the RWS data on a condition-by-condition basis. For ISS missions, 50 conditions were in range, 52 conditions were statistically underpowered (not enough observed sample to draw any conclusions on precision), 8 conditions were overpredicted, and 9 conditions were underpredicted. Overall, only 14% (17/119) of conditions were out of range for STS missions, 40 conditions were in range, 59 conditions were statistically underpowered, 10 conditions were overpredicted, and 10 conditions were underpredicted. Overall, only 17% (20/119) of conditions were out of range. For combined ISS and STS missions, 11 conditions were overpredicted, and 11 conditions were underpredicted. Overall, only 18% (22/119) of conditions were out of range. For combined ISS and STS missions, 49 conditions were in range, 46 conditions were statistically underpowered, 18 conditions were overpredicted, and 8 conditions were underpredicted. Overall, 21% (26/121) of conditions were out of range. Conclusion The results of this validation analysis should not be interpreted as a pass/fail test of the validity of IMPACT. Instead, this validation analysis should be used to assess some of the IMPACT outcomes in terms of consistencies and inconsistencies with the ISS and STS RWS referent data.

L. Boley↗

NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Jettison Motor Performance During Exploration Flight Test 1

This paper presents 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 performing Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. 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. 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. Selected Launch Abort System flight test data is presented and discussed in the paper. Through flight test data, Launch Abort System performance trends have been derived that will prove valuable to future flights as well as the manned space program.

McCauley, Rachel J.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Pre-Mission Input Requirements to Enable Successful Sample Collection by a Remote Field/EVA Team

