Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Systems”

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 523 records · Page 29

NASA Talks: Space Shuttle Columbia - Lessons Learned: Columbia Launch and Recovery

On February 25, 2026, this NASA Talk was held regarding the Space Shuttle Columbia (Columbia Launch & Recovery). Crew & Thermal System Division (EC) partnered with Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Engineering Directorate (EA) to bring this talk to Johnson Space Center (JSC) centering on what led up to and transpired after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Some recovered debris was on exhibit during the talk. Retired NASA Columbia Vehicle Manager Scott Thurston presented this talk. Mr. Thurston brings a wealth of knowledge from his mission experience. This talk was timely and a solemn reminder of the critical importance of diligence, safety, and excellence in our work. EA Director Julie Kramer White welcomed the 400+ center-wide in-person audience, and EC Division Chief Rubik Sheth introduced the speakers. This event was held in the JSC Teague Auditorium, recorded, and executed by the EC in-house STAR Productions team. This record includes an mp4 video presentation with a run time of 36 min. 20 sec.; in color; with sound.

NASA Talks↗

NASA Talks: Space Shuttle Columbia - Lessons Learned

On February 25, 2026, two NASA Talks were held regarding the Space Shuttle Columbia (Columbia Launch & Recovery, Columbia Reconstruction, Investigation, Causes & Key Takeaways). Crew & Thermal System Division (EC) partnered with Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Engineering Directorate (EA) to bring these talks to Johnson Space Center (JSC) centering on what led up to and transpired after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Some recovered debris was on exhibit during the talks. NASA Mishap Program Specialist David Erickson and retired NASA Columbia Vehicle Manager Scott Thurston presented these talks. Mr. Erickson supports NASA mishap investigations and assists with the development of NASA's new Columbia Learning Center at KSC. Mr. Thurston brought a wealth of knowledge from his mission experience. These talks were timely and a solemn reminder of the critical importance of diligence, safety, and excellence in our work. EA Director Julie Kramer White welcomed the 400+ center-wide in-person audience, and EC Division Chief Rubik Sheth introduced the speakers. This event was held in the JSC Teague Auditorium, recorded, and executed by the EC in-house STAR Productions team.

Space Shuttle Columbia↗

NASA Talks: Space Shuttle Columbia - Lessons Learned: Columbia Reconstruction, Investigation, Causes and Key Takeaways

On February 25, 2026, this NASA Talk was held regarding the Space Shuttle Columbia (Columbia Launch & Recovery, Columbia Reconstruction, Investigation, Causes & Key Takeaways). Crew & Thermal System Division (EC) partnered with Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Engineering Directorate (EA) to bring these talks to Johnson Space Center (JSC) centering on what led up to and transpired after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Some recovered debris was on exhibit during the talks. NASA Mishap Program Specialist David Erickson presented this talk. Mr. Erickson supports NASA mishap investigations and assists with the development of NASA's new Columbia Learning Center at KSC. This talk was timely and a solemn reminder of the critical importance of diligence, safety, and excellence in our work. EA Director Julie Kramer White welcomed the 400+ center-wide in-person audience, and EC Division Chief Rubik Sheth introduced the speakers. This event was held in the JSC Teague Auditorium, recorded, and executed by the EC in-house STAR Productions team. This record includes an mp4 video with a run time of 32 min. 31 sec.; in color; with sound.

NASA Talks↗

Demonstrating Autonomous Mission Operations Onboard the International Space Station

The NASA Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an experiment to turn over operation and management of selected International Space Station (ISS) sys- tems to the on-board crew. ISS crews managed two different spacecraft systems: the Total Organic Carbon Analyzer (TOCA), a water quality analyzer, and Station Support Com- puters (SSC) laptops, which are non-critical crew computer systems. These systems were selected because they are representative of systems a future crew may need to operate au- tonomously during a deep space mission. The crew autonomously operated these systems, taking on mission operations functions traditionally performed by support teams on the ground, using new software tools that provide decision support algorithms for planning, monitoring and fault management, hardware schematics, system briefs, and data displays that are normally unavailable to the crew. The experiment lasted seven months, during which ISS crews managed TOCA and SSCs on 22 occasions. The AMO software processed data from TOCA and SSCs continuously during this seven month period. The combined performance of the software and crew achieved a 88 success rate on managing TOCA activity, the system for which ground-truth was available.

Autonomous Mission Operations↗

Constellation Program (CxP) Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) Independent Design Reliability Assessment: Appendices - Volume 2

This document contains the Appendices to the report documenting the activities, findings, and NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) recommendations of a multidiscipline team to independently assess the Constellation Program (CxP) Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS). The assessment occurred during a period of 15 noncontiguous months between December 2008 and April 2010, prior to the CPAS Project's Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in August 2010.

