Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Space life support”

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 NTRS2014

Reliability Growth in Space Life Support Systems

A hardware system's failure rate often increases over time due to wear and aging, but not always. Some systems instead show reliability growth, a decreasing failure rate with time, due to effective failure analysis and remedial hardware upgrades. Reliability grows when failure causes are removed by improved design. A mathematical reliability growth model allows the reliability growth rate to be computed from the failure data. The space shuttle was extensively maintained, refurbished, and upgraded after each flight and it experienced significant reliability growth during its operational life. In contrast, the International Space Station (ISS) is much more difficult to maintain and upgrade and its failure rate has been constant over time. The ISS Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA) reliability has slightly decreased. Failures on ISS and with the ISS CDRA continue to be a challenge.

life support↗
NASA NTRS2017

Much Lower Launch Costs Make Resupply Cheaper than Recycling for Space Life Support

The development of commercial launch vehicles by SpaceX has greatly reduced the cost of launching mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Reusable launch vehicles may further reduce the launch cost per kilogram. The new low launch cost makes open loop life support much cheaper than before. Open loop systems resupply water and oxygen in tanks for crew use and provide disposable lithium hydroxide (LiOH) in canisters to remove carbon dioxide. Short human space missions such as Apollo and shuttle have used open loop life support, but the long duration International Space Station (ISS) recycles water and oxygen and removes carbon dioxide with a regenerative molecular sieve. These ISS regenerative and recycling life support systems have significantly reduced the total launch mass needed for life support. But, since the development cost of recycling systems is much higher than the cost of tanks and canisters, the relative cost savings have been much less than the launch mass savings. The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) includes development, launch, and operations. If another space station was built in LEO, resupply life support would be much cheaper than the current recycling systems. The mission most favorable to recycling would be a long term lunar base, since the resupply mass would be large, the proximity to Earth would reduce the need for recycling reliability and spares, and the launch cost would be much higher than for LEO due to the need for lunar transit and descent propulsion systems. For a ten-year lunar base, the new low launch costs make resupply cheaper than recycling systems similar to ISS life support.

launch costs↗
NASA NTRS2019

Controls and Automation Research in Space Life Support

A highly controlled and automated life support system has long been a NASA goal. It is usually assumed that life support for future long duration missions will use physical/chemical recycling systems that substantially close the oxygen and water circulation loops. Such a tightly coupled life support system has been thought to require an overall supervisory control system to minimize crew operation and maintenance activities. The International Space Station (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) was at first expected to have supervisory control and automation. After this was found infeasible during the design of the ISS ECLSS in the early 1990's, it was then expected that the ISS or future mission systems would be upgraded to meet the original expectations. Since then NASA has extensively researched life support system controls and automation. Automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have gone through several cycles of enthusiasm and neglect before their recent great achievements, and NASA life support interest has similarly varied. Since the ISS ECLSS was launched, its on-board operational problems have led NASA to deemphasize system level controls and automation in favor of improving subsystem reliability and maintainability. Recent work has investigated supervisory control for a system similar to the ISS ECLSS. This paper reviews past planning and work on the supervisory control of closed, integrated physical/chemical life support systems similar to the ISS ECLSS and its precursors dating back to the 1960's.

life support↗
NASA NTRS2002

Recovery of resources for advanced life support space applications: effect of retention time on biodegradation of two crop residues in a fed-batch, continuous stirred tank reactor

Bioreactor retention time is a key process variable that will influence costs that are relevant to long distance space travel or long duration space habitation. However. little is known about the effects of this parameter on the microbiological treatment options that are being proposed for Advanced Life Support (ALS) systems. Two bioreactor studies were designed to examine this variable. In the first one, six retention times ranging from 1.3 to 21.3 days--were run in duplicate, 81 working-volume continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTR) that were fed ALS wheat residues. Ash-free dry weight loss, carbon mineralization, soluble TOC reduction, changes in fiber content (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin), bacterial numbers, and mineral recoveries were monitored. At short retention times--1.33 days--biodegradation was poor (total: 16-20%, cellulose - 12%, hemicellulose - 28%) but soluble TOC was decreased by 75-80% and recovery of major crop inorganic nutrients was adequate, except for phosphorus. A high proportion of the total bacteria (ca. 83%) was actively respiring. At the longest retention time tested, 21.3 days, biodegradation was good (total: 55-60%, cellulose ca. 70%, hemicellulose - ca. 55%) and soluble TOC was decreased by 80%. Recovery of major nutrients, except phosphorus, remained adequate. A very low proportion of total bacteria was actively respiring (ca. 16%). The second bioreactor study used potato residue to determine if even shorter retention times could be used (range 0.25-2.0 days). Although overall biodegradation deteriorated, the degradation of soluble TOC continued to be ca. 75%. We conclude that if the goal of ALS bioprocessing is maximal degradation of crop residues, including cellulose, then retention times of 10 days or longer will be needed. If the goal is to provide inorganic nutrients with the smallest volume/weight bioreactor possible, then a retention time of 1 day (or less) is sufficient.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS1991