This paper is intended to evaluate the sample collection process with respect to sample characterization and decision making. In some cases, it may be sufficient to know whether a given outcrop or hand sample is the same as or different from previous sampling localities or samples. In other cases, it may be important to have more in-depth characterization of the sample, such as basic composition, mineralogy, and petrology, in order to effectively identify the best sample. Contextual field observations, in situ/handheld analysis, and backroom evaluation may all play a role in understanding field lithologies and their importance for return. For example, whether a rock is a breccia or a clast-laden impact melt may be difficult based on a single sample, but becomes clear as exploration of a field site puts it into context. The FINESSE (Field Investigations to Enable Solar System Science and Exploration) team is a new activity focused on a science and exploration field based research program aimed at generating strategic knowledge in preparation for the human and robotic exploration of the Moon, near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) and Phobos and Deimos. We used the FINESSE field excursion to the West Clearwater Lake Impact structure (WCIS) as an opportunity to test factors related to sampling decisions. In contract to other technology-driven NASA analog studies, The FINESSE WCIS activity is science-focused, and moreover, is sampling-focused, with the explicit intent to return the best samples for geochronology studies in the laboratory. This specific objective effectively reduces the number of variables in the goals of the field test and enables a more controlled investigation of the role of the crewmember in selecting samples. We formulated one hypothesis to test: that providing details regarding the analytical fate of the samples (e.g. geochronology, XRF/XRD, etc.) to the crew prior to their traverse will result in samples that are more likely to meet specific analytical objectives than samples collected in the absence of this premission information. We conducted three tests of this hypothesis. Our investigation was designed to document processes, tools and procedures for crew sampling of planetary targets. This is not meant to be a blind, controlled test of crew efficacy, but rather an effort to recognize the relevant variables that enter into sampling protocol and to develop recommendations for crew and backroom training in future endeavors. Methods: One of the primary FINESSE field deployment objectives was to collect impact melt rocks and impact melt-bearing breccias from a number of locations around the WCIS structure to enable high precision geochronology of the crater to be performed [1]. We conducted three tests at WCIS after two full days of team participation in field site activities, including using remote sensing data and geologic maps, hiking overland to become familiar with the terrain, and examining previously-collected samples from other islands. In addition, the team members shared their projects and techniques with the entire team. We chose our "crew members" as volunteers from the team, all of whom had had moderate training in geologic fieldwork and became familiar with the general field setting. The first two tests were short, focused tests of our hypothesis. Test A was to obtain hydrothermal vugs; Test B was to obtain impact melt and intrusive rock as well as the contact between the two to check for contact metamorphism and age differences. In both cases, the test director had prior knowledge of the site geology and had developed a study-specific objective for sampling prior to deployment. Prior to the field deployment, the crewmember was briefed on the sampling objective and the laboratory techniques that would be used on the samples. At the field sites (Fig. 2), the crewmember was given 30 minutes to survey a small section of outcrop (10-15 m) and acquire a suite of three samples. The crewmember talked through his process and the test director kept track of the timeline in verbal cues to the crewmember. At the conclusion, the team member conducting the scientific study appraised the samples and train of thought. Test C was a 90-minute EVA simulation using two crewmembers working out of line-of-sight in communication with a science backroom. The science objectives were determined by the science backroom team in advance using a Gigapan image of the outcrop (Fig. 1). The science team formulated hypotheses for the outcrop units and created sampling objectives for impact-melt lithologies; the science team turned these into a science plan, which they communicated to the crew in camp prior to crew deployment. As part of the science plan, the science team also discussed their sample needs in depth with the crewmembers, including laboratory methods, objectives, and samples sizes needed. During the deployment, the two crewmembers relayed real-time information to the science backroom by radio with no time delay. Both the crew and science team re-evaluated their hypotheses and science plans in real-time. Discussion: Upon evaluation, we found that the focused tests (Tests A and B) were successful in meeting their scientific objectives. The crewmember used their knowledge of how the samples were to be used in further study (technique, sample size, and scientific need) to focus on the sampling task. The crewmember was comfortable spending minimal time describing and mapping the outcrop. The crewmember used all available time to get a good sample. The larger test was unsuccessful in meeting the sampling objectives. When the crewmembers began describing the lithologies, it was quickly apparent that the lithologies were not as the backroom expected and had communicated to the crew. When the outcrop wasn't as expected, the crew members instinctively switched to field characterization mode, taking significant time to characterize and map the outcrop. One crew member admitted that he "kind of lost track" of the sampling strategy as he focused on the basic outcrop characterization. This is the logical first step in a field geology campaign, that a significant amount of time must be spent by the crew and backroom to understand the outcrop and its significance. Basic field characterization of an outcrop is a focused activity that takes significant time and training [2, 3]. Sampling of representational lithologies can be added to this activity for little cost [4]. However, we have shown that identification of unusual or specific samples for laboratory study also takes significant time and knowledge. We suggest that sampling of this type be considered a separate activity from field characterization, and that crewmembers be trained in sampling needs for different kinds of studies (representative lithologies vs. specialized samples) to acquire a mindset for sampling similar to field mapping. Sampling activities should be given a significant amount of specifically allocated time in scheduling EVA activities; and in the better case, that sampling be done as a second activity to a previously studied outcrop where both crew and backroom are comfortable with its context and characteristics. Our hypothesis posited that crewmember knowledge of how the samples would be used upon return would aid them in choosing relevant samples. Our testing bore this hypothesis out to some extent. We therefore recommend that crewmember training should include exposure to the laboratory techniques and analyses that will be used on the samples to foster this knowledge. There is also the potential for increasing crewmember contextual knowledge real-time in the field through the introduction of in situ geochemical technologies such as field portable XRF. The presence of field portable geochemical technology could enable the astronauts to interrogate the samples for K abundance real-time, ensuring they could collect valuable and dateable samples [5]. Though simulations such as these can teach us a fair bit about decision making processes and timeline building, one EVA participant noted that when he wasn't collecting "real" samples, he wasn't at his best. This effect suggests that higher-fidelity studies involving truly remote participants conducting actual scientific studies merit further attention to capture lessons for application to future crew situations.

sample collection↗

NASA NTRS2014

Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) Development Risk Communication

