Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Buckland”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monte Carlo simulations of neutrino and charged lepton propagation in the Earth with nuPyProp

An accurate modeling of neutrino flux attenuation and the distribution of leptons they produce in transit through the Earth is an essential component to determine neutrino flux sensitivities of underground, sub-orbital and space-based detectors. Through neutrino oscillations over cosmic distances, astrophysical neutrino sources are expected to produce nearly equal fluxes of electron, muon and tau neutrinos. Of particular interest are tau neutrinos that interact in the Earth at modest slant depths to produce leptons. Some leptons emerge from the Earth and decay in the atmosphere to produce extensive air showers. Future balloon-borne and satellite-based opticalCherenkov neutrino telescopes will be sensitive to upward air showers from tau neutrino induced lepton decays. We present nuPyProp, a python code that is part of the nuSpaceSim package. nuPyProp generates look-up tables for exit probabilities and energy distributions for (see paper for proper equation) propagation in the Earth. This flexible code runs with either stochastic or continuous electromagnetic energy losses for the lepton transit through the Earth. Current neutrino cross section models and energy loss models are included along with templates for user input of other models. Results from nuPyProp are compared with other recent simulation packages for neutrino and charged lepton propagation. Sources of modeling uncertainties are described and quantified.

Yosui Akaike↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human System Risk Changes in 2021

The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has the overall responsibility for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks that it has identified to be associated with human spaceflight. As part of this process, the Board is charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to mitigate those risks, and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. Risks are re-evaluated in a Continuous Risk Management (CRM) process. This session will summarize the risk posture changes that have occurred in the last year and what high level research, performance, and epidemiologic data have informed those changes. Human System Risks updated in 2021 include: Dynamic Loads, Sensorimotor, EVA, Crew Egress, Behavioral Medicine, Electrical Shock, Human System Integration Architecture (HSIA), Toxic Exposure, Bone Fracture, Cardiovascular, Medical Conditions, Renal Stone, CO2 Exposure, and Pharmacology.

Mary Van Baalen↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High Value Risk Targets in Human System Risk

The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has the overall responsibility for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks that it has identified to be associated with human spaceflight. The Board is also charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to mitigate those risks, and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. Each Risk Custodian Team (RCT) identifies High Value Risk Mitigation Targets (HVRMT) that have the highest likelihood or greatest impact in reducing their risk. These typically include areas where there are major gaps in knowledge or capability; or other targets that promise to yield returns worthy of investments in time, money and other resources by stakeholders interested in reducing Human System Risk. As part of the review of each risk the Board members consider and discuss the HVRMT statements, which are then approved by the Board Chair. High Value Risk Mitigation Targets can include research activities funded by the Human Research Program, but often involve recommending standards, monitoring, or other operational goals to reduce risk. This presentation will discuss common themes and highlights of the approved HVRTs to inform IWS attendees and the wider research community.

D M Buckland↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Identified Risks of Adverse Outcomes Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture in Human Spaceflight

The NASA Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has the overall responsibility for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks that it has identified to be associated with human spaceflight. As part of this process, the Board is charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to mitigate those risks, and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. One of the identified risks is due to inadequate human systems integration architecture (HSIA) and a driving factor of this risk is that given decreasing real-time ground support for execution of complex operations during future exploration missions, there is a possibility of adverse performance outcomes including that crew are unable to adequately respond to unanticipated critical malfunctions or detect safety critical procedural errors. The HSRB uses Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) as a communication tool for describing how astronaut exposure to spaceflight hazards leads to meaningful mission-level health and performance outcomes and as the basis for understanding intermediate causal relationships between risk contributing factors and countermeasures that link hazards to outcomes. The HSIA risk DAG will be presented and described. Historically, critical malfunctions requiring Crew/MCC management occurred at a rate of 1.7 times per year for ISS averaged over the lifetime and 3-4 times per year in the burn in phase for the vehicle. These averages do not include EVA data, which greatly increases the incident rate. Prior experience from the Apollo program showed 10/11 crewed missions experienced significant anomalies where crew relied heavily on MCC expertise in real-time. These failure patterns are in line with those observed in other complex engineered systems (e.g., oil rigs, launch systems, commercial aviation, etc.) It is likely that general malfunction and error rates are > 10% for short duration missions (<30 days), based on past and current spaceflight operations data. Likelihood of adverse outcomes has the potential to increase as crew conduct work with new, complex systems and with less ground support. For Low Earth Orbit missions and Lunar missions less than 30 days, assuming minimal comm delays, disruptions and bandwidth limitations, malfunctions and errors can affect mission objectives and crew health but may be mitigated by ground support. For Lunar missions greater than 30 days and any potential Mars mission malfunctions and errors can have Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission consequences due to reduced ground support (communication delays, constraints and blackouts) for more complex operations, as well as reduced resupply and evacuation options.