Bioregenerative technologies for waste processing and resource recovery in advanced space life support system

The Controlled Ecological Life Support System (CELSS) for producing oxygen, water, and food in space will require an interactive facility to process and return wastes as resources to the system. This paper examines the bioregenerative techologies for waste processing and resource recovery considered for a CELSS Resource Recovery system. The components of this system consist of a series of biological reactors to treat the liquid and solid material fractions, in which the aerobic and anaerobic reactors are combined in a block called the Combined Reactor Equipment (CORE) block. The CORE block accepts the human wastes, kitchen wastes, inedible refractory plant materials, grey waters from the CELLS system, and aquaculture solids and processes these materials in either aerobic or anaerobic reactors depending on the desired product and the rates required by the integrated system.

Chamberland, Dennis↗
NASA NTRS1992

A systems approach to water recovery testing for space life support - Initial biomedical results from the ECLSS Water Recovery Test and plans for testbed utilization

Among the challenges of designing and constructing Space Station Freedom is the development of the water system. A review of past efforts in reclaiming waste water in enclosed environments reveals that there are many gaps in the biomedical understanding of this process. Some of the key uncertainties of human interaction with a closed water system include determining potential contaminants and establishing safe levels of multiple compounds in the enclosed system of Space Station. Another uncertainty is the microbial constituency of such a system and what impact it could have on crew health and performance. The use of iodine as the passive biocide may have both an indirect and direct impact on the crew. In this paper the initial results of the Water Recovery Test are reviewed from a biomedical perspective, revealing areas where more information is needed to develop the ECLSS water system. By including the approach of 'man as a subsystem', consideration is given to how man interacts with the total water system. Taking this systems approach to providing the crew with a safe source of water gives useful insight into the most efficient design and utilization of closed system testbeds.

Aten, Laurie A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.

Harry W. Jones↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.

Harry W. Jones↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lessons Learned in Space Life Support System Testing

The earlier problems can be found and corrected, the easier and cheaper it is to fix them. Doing less testing saves cost and time but doing too little testing increases the risk of operational failures causing large costs and delays. Integrated test is necessary to determine if the subsystems work together and the overall architecture performs as intended. This report reviews the testing lessons learned from the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, a National Research Council report, and five reviews of International Space Station (ISS) lessons learned. The five reviews all mention two important points. First, that testing should be performed on the final integrated system, one as close as possible to the intended flight system. Second, “test as you fly,” while operating as planned in an environment as close as possible to the expected flight environment. Other lessons are the need for extensive preflight ground testing, the need to establish and defend an adequate budget, the problems using protoflight hardware on ISS, and the benefit of having ISS as a zero gravity test bed. The major ISS life support systems, carbon dioxide, water recycling, and oxygen recovery, were protoflight systems with little testing before launch to ISS. The failure rates these systems have been much greater than predicted and this has caused dissatisfaction with the protoflight approach. The more costly traditional approach is building qualification and test units in addition to flight units. The test units are used to test, analyze, and fix failure modes. Other work shows that there is an optimum cost-effective intuitive appeal of a human ecosystem in space.

Life support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lessons Learned in Space Life Support System Testing

The earlier problems can be found and corrected, the easier and cheaper it is to fix them. Doing less testing saves cost and time but doing too little testing increases the risk of operational failures causing large costs and delays. Integrated test is necessary to determine if the subsystems work together and the overall architecture performs as intended. This report reviews the testing lessons learned from the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, a National Research Council report, and five reviews of International Space Station (ISS) lessons learned. The five reviews all mention two important points. First, that testing should be performed on the final integrated system, one as close as possible to the intended flight system. Second, “test as you fly,” while operating as planned in an environment as close as possible to the expected flight environment. Other lessons are the need for extensive preflight ground testing, the need to establish and defend an adequate budget, the problems using protoflight hardware on ISS, and the benefit of having ISS as a zero gravity test bed. The major ISS life support systems, carbon dioxide removal, water recycling, and oxygen recovery, were protoflight systems with little testing before launch to ISS. The failure rates of these systems have been much greater than predicted and this has caused dissatisfaction with the protoflight approach. The more costly traditional approach builds qualification and test units in addition to flight units. The test units are used to find, analyze, and fix failure modes. Other work shows that there is an optimum cost-effective amount of testing when redundant systems must have a specified reliability and confidence.