There are clear advantages of development of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) for a crewed mission to Mars. NTR for in-space propulsion enables more ambitious space missions by providing high thrust at high specific impulse (approximately 900 sec) that is 2 times the best theoretical performance possible for chemical rockets. Missions can be optimized for maximum payload capability to take more payload with reduced total mass to orbit; saving cost on reduction of the number of launch vehicles needed. Or missions can be optimized to minimize trip time significantly to reduce the deep space radiation exposure to the crew. NTR propulsion technology is a game changer for space exploration. However, "NUCLEAR" is a word that is feared and vilified by some groups and the hostility towards development of any nuclear systems can meet great opposition by the public as well as from national leaders and people in authority. Communication of nuclear safety will be critical to the success of the development of the NTR. Why is there a fear of nuclear? A bomb that can level a city is a scary weapon. The first and only times the Nuclear Bomb was used in a war was on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2. The "Little Boy" atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and the "Fat Man" on Nagasaki 3 days later on August 9th. Within the first 4 months of bombings, 90- 166 thousand people died in Hiroshima and 60-80 thousand died in Nagasaki. It is important to note for comparison that over 500 thousand people died and 5 million made homeless due to strategic bombing (approximately 150 thousand tons) of Japanese cities and war assets with conventional non-nuclear weapons between 1942- 1945. A major bombing campaign of "firebombing" of Tokyo called "Operation Meetinghouse" on March 9 and 10 consisting of 334 B-29's dropped approximately1,700 tons of bombs around 16 square mile area and over 100 thousand people have been estimated to have died. The declaration of death is very clear for conventional weapons and then the declaration of death due to radiation becomes vague and unclear. This may have been due to people mis-understanding the dangers and effects of radiation when assessing the damage and harm to people initially, but it is also become insidious when expressing opposition to nuclear energy. A nuclear radiation accident can be scary due to the power involved and the fear of radiation release. The International Atomic Energy Agency defines a nuclear and radiation accident a "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility." There have been 3 commercial nuclear reactor accidents (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima) that stand out to the public and much of the information about the result and impact to workers, environment, and public can be misleading. Often information is presented without clear correlation with radiation and other pertinent information is left out presenting a very scary situation to affect the emotions of the reader. A very boring but "critically acclaimed" movie was made in 1979 called "The China Syndrome" starring Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon. The film was released on March 16, 1979, 12 days before the 3-Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania. The basis from the movie was from a few nuclear plant incidents and in particular, the Brown's Ferry Alabama Power Plant fire. In one scene from the movie, a physicist Dr. Elliott Lowell played by Donald Hotton states that a China Syndrome event would make "an area the size of Pennsylvania" permanently uninhabitable. Real serious nuclear incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are often sited to make people fear the consequences of using nuclear power. However, the consequences are at best poorly communicated and at worst fictitiously inflated to instigate social unrest against nuclear power. There is an article being circulated on Facebook with a title "28 Signs that the (US) West Coast is being absolutely fried with nuclear radiation from Fukushima" which focus on mis-information and fear mongering. Nuclear power and NTR are powerful resources that can open many doors for future prosperity and capability. With great power comes great responsibility. Radiation and its effects need to be better understood, quantified, and communicated. A human mission to mars has its own risks of deep space radiation and is considered a considerable risk at 400 milli-Sieverts per year in deep space and 245 milli-Sieverts per year on the surface of Mars as measured by the Mars Curiosity mission. Although these quantities of ionizing radiation are within the astronaut career limit, it exceeds the yearly average amounts of ionizing radiation. Astronaut crews have experienced these levels of radiation before, but for durations shorter than a year, and a mission to Mars could possibly be 3 years in length. There is also evidence that people can comfortably handle higher levels of ionizing radiation where the radiation occurs naturally like Ramsar, Iran when people can experience 270 milli-Sieverts per year. A risk posture that the development, test, and flight of an NTR will meet opposition from groups who oppose nuclear energy must be likely and the impact can be sever to the effort. Active risk mitigation must be taken for an NTR full-scale development project. The NTR design must take into account safety for transport and off nominal conditions. Nuclear fuel element must consider containment of fission products and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) that may meet less opposition should be considered for safety and security reasons. Even though testing was conducted on Rover/NERVA safely and successfully in the 60's with exhaust sent heavenward in to open air, modern testing of NTR must consider full containment and no release of ionizing radiation to the public and must meet the current requirement of no more than 0.1 milli-Sieverts per year to the public. 0.1 milli-Sieverts is equivalent to eating one banana or a 20 hour plane flight. Good communication with the public and regulatory agencies will be essential to show that all effort is applied toward protection to the public and astronauts. The inspiring endeavor to put humans on Mars to study the planet, search for life, and learn more about this Solar System will be full of risks but it will be worth it. NTR will be worth the development effort if it allows humans to explore our Solar System.