Daniel M Buckland↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Identified Risk of Adverse Outcomes due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture

The NASA Human System Risk Board (HSRB) is responsible for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks identified to be associated with human spaceflight. As part of this process, the Board is charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to evaluate those risks and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. Risks are ranked by likelihood and consequence. Intermediate causal relationships between risk contributing factors and countermeasures that link hazards to outcomes are described using Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs). The DAGs are also useful for identifying common factors and countermeasures across the top 30 risks as well as communicating how astronaut exposure to spaceflight hazards leads to meaningful mission-level health and performance outcomes. One of the top risks tracked by the HSRB is The Risk of Adverse Outcomes Due to Inadequate Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA). This risk captures the possibility that due to decreasing real-time ground support during missions beyond LEO, crew will be unable to adequately respond to unanticipated critical malfunctions or detect safety-critical procedural errors. The HSIA risk is ranked red (high) for Lunar surface and Mars missions due to the probability of Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission consequences. This paper describes the evidence that supports the HSIA risk ranking and presents the central narrative of the HSIA risk DAG-- i.e., anomaly detection, diagnosis, intervention, and task performance. Characterizations of the current state of practice for each of the DAG’s central nodes and the future tools needed for successful anomaly response are provided.

human-systems integration architecture↗
NASA NTRS2022

Directed Acyclic Graph Guidance Documentation

For over a decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has tracked and configuration-managed approximately 30 risks to astronaut health and performance that occur before, during and after spaceflight. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB), a Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) Board at NASA Johnson Space Center, is the entity responsible for identifying, assessing, analyzing, and monitoring the official understanding of the risk or risk posture for each of the Human System Risks and determining – based on evaluation of the available evidence – when that risk posture changes. The ultimate purpose of tracking and researching these risks is to find ways to reduce the risk that astronaut crews face during spaceflight. Historically, research, development and operations relevant to one risk have been conducted in isolation from other risks; these individual risk ‘silos’ enabled initial characterization of each specific risk. In spaceflight however, the impact of exposure to risk for astronaut crews is cumulative, and not independent of exposures or other risks, as all the adverse effects of the spaceflight environment begin at launch, continue throughout the duration of the mission and in some cases across the lifetime of the crews. In January of 2020, the HSRB at NASA embarked on a pilot project designed to assess the potential value of causal diagramming as a tool to facilitate understanding these cumulative and interdependent effects as applied within Human System Risk management. This process uses directed acyclic graphs as a means of formalizing a shared mental model of the causal flow of risk among Risk Board stakeholders. Initially this model was to improve communication among those stakeholders, but the potential value exceeds communication alone. Formalization of the process for creating these causal diagrams will enable the creation of a composite risk network that is vetted by members of the NASA community and configuration managed. The causal diagrams are formulated as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to function as a type of knowledge graph for reference for the board and its stakeholders. This document outlines the pilot process, the standardized approaches, and guidance for risk custodian teams when creating and updating DAGs as a part of the NASA Human System Risk Management process.

Risk↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human System Risk Communication: Directed Acyclic Graphs

- The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) is responsible for the management of a portfolio of 30 human system risks that NASA tracks and configuration manages to mitigate for future crewed exploration missions. - The HSRB has been exploring the concept of causal diagrams (in the form of Directed Acyclic Graphs or DAGs) as an approach to creating knowledge graphs for each risk to enable shared mental models of causal flow from spaceflight hazards to mission outcomes among HSRB Stakeholders. - These diagrams are intended to improve insight and communication of risk across the myriad subject matter experts and management interested in human system risk reduction. This includes program managers, systems engineers, and operators in addition to the Human Health and Performance Directorate. - The DAG project was intended to create the foundation for composition of the 30 baselined DAGs into a single risk network and software is being developed in parallel to enable this forward work.

directed acrylic graph↗
NASA NTRS2023

Drought-Tolerant Succulent Plants as an Alternative Crop Under Future Global Warming Scenarios in Sub-Saharan Africa