Harry W. Jones↗
NASA NTRS1992

Space life support engineering program

A comprehensive study to develop software to simulate the dynamic operation of water reclamation systems in long-term closed-loop life support systems is being carried out as part of an overall program for the design of systems for a moon station or a Mars voyage. This project is being done in parallel with a similar effort in the Department of Chemistry to develop durable accurate low-cost sensors for monitoring of trace chemical and biological species in recycled water supplies. Aspen-Plus software is being used on a group of high-performance work stations to develop the steady state descriptions for a number of existing technologies. Following completion, a dynamic simulation package will be developed for determining the response of such systems to changes in the metabolic needs of the crew and to upsets in system hardware performance.

Seagrave, Richard C.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Space life support engineering program

This report covers the first six months of work performed under the NASA University Grant awarded to Iowa State University to perform research on two topics relating to the development of closed-loop long-term life support systems. A comprehensive study to develop software to simulate the dynamic operation of water reclamation systems in long-term closed-loop life support systems is being carried out as part of an overall program for the design of systems for a Mars voyage. This project is being done in parallel with a similar effort in the Department of Chemistry to develop durable accurate low-cost sensors for monitoring of trace chemical and biological species in recycled water supplies. Aspen-Plus software is being used on a group of high-performance workstations to develop the steady state descriptions for a number of existing technologies. Following completion, a dynamic simulation package will be developed for determining the response of such systems to changes in the metabolic needs of the crew and to upsets in system hardware performance.

Seagrave, Richard C.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Space Life Support Engineering Program

This report covers the second year of research relating to the development of closed-loop long-term life support systems. Emphasis was directed toward concentrating on the development of dynamic simulation techniques and software and on performing a thermodynamic systems analysis in an effort to begin optimizing the system needed for water purification. Four appendices are attached. The first covers the ASPEN modeling of the closed loop Environmental Control Life Support System (ECLSS) and its thermodynamic analysis. The second is a report on the dynamic model development for water regulation in humans. The third regards the development of an interactive computer-based model for determining exercise limitations. The fourth attachment is an estimate of the second law thermodynamic efficiency of the various units comprising an ECLSS.

Seagrave, Richard C.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Controlled Ecological Life Support System. Life Support Systems in Space Travel

Life support systems in space travel, in closed ecological systems were studied. Topics discussed include: (1) problems of life support and the fundamental concepts of bioregeneration; (2) technology associated with physical/chemical regenerative life support; (3) projection of the break even points for various life support techniques; (4) problems of controlling a bioregenerative life support system; (5) data on the operation of an experimental algal/mouse life support system; (6) industrial concepts of bioregenerative life support; and (7) Japanese concepts of bioregenerative life support and associated biological experiments to be conducted in the space station.

Macelroy, R. D.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Life Support for Deep Space and Mars

How should life support for deep space be developed? The International Space Station (ISS) life support system is the operational result of many decades of research and development. Long duration deep space missions such as Mars have been expected to use matured and upgraded versions of ISS life support. Deep space life support must use the knowledge base incorporated in ISS but it must also meet much more difficult requirements. The primary new requirement is that life support in deep space must be considerably more reliable than on ISS or anywhere in the Earth-Moon system, where emergency resupply and a quick return are possible. Due to the great distance from Earth and the long duration of deep space missions, if life support systems fail, the traditional approaches for emergency supply of oxygen and water, emergency supply of parts, and crew return to Earth or escape to a safe haven are likely infeasible. The Orbital Replacement Unit (ORU) maintenance approach used by ISS is unsuitable for deep space with ORU's as large and complex as those originally provided in ISS designs because it minimizes opportunities for commonality of spares, requires replacement of many functional parts with each failure, and results in substantial launch mass and volume penalties. It has become impractical even for ISS after the shuttle era, resulting in the need for ad hoc repair activity at lower assembly levels with consequent crew time penalties and extended repair timelines. Less complex, more robust technical approaches may be needed to meet the difficult deep space requirements for reliability, maintainability, and reparability. Developing an entirely new life support system would neglect what has been achieved. The suggested approach is use the ISS life support technologies as a platform to build on and to continue to improve ISS subsystems while also developing new subsystems where needed to meet deep space requirements.

life support↗