Kim, Tony↗

NASA NTRS2015

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Development Risks

There are clear advantages of development of a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) for a crewed mission to Mars. NTP for in-space propulsion enables more ambitious space missions by providing high thrust at high specific impulse ((is) approximately 900 sec) that is 2 times the best theoretical performance possible for chemical rockets. Missions can be optimized for maximum payload capability to take more payload with reduced total mass to orbit; saving cost on reduction of the number of launch vehicles needed. Or missions can be optimized to minimize trip time significantly to reduce the deep space radiation exposure to the crew. NTR propulsion technology is a game changer for space exploration to Mars and beyond. However, 'NUCLEAR' is a word that is feared and vilified by some groups and the hostility towards development of any nuclear systems can meet great opposition by the public as well as from national leaders and people in authority. The public often associates the 'nuclear' word with weapons of mass destruction. The development NTP is at risk due to unwarranted public fears and clear honest communication of nuclear safety will be critical to the success of the development of the NTP technology. Reducing cost to NTP development is critical to its acceptance and funding. In the past, highly inflated cost estimates of a full-scale development nuclear engine due to Category I nuclear security requirements and costly regulatory requirements have put the NTP technology as a low priority. Innovative approaches utilizing low enriched uranium (LEU). Even though NTP can be a small source of radiation to the crew, NTP can facilitate significant reduction of crew exposure to solar and cosmic radiation by reducing trip times by 3-4 months. Current Human Mars Mission (HMM) trajectories with conventional propulsion systems and fuel-efficient transfer orbits exceed astronaut radiation exposure limits. Utilizing extra propellant from one additional SLS launch and available energy in the NTP fuel, HMM radiation exposure can be reduced significantly.

Kim, Tony↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Autonomy through Self-Scheduling: Scheduling Performance Pilot Study

Within the domain of human spaceflight, crew scheduling for International Space Station (ISS) remains a human-driven planning task. Large teams of flight controllers (called Ops Planners) spend weeks creating violation-free schedules for all crewmembers. As NASA considers long-duration exploration missions, the necessary shift of scheduling and planning management from Ops Planners to crew members requires significant research and investigation of crew performance to complete these scheduling tasks. This pilot study was conducted to evaluate non-expert human performance for the task of planning and scheduling, focusing on scheduling problems that increased in complexity based on the number of activities to be scheduled and the number of planning constraints. Nine non-expert planners were recruited to complete scheduling tasks using Playbook, a scheduling software. The results of this pilot study show that scheduling performance decreased as scheduling workload (i.e. number of activities and percent of activities with planning constraints) increased. This paper provides evidence towards developing a model for scheduling task difficulty and identifies potential implications for future automated aids for flight crew scheduling.

planning↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Autonomy Through Self-Scheduling: Scheduling Performance Pilot Study

planning↗

NASA NTRS1989

STS-30 Launch Highlights and Continuous Record from T-9 Mins.