Globally, we are facing an emerging climate crisis, with impacts to be notably felt in semiarid regions across the world. Cultivation of drought-adapted succulent plants has been suggested as a nature-based solution that could: (i) reduce land degradation, (ii) increase agricultural diversification and provide both economic and environmentally sustainable income through derived bioproducts and bioenergy, (iii) help mitigate atmospheric CO 2 emissions and (iv) increase soil sequestration of CO 2 . Identifying where succulents can grow and thrive is an important prerequisite for the advent of a sustainable alternative ‘bioeconomy’. Here, we first explore the viability of succulent cultivation in Africa under future climate projections to 2100 using species distribution modelling to identify climatic parameters of greatest importance and regions of environmental suitability. Minimum temperatures and temperature variability are shown to be key controls in defining the theoretical distribution of three succulent species explored, and under both current and future SSP5 8.5 projections, the conditions required for the growth of at least one of the species are met in most parts of sub-Saharan Africa. These results are supplemented with an analysis of potentially available land for alternative succulent crop cultivation. In total, up to 1.5 billion ha could be considered ecophysiologically suitable and available for succulent cultivation due to projected declines in rangeland biomass and yields of traditional crops. These findings may serve to highlight new opportunities for farmers, governments and key stakeholders in the agriculture and energy sectors to invest in sustainable bioeconomic alternatives that deliver on environmental, social and economic goals.

agriculture↗
NASA NTRS2024

Crew State and Risk Model Development to Predict Hydration Status During Extravehicular Activity Training Events

Introduction: Hydration is critical for optimal human health and performance and dehydration can lead to impaired cardiovascular function, thermal dysregulation, decreased blood plasma volume, and cognitive impacts, particularly during physical activity. Prolonged and repeated extravehicular activities (EVA) without sufficiently available drinking water may increase risk for dehydration, which could impair crew health and impact mission success. Understanding hydration needs and potential effects on health and performance are necessary to optimize crew well-being and enable successful EVA objectives. This study aims to develop a model of hydration status during EVA using water balance techniques. Methods: Water balance measures were collected on 15 healthy astronauts who performed ≈6-hour simulated microgravity extravehicular activity (EVA) training in the NASA Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL). Data collected included pre-and post-EVA nude body weight (BW), maximum absorption garment (MAG) weight, Disposable In-suit Drink Bag (DIDB) weight, urine specific gravity (USG), and extra pre-EVA intake (W). Variables were combined to create the water balance model as pre-EVA (Hn)= BWn+ MAGn+ DIDBn+ Wnand post EVA (Hn+1) = BWn+1+ MAGn+1+ DIDBn+1. Urine specific gravity values were used to refine water balance measures into hydration categories: Hydrated, Marginally Hydrated, and Dehydrated. Results: Pre-EVA modeling indicated53% of crew were hydrated, 20% were marginally hydrated, and 27% were dehydrated. Alternately, Hn+1 showed 13% of crew remained hydrated, 47% were marginally hydrated, and 40% were dehydrated at the end of the EVA. Furthermore, 75% of the crewmembers who started sufficiently hydrated finished the run marginally hydrated or dehydrated. According to USG indices presented by Casa and Lawrence, et al. (2000), only 25% of the crew started and remained hydrated throughout the EVA, and those who were dehydrated at the outset stayed dehydrated. Conclusion: Model outcomes assessing hydration status during 6-hour simulated microgravity EVAs demonstrate the necessity to further address hydration requirements for optimal human performance during spaceflight and EVA. This study enables additional baseline development of the Crew State and Risk Model Hydration, Nutrition, and Waste Management component that aims to provide individualized crew state and risk predictions during EVAs. Reference: Casa, D. J., Armstrong, L. E., et al. (2000). National Athletic Trainers’ Association Position Statement: Fluid Replacement for Athletes. Journal of Athletic Training, 35:212-224.

L Cooper↗
NASA NTRS2024

Core Body Temperature Predictions Using Metabolic Energy Expenditure and Heart Rate During Simulated Extravehicular Activity

