NASA advanced cryocooler technology development program
This paper presents an overview of the ACTDP program including programmatic objectives and timelines, and conceptual details of the cooler concepts under development.
cryocooler↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “con”
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.
Exercise Overview: Commercial LEO Destination Technical Interchange Meeting
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Brian Prejean↗
Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight
Introduction: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS), including treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill, such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D). It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. Methods: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40) who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the treadmill with vibration isolation system 2 (T2), ergometry on the cycle ergometer with vibration isolation and stabilization device (CEVIS), and strength training on the advanced resistive exercise device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and following spaceflight. Results: Data collection for this study is currently in progress. Conclusions: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.
A.N. Varanoske↗
Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight
Introduction: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS), including treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices (such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D]) that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill. It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. Methods: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40), who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), ergometry on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) device, and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), Results: Eight subjects (2 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 6 Control) have been recruited for this study. Data collection is currently in progress. Conclusions: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.
A.N. Varanoske↗
Teal Cycle Ergometer Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System Human-in-the-Loop Ground Evaluation for Long-Duration Spaceflight
Purpose: To counter the deleterious effects of weightlessness on the cardiopulmonary system, astronauts living on the International Space Station exercise on a variety of countermeasure equipment including the Cycle Ergometer Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System (CEVIS). Operational since 2001, the onboard CEVIS will be replaced by a new model, known as Teal CEVIS (TC). As a part of ground evaluation, TC hardware underwent human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing to verify the TC hardware produces workloads that elicit physiologic responses comparable to a laboratory cycle ergometer (LAB). Methods: Seven subjects (5 M/2 F) performed submaximal cycle ergometer testing with indirect calorimetry measures on TC and LAB on separate test days. Testing consisted of graded 30 watt increases in workload until subjects reached 85% of age-predicted max heart rate (HR). Exercise outcomes included rate of oxygen uptake (VO2; liters/min), rate of energy expenditure (REE; kcal/min), and HR (beats/min). Linear mixed models (LMM) were fitted to compare VO2, REE, and HR responses between devices across power outputs with fixed effects for power (P) and device (D) and with random effects for subject. LMM effect coefficients (β), std errors (SE), pseudo-partial R2 of effects (pR2), and model likelihood ratio statistics (χ2, Pr(> chisq); α<.05) are provided. Results: LMM main effects for P and D were observed for VO2 (βp=.0107, SE = .0002, pR2=0.97; βd = -0.075, SE = 0.019, pR2=0.14; χ2(1)= 13.57, p<.001), such that VO2 was higher across stages on TC. Main effects of P and D were observed for REE (βp= .0586, SE = 0.001, pR2= 0.97; βd = -0.33208, SE = 0.099, pR2= 0.056; χ2(1)=10.481, p < .01), such that REE was higher across power outputs on TC. A P x D interaction was observed for HR, along with main effects for P and D (βp x d =-0.048, SE = 0.02, pR2=0.048; βp= 0.42, SE = 0.016, pR2=0.87; χ2(1) = 5.398, p = 0.02), such that higher workloads elicited a greater difference in HR between devices. Conclusions: HITL results show, TC elicits greater physiologic responses across power outputs compared to LAB. However, pR2 for device effects show small differences between devices. Therefore, TC can be expected to provide appropriate physiological stimulus across workloads and be considered a reliable tool to mitigate the effects of weightlessness.
Cycle Ergometer Vibration and Isolation System↗
Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight
INTRODUCTION: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) include treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, which are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices (such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D]) that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill. It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. METHODS: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40), who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), ergometry on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) device, and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and following spaceflight. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects (3 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 10 Control) have been recruited for this study. Data collection is currently in progress. CONCLUSIONS: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.
A.N. Varanoske↗
Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight
INTRODUCTION: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) include treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, which are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices (such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D]) that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill. It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. METHODS: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40), who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), ergometry on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) device, and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and following spaceflight. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects (3 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 10 Control) have been recruited for this study. Data collection is currently in progress. CONCLUSIONS: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.
A.N. Varanoske↗
Pathway to a 21st Century NASA X-Plane Through Hampton Roads
A talk on how NASA Aeronautics is developing new X-Planes at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA. The talk draws connections between a spark of passion in science fiction to the process of advancing the science of flight from the lab to the sky.
QUESST↗
Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight on Astronaut Health and Performance
INTRODUCTION Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) include treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, which are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis missions to the Moon and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices that provide both aerobic and resistive capabilities on one platform without including a treadmill. The European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D] is one such apparatus. It is critical to validate the efficacy of using exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of using nominal ISS exercise devices for an entire mission compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. METHODS Crewmembers are assigned to one of three groups: 1) Controls (n ≥ 40), who partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), cycling on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS), and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who exercise on the CEVIS and ARED only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who perform aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both Active groups are not permitted to perform treadmill exercise for the entirety of their flight. Health and performance markers, including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and after spaceflight. RESULTS Fifteen subjects (4 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 11 Control) have been recruited. Data collection is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS This study will assess the efficacy of using exploration exercise modalities, including removing the treadmill exercise capability or exclusively using the E4D, compared to the nominal ISS exercise regimen across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions. Supported by the NASA Human Research Program and NASA Exploration Capabilities
A N Varanoske↗