The primary objective of the STS-30 mission was to deploy the Magellan/Venus radar mapper spacecraft and attached Inertial Upper Stage (IUS). The commander of the mission was David M. Walker. The crew was pilot, Ronald J. Grabe, and mission specialists, Norman E. Thagard, Mary L. Cleave, and Mark C. Lee. The mission was launched on May 4, 1989, after the April 28 launch attempt was scrubbed due to a problem with a liquid hydrogen recirculation pump on the number one main engine and a vapor leak in the four-inch liquid hydrogen recirculation line between the orbiter and the external tank. This videotape shows the crew breakfast on April 28, and the final preparations for launch. It also shows the crew boarding the shuttle. After the countdown is halted at T-31 seconds the crew leaves the orbiter.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2014

Visualization of Flow Separation Around an Atmospheric Entry Capsule at Low-Subsonic Mach Number Using Background-Oriented Schlieren (BOS)

This paper presents the results of visualization of separated flow around a generic entry capsule that resembles the Apollo Command Module (CM) and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). The model was tested at flow speeds up to Mach 0.4 at a single angle of attack of 28 degrees. For manned spacecraft using capsule-shaped vehicles, certain flight operations such as emergency abort maneuvers soon after launch and flight just prior to parachute deployment during the final stages of entry, the command module may fly at low Mach number. Under these flow conditions, the separated flow generated from the heat-shield surface on both windward and leeward sides of the capsule dominates the wake flow downstream of the capsule. In this paper, flow visualization of the separated flow was conducted using the background-oriented schlieren (BOS) method, which has the capability of visualizing significantly separated wake flows without the particle seeding required by other techniques. Experimental results herein show that BOS has detection capability of density changes on the order of 10(sup-5).

Mizukaki, Toshiharu↗

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Exploration Launch Projects Overview: The Crew Launch Vehicle and the Cargo Launch Vehicle Systems

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration (January 2004) serves as the foundation for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) strategic goals and objectives. As the NASA Administrator outlined during his confirmation hearing in April 2005, these include: 1) Flying the Space 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 space flight 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. In spring 2005, the Agency commissioned a team of aerospace subject matter experts to perform the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). The ESAS team performed in-depth evaluations of a number of space transportation architectures and provided recommendations based on their findings? The ESAS analysis focused on a human-rated Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) for astronaut transport and a heavy lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) to carry equipment, materials, and supplies for lunar missions and, later, the first human journeys to Mars. After several months of intense study utilizing safety and reliability, technical performance, budget, and schedule figures of merit in relation to design reference missions, the ESAS design options were unveiled in summer 2005. As part of NASA's systems engineering approach, these point of departure architectures have been refined through trade studies during the ongoing design phase leading to the development phase that begins in 2008. Comprehensive reviews of engineering data and business assessments by both internal and independent reviewers serve as decision gates to ensure that systems can fully meet customer and stakeholder requirements. This paper provides the current CLV and CaLV configuration designs and gives examples of the progress being made during the first year of this significant effort. Safe, reliable, cost-effective space transportation systems are a foundational piece of America s future in space and the next step in realizing the plan for revitalizing lunar capabilities on the passageway to the human exploration of Mars. While building on legacy knowledge and heritage hardware for risk reduction, NASA will apply lessons learned from developing these new launch vehicles to the growth path for future missions. The elements for mission success and continued U.S. leadership in space have been assembled over the past year. As NASA designs and develops these two new systems over the next dozen years, visible progress, such as that reported in this paper, may sustain the national will to stay the course across political administrations and weather the inevitable trials that will be experienced during this challenging endeavor.