Long duration spaceflight missions will require crew to become more autonomous in conducting extravehicular activities (EVA) without direct communication with Mission Control for biomedical support. To enable such autonomy, we are developing a Crew State and Risk Model (CSRM) as a collection of key physiology domains that drive EVA crew capabilities and workloads. One model component of CSRM is human thermal regulation. In this paper, customized development of a baseline model to predict core body temperature is presented using physiology inputs of heart rate and metabolic rate. The model development dataset included a baseline study where participants (n=6, equal male and female) performed a 5-hour EVA in a two-part session while wearing a hybrid space suit simulator (HS3). The first session included an end-to-end EVA traversing 1500 meters to a geology site and traversing back to a habitat conducting geology, payload relocation, and maintenance operations every 500 meters. The second session included standalone tasks of a 2000-meter traverse followed by geology tasks. Thermal measures of core body temperature, local skin temperature, liquid cooling garment temperature, heart rate, and metabolic rate were collected through the test duration. Multiple regression was used to build a linear equation to predict core body temperature from inputs of heart rate and metabolic rate. Heat storage was calculated via predicted core body temperature plus LCG and skin temperatures. The model was tested against a dataset from a pressurized suited test (n=6, equal male and female) in the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) conducting similar end-to-end EVA and standalone tasks. Predicted error of the model against the raw test cases was 0.2±0.15 °C. The baseline prediction of core body temperature using heart rates and metabolic rates allows for simple real-time tracking from data collected in-flight to monitor crew consumables and thermal flight limits during EVA.

Bradley Hoffmann↗
NASA NTRS2024

Assessments of Physiology and Cognition in Hybrid-Reality Environments (APACHE) – A VR “Sandbox” for Planetary Spacewalk Research

NASA is planning to return to the Moon in the mid-2020s as a steppingstone to Mars missions in the 2030s. Spacewalks, or extravehicular activities (EVAs), performed on the Moon and Mars will differ in a variety of ways from those that have been performed in decades past. NASA has identified multiple risks to human health and performance associated with a crewed mission to Mars, especially those associated with exploration EVAs which are expected to be a primary mission activity. Crew may be expected to conduct up to 24 hours of EVA per person per week, where the likelihood of injury and/or mental mistakes are increased compared to ground-based training or current microgravity EVAs and the consequences of which can be catastrophic. Current test environments for exploration EVA research and technology development are large, costly facilities that are limited in their availability or capabilities. Spacesuit testing in a reduced gravity environment such as NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, while a good representation of the crew’s physical workload during exploration EVAs, typically has small datasets and is difficult to integrate physiological sensors or other types of crew performance measures. Meanwhile, scientific field-based testing such as NASA’s Desert Research and Technology Studies offers an operationally relevant environment for exploration EVAs, particularly for cognitive workload, but is also limited by small datasets, lack of a pressurized spacesuit, and obtrusive measures. The limitations of current analogs for exploration EVAs identify a need for a new test environment that can approximate both the physical and cognitive demands associated with exploration EVAs to enable rapid, controlled, and repeatable evaluations of human health and performance risks of exploration missions. In response, the Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations Laboratory (H-3PO) at NASA Johnson Space Center has developed a hybrid reality exploration EVA analog named the Assessments of Physiology And Cognition in Hybrid-reality Environments (APACHE)[ to address these limitations using a combination of virtual, physical, and hybrid reality techniques. The APACHE facility resides at NASA Johnson Space Center and serves as a large “sandbox” for EVA research and simulation. At its center is a roughly 15x20ft space surrounded by a 14” tall sandbox partially filled with lunar regolith simulant to emulate the physical feeling of walking on a planetary surface and to allow for simulated geology operations. Nearby, a curved passive treadmill (Skillmill Connect, Technogym, Fairfield, NJ) and an omnidirectional treadmill (Infinadeck, Infinadeck, Rocklin, CA) are included to enable exploration of these large virtual environments while also imposing the physical demands, representative timelines, and cognitive burdens required to navigate and traverse these distances during exploration EVA. A 6DOF motion platform is used to simulate rover operations and supports various human performance evaluations and associated risks. Lastly, APACHE can support two extravehicular (EV) crewmembers working in tandem. A computer workstation is located nearby and also supports an intravehicular (IV) crewmember as part of a full mission simulation. The IV crewmember has direct video and audio communication with the EV crew in VR to provide operational and procedural support.

Human Performance↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessments of Physiology and Cognition in Hybrid-Reality Environments (APACHE)