Snoddy, Jimmy R.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Endocrine relationships during human spaceflight

Human spaceflight is associated with a chronic loss of protein from muscle. The objective of this study was to determine whether changes in urinary hormone excretion could identify a hormonal role for this loss. Urine samples were collected from the crews of two Life Sciences Space Shuttle missions before and during spaceflight. Data are means +/- SE with the number of subjects in parentheses. The first value is the mean preflight measurement, and the second value is the mean inflight measurement. Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) [27.7 +/- 4.4 (9) vs. 25.1 +/- 3.4 (9) ng/day], growth hormone [724 +/- 251 (9) vs. 710 +/- 206 (9) ng/day], insulin-like growth factor I [6.81 +/- 0.62 vs. 6.04 +/- 0.51 (8) nM/day], and C-peptide [44.9 +/- 8.3 (9) vs. 50.7 +/- 10.3 (9) micrograms/day] were unchanged with spaceflight. In contrast, free 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine [791 +/- 159 (9) vs. 371 +/- 41 (9) pg/day, P < 0.05], prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) [1, 064 +/- 391 (8) vs. 465 +/- 146 (8) ng/day, P < 0.05], and its metabolite PGE-M [1,015 +/- 98 (9) vs. 678 +/- 105 (9) ng/day, P < 0. 05] were decreased inflight. The urinary excretion of most hormones returned to their preflight levels during the postflight period, with the exception of ACTH [47.5 +/- 10.3 (9) ng/day], PGE2 [1,433 +/- 327 (8) ng/day], PGF2alpha, [2,786 +/- 313 (8) ng/day], and its metabolite PGF-M [4,814 +/- 402 (9) ng/day], which were all increased compared with the preflight measurement (P < 0.05). There was a trend for urinary cortisol to be elevated inflight [55.3 +/- 5. 9 (9) vs. 72.5 +/- 11.1 micrograms/day, P = 0.27] and postflight [82.7 +/- 8.6 (8) micrograms/day, P = 0.13]. The inflight human data support ground-based in vitro work showing that prostaglandins have a major role in modulating the changes in muscle protein content in response to tension or the lack thereof.

Flight Experiment↗

NASA NTRS2005

Control of Effluent Gases from Solid Waste Processing Using Carbon Nanotubes

One of the major problems associated with solid waste processing technologies is the release of effluent gases and contaminants that are in gaseous formed from the processes. A number of other gases, in particular NO(x), SO2, NH3, Hydrocarbons (e.g. CH4) do present hazards to the crew in space habitats. Reduction of mass, power, volume and resupply can be achieved by using catalyst impregnated carbon nanotubes as compared to other catalytic systems. The development and characterization of an innovative approach for the control and elimination of gaseous toxins using single walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) promise superior performance over conventional approaches. This is due to the ability to direct the selective uptake of gaseous species based on their controllable pore size, high adsorptive capacity and the effectiveness of carbon nanotubes as catalyst supports for gaseous conversion. For example, SWNTs have high adsorptive capacity for NO and the adsorbed NO can be decomposed to N2 and O2 . Experimental results showing the decomposition of NO on metal impregnated carbon nanotubes is presented. Equivalent System Mass (ESM) comparisons are made of the existing TCCS systems with the carbon nanotube technology for removing NO(x). The potential for methane decomposition using carbon nanotubes catalysts is also discussed.

Fisher, John↗

NASA NTRS2008

Low-Speed Flight Dynamic Tests and Analysis of the Orion Crew Module Drogue Parachute System

A test of a dynamically scaled model of the NASA Orion Crew Module (CM) with drogue parachutes was conducted in the NASA-Langley 20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel. The primary test objective was to assess the ability of the Orion Crew Module drogue parachute system to adequately stabilize the CM and reduce angular rates at low subsonic Mach numbers. Two attachment locations were tested: the current design nominal and an alternate. Experimental results indicated that the alternate attachment location showed a somewhat greater tendency to attenuate initial roll rate and reduce roll rate oscillations than the nominal location. Comparison of the experimental data to a Program To Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST II) simulation of the experiment yielded results for the nominal attachment point that indicate differences between the low-speed pitch and yaw damping derivatives in the aerodynamic database and the physical model. Comparisons for the alternate attachment location indicate that riser twist plays a significant role in determining roll rate attenuation characteristics. Reevaluating the impact of the alternate attachment points using a simulation modified to account for these results showed significantly reduced roll rate attenuation tendencies when compared to the original simulation. Based on this modified simulation the alternate attachment point does not appear to offer a significant increase in allowable roll rate over the nominal configuration.

Hahne, David E.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Cognitive Assessment During Long-Duration Space Flight

The Space Flight Cognitive Assessment Tool for Windows (WinSCAT) is a computer-based, self-administered battery of five cognitive assessment tests developed for medical operations at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. WinSCAT is a medical requirement for U.S. long-duration astronauts and has been implemented with U.S. astronauts from one NASA/Mir mission (NASA-7 mission) and all expeditions to date on the International Space Station (ISS). Its purpose is to provide ISS crew surgeons with an objective clinical tool after an unexpected traumatic event, a medical condition, or the cumulative effects of space flight that could negatively affect an astronaut's cognitive status and threaten mission success. WinSCAT was recently updated to add network capability to support a 6-person crew on the station support computers. Additionally, WinSCAT Version 2.0.28 has increased difficulty of items in Mathematics, increased number of items in Match-to-Sample, incorporates a moving rather than a fixed baseline, and implements stricter interpretation rules. ISS performance data were assessed to compare initial to modified interpretation rules for detecting potential changes in cognitive functioning during space flight. WinSCAT tests are routinely taken monthly during an ISS mission. Performance data from these ISS missions do not indicate significant cognitive decrements due to microgravity/space flight alone but have shown decrements. Applying the newly derived rules to ISS data results in a number of off-nominal performances at various times during and after flight.. Correlation to actual events is needed, but possible explanations for off-nominal performances could include actual physical factors such as toxic exposure, medication effects, or fatigue; emotional factors including stress from the mission or life events; or failure to exert adequate effort on the tests.

Seaton, Kimberly↗

NASA NTRS2015

Final Results of Shuttle MMOD Impact Database

The Shuttle Hypervelocity Impact Database documents damage features on each Orbiter thought to be from micrometeoroids (MM) or orbital debris (OD). Data is divided into tables for crew module windows, payload bay door radiators and thermal protection systems along with other miscellaneous regions. The combined number of records in the database is nearly 3000. Each database record provides impact feature dimensions, location on the vehicle and relevant mission information. Additional detail on the type and size of particle that produced the damage site is provided when sampling data and definitive spectroscopic analysis results are available. Guidelines are described which were used in determining whether impact damage is from micrometeoroid or orbital debris impact based on the findings from scanning electron microscopy chemical analysis. Relationships assumed when converting from observed feature sizes in different shuttle materials to particle sizes will be presented. A small number of significant impacts on the windows, radiators and wing leading edge will be highlighted and discussed in detail, including the hypervelocity impact testing performed to estimate particle sizes that produced the damage.

Hyde, J. L.↗

NASA NTRS2016

The Orion Exploration Flight Test Post Flight Solid Particle Flight Environment Inspection and Analysis

Orbital debris in the millimeter size range can pose a hazard to current and planned spacecraft due to the high relative impact speeds in Earth orbit. Fortunately, orbital debris has a relatively short life at lower altitudes due to atmospheric effects; however, at higher altitudes orbital debris can survive much longer and has resulted in a band of high flux around 700 to 1,500 km above the surface of the Earth. While large orbital debris objects are tracked via ground based observation, little information can be gathered about small particles except by returned surfaces, which until the Orion Exploration Flight Test number one (EFT-1), has only been possible for lower altitudes (400 to 500 km). The EFT-1 crew module backshell, which used a porous, ceramic tile system with surface coatings, has been inspected post-flight for potential micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) damage. This paper describes the pre- and post-flight activities of inspection, identification and analysis of six candidate MMOD impact craters from the EFT-1 mission.