NASA is planning to return to the Moon in the mid-2020s as a stepping stone to Mars missions in the 2030s. Spacewalks, or extravehicular activities (EVAs), performed on the Moon and Mars will differ in a variety of ways from those that have been performed in decades past. NASA has identified multiple risks to human health and performance associated with a crewed mission to Mars, especially those associated with exploration EVAs which are expected to be a primary mission activity. Crew may be expected to conduct up to 24 hours of EVA per person per week, where the likelihood of injury and/or mental mistakes are increased compared to ground-based training or current microgravity EVAs and the consequences of which can be catastrophic. Current test environments for exploration EVA research and technology development are large, costly facilities that are limited in their availability or capabilities. Spacesuit testing in a reduced gravity environment such as NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, while a good representation of the crew’s physical workload during exploration EVAs, typically has small datasets and is difficult to integrate physiological sensors or other types of crew performance measures. Meanwhile, scientific field-based testing such as NASA’s Desert Research and Technology Studies offers an operationally relevant environment for exploration EVAs, particularly for cognitive workload, but is also limited by small datasets, lack of a pressurized spacesuit, and obtrusive measures. The limitations of current analogs for exploration EVAs identify a need for a new test environment that can approximate both the physical and cognitive demands associated with exploration EVAs to enable rapid, controlled, and repeatable evaluations of human health and performance risks of exploration missions. In response, the Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations Laboratory (H-3PO) at NASA Johnson Space Center has developed a hybrid reality exploration EVA analog named the Assessments of Physiology And Cognition in Hybrid-reality Environments (APACHE) to address these limitations using a combination of virtual, physical, and hybrid reality techniques. The APACHE facility resides at NASA Johnson Space Center and serves as a large “sandbox” for EVA research and simulation. At its center is a roughly 15x20ft space surrounded by a 14” tall sandbox partially filled with lunar regolith simulant to emulate the physical feeling of walking on a planetary surface and to allow for simulated geology operations. Nearby, a curved passive treadmill (Skillmill Connect, Technogym, Fairfield, NJ) and an omnidirectional treadmill (Infinadeck, Infinadeck, Rocklin, CA) are included to enable exploration of these large virtual environments while also imposing the physical demands, representative timelines, and cognitive burdens required to navigate and traverse these distances during exploration EVA. A 6DOF motion platform is used to simulate rover operations and supports various human performance evaluations and associated risks. Lastly, APACHE can support two extravehicular (EV) crewmembers working in tandem. A computer workstation is located nearby and also supports an intravehicular (IV) crewmember as part of a full mission simulation. The IV crewmember has direct video and audio communication with the EV crew in VR to provide operational and procedural support. The software used in APACHE was created by the JSC Engineering Directorate, in partnership with Buendea, powered by a custom Unreal Engine 5 (UE5.3, Epic Games) project. APACHE currently utilizes the HTC Vive Pro Eye in a wireless configuration for VR simulations. There are two virtual environments that subjects can explore within APACHE, a Lunar and Martian surface. The virtual Lunar surface was created from LIDAR data of the Lunar South Pole to create roughly 16 sq km of explorable terrain. The virtual Martian surface contains roughly 400 sq km of explorable terrain derived from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter LIDAR data of the Jezero Crater. The immersion and related cognitive burdens of conducting a planetary EVA is simulated through a series of EVA-relevant tasks performed in the VR environment, using these high-fidelity visual representations. Additionally, APACHE includes biosensor driven informatics, such as real-time heart rate monitoring and/or derived values from model simulations, for active monitoring by the EV crew and added cognitive demand. A “Wizard of Oz” control panel enables test operators to activate contingency events such as simulated spacesuit malfunctions, loss of communications, and/or limited visibility. Embedded performance measures such as accuracy, completeness, and execution time have been developed for various exploration tasks to objectively quantify crew performance during an EVA and compare impacts to performance when different environmental stressors, both physical and cognitive, are added to or removed from the simulation. Additionally, validated cognitive and operational performance measures such as the Digit Symbol Substitution Task have been recreated and embedded in VR for direct and relatively unobtrusive measurement of motor perception. The APACHE environment currently supports multiple research studies at NASA. Examples include the CHAPEA project, a series of simulated year-long missions on Mars by a 4-person crew; and the CO2 Contingency Walk Back Study, an investigation of elevated CO2 exposure on crew performance during a contingency EVA scenario. APACHE also provides a test environment to support the development of the Crew State and Risk Model, which is a collection of individualized, mathematical models of crew physical and cognitive state; and the Personalized EVA Informatics and Decision Support system, an operational tool for flight controllers, and eventually a self-reliant Martian crew, to make biomedically-informed decisions in real-time to optimize the EVA planning and execution with respect to crew health and performance. Some technical challenges associated with developing the APACHE environment, as well as current limitations, include VR limitless natural walking with a hybrid spacesuit simulator, optimizing performance for wireless PC VR streaming while maintaining a high degree of visual fidelity, and the integration of various physiological (metabolic masks) and psychometric (eye tracking) sensors with the VR headset.

Human Performance↗