Miller, Joshua E.↗

NASA NTRS2016

3D Printing in Zero G Technology Demonstration Mission: Summary of On-Orbit Operations, Material Testing, and Future Work

Human space exploration to date has been limited to low Earth orbit and the moon. The International Space Station (ISS), an orbiting laboratory 200 miles above the earth, provides a unique and incredible opportunity for researchers to prove out the technologies that will enable humans to safely live and work in space for longer periods of time and venture farther into the solar system. The ability to manufacture parts in-space rather than launch them from earth represents a fundamental shift in the current risk and logistics paradigm for human spaceflight. In particularly, additive manufacturing (or 3D printing) techniques can potentially be deployed in the space environment to enhance crew safety (by providing an on-demand part replacement capability) and decrease launch mass by reducing the number of spare components that must be launched for missions where cargo resupply is not a near-term option. In September 2014, NASA launched the 3D Printing in Zero G technology demonstration mission to the ISS to explore the potential of additive manufacturing for in-space applications and demonstrate the capability to manufacture parts and tools on-orbit. The printer for this mission was designed and operated by the company Made In Space under a NASA SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) phase III contract. The overarching objectives of the 3D print mission were to use ISS as a testbed to further maturation of enhancing technologies needed for long duration human exploration missions, introduce new materials and methods to fabricate structure in space, enable cost-effective manufacturing for structures and mechanisms made in low-unit production, and enable physical components to be manufactured in space on long duration missions if necessary. The 3D print unit for fused deposition modeling (FDM) of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) was integrated into the ISS Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) in November 2014 and phase I printing operations took place from November through December of that year. Phase I flight operations yielded 14 unique parts (21 total specimens) that could be directly compared against ground-based prints of identical geometry manufactured using the printer prior to its launch to ISS. The 3DP unit functioned safely and produced specimens necessary to advance the understanding of the critical design and operational parameters for the FDM process as affected by the microgravity environment. From the standpoint of operations, 3DP demonstrated the ability to remove parts from the build-tray on-orbit, teleoperate the printer from the ground, perform critical maintenance functions within defined human factors limits, produce a functional tool that could be evaluated for form/fit/function, and uplink a new part file from the ground and produce it on the printer. The flight parts arrived at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama in April 2015, where they underwent months of testing in the materials and processes laboratory. Ground and flight prints completed the following phases of testing: photographic/visual inspection, mass and density evaluation, structured light scanning, XRay and CT, mechanical testing, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and chemical analysis. This presentation will discuss the results of this testing as well as phase II operations for the printer, which took place in June and July of 2016. Lessons learned from the tech demo and their impacts on the design and development of the second generation 3D printer for ISS, the Additive Manufacturing Facility (AMF) by Made In Space will also be presented. In addition, progress in other elements of NASA's In Space Manufacturing (ISM) initiative such as the on-demand ISM utilization catalog, in-space Recycler ISS Technology Demonstration development, launch packaging recycling, in-space printable electronics, development of higher strength polymeric materials for 3D printing and Additive Construction by Mobile Emplacement (ACME) will also be addressed.

Prater, Tracie↗

NASA NTRS2003

STS-107 Flight Day 12 Highlights

This video shows the activities of the STS-107 crew (Rick Husband, Commander; William McCool, Pilot; Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark, Mission Specialists; Ilan Ramon, Payload Specialist) during flight day 12 of the Columbia orbiter's final mission. The primary activities are spaceborne experiments in the SpaceHab RDM (Research Double Module). Experiments shown in the video include SOFBALL (Structure of Flame Balls at Low Lewis-Number), an experiment to grow cancer cells in microgravity, and the STARS (Space Technology and Research Students) experiments, including bees, ants, chemical gardens, fish, and spiders. Crew Members are shown working on MIST (Water Mist Fire Suppression), a commercial experiment. Red Team crew members (Husband, Chawla, Clark, Ramon) are shown conversing through a handset with the Expedition 6 crew (Kenneth Bowersox, Commander; Donald Pettit, Nikolai Budarin; Flight Engineers) of the ISS (International Space Station).

Source record↗