Kelly, Michael J.↗

Systems Integration Processes for NASA Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

NASA's Exploration Initiative will require development of many new elements to constitute a robust system of systems. New launch vehicles are needed to place cargo and crew in stable Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This paper examines the systems integration processes NASA is utilizing to ensure integration and control of propulsion and nonpropulsion elements within NASA's Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), now known as the Ares I. The objective of the Ares I is to provide the transportation capabilities to meet the Constellation Program requirements for delivering a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) or other payload to LEO in support of the lunar and Mars missions. The Ares I must successfully provide this capability within cost and schedule, and with an acceptable risk approach. This paper will describe the systems engineering management processes that will be applied to assure Ares I Project success through complete and efficient technical integration. Discussion of technical review and management processes for requirements development and verification, integrated design and analysis, integrated simulation and testing, and the integration of reliability, maintainability and supportability (RMS) into the design will also be included. The Ares I Project is logically divided into elements by the major hardware groupings, and associated management, system engineering, and integration functions. The processes to be described herein are designed to integrate within these Ares I elements and among the other Constellation projects. Also discussed is launch vehicle stack integration (Ares I to CEV, and Ground and Flight Operations integration) throughout the life cycle, including integrated vehicle performance through orbital insertion, recovery of the first stage, and reentry of the upper stage. The processes for decomposing requirements to the elements and ensuring that requirements have been correctly validated, decomposed, and allocated, and that the verification requirements are properly defined to ensure that the system design meets requirements, will be discussed.

Taylor, James L.↗

A robotic system for automation of logistics functions on the Space Station

Spacecraft inventory management is currently performed by the crew and as systems become more complex, increased crew time will be required to perform routine logistics activities. If future spacecraft are to function effectively as research labs and production facilities, the efficient use of crew time as a limited resource for performing mission functions must be employed. The use of automation and robotics technology, such as automated warehouse and materials handling functions, can free the crew from many logistics tasks and provide more efficient use of crew time. Design criteria for a Space Station Automated Logistics Inventory Management System is focused on through the design and demonstration of a mobile two armed terrestrial robot. The system functionally represents a 0 gravity automated inventory management system and the problems associated with operating in such an environment. Features of the system include automated storage and retrieval, item recognition, two armed robotic manipulation, and software control of all inventory item transitions and queries.

Martin, J. C.↗

Human-Centered Automation: The View from Earth Versus the View from Mars

This panel addresses the topic of human-centered automation in, however, a very different context-manned missions to deep space in which predominantly autonomous systems must control the crew's life-support systems most of the time. The Mars spacecraft and its inhabitants are totally dependent on the proper operation of thousands of control loops and pieces of equipment to maintain the delicate, unbuffered homeostasis of their remote existence. Mission success hangs on a thread that depends on a successful partnership, or symbiosis. between crew and machines, which exceeds anything ever required of ground systems. The need for a new approach to human-centered automation is not a "frill" in future Mars mission, but rather a sine qua non of survival. Thus the issue is design: Can we design systems intended to operate in a predominantly autonomous mode. without a human backup, that are sufficiently safe such that human travel into deep space is possible?

Massimino, Michael J.↗

Space Launch System Spacecraft and Payload Elements: Progress Toward Crewed Launch and Beyond

While significant and substantial progress continues to be accomplished toward readying the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket for its first test flight, work is already underway on preparations for the second flight - using an upgraded version of the vehicle - and beyond. Designed to support human missions into deep space, SLS is the most powerful human-rated launch vehicle the United States has ever undertaken, and is one of three programs being managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Exploration Systems Development division. The Orion spacecraft program is developing a new crew vehicle that will support human missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), and the Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) program is transforming Kennedy Space Center (KSC) into a next-generation spaceport capable of supporting not only SLS but also multiple commercial users. Together, these systems will support human exploration missions into the proving ground of cislunar space and ultimately to Mars. For its first flight, SLS will deliver a near-term heavy-lift capability for the nation with its 70-metric-ton (t) Block 1 configuration. Each element of the vehicle now has flight hardware in production in support of the initial flight of the SLS, which will propel Orion around the moon and back. Encompassing hardware qualification, structural testing to validate hardware compliance and analytical modeling, progress is on track to meet the initial targeted launch date. In Utah and Mississippi, booster and engine testing are verifying upgrades made to proven shuttle hardware. At Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in Louisiana, the world's largest spacecraft welding tool is producing tanks for the SLS core stage. Providing the Orion crew capsule/launch vehicle interface and in-space propulsion via a cryogenic upper stage, the Spacecraft/Payload Integration and Evolution (SPIE) element serves a key role in achieving SLS goals and objectives. The SPIE element marked a major milestone in 2014 with the first flight of original SLS hardware, the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA) which was used on Exploration Flight Test-1 with a design that will be used again on the first flight of SLS. The element has overseen production of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), an in-space stage derived from the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage, which was manufactured at United Launch Alliance (ULA) in Decatur, Alabama, prior to being shipped to Florida for flight preparations. Manufacture of the OSA and the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA) took place at the Friction Stir Facility located at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. Marshall is also home to the Integrated Structural Test of the ICPS, LVSA, and OSA, subjecting the stacked components to simulated stresses of launch. The SPIE Element is also overseeing integration of 13 "CubeSat" secondary payloads that will fly on the first flight of SLS, providing access to deep space regions in a way currently not available to the science community. At the same time as this preparation work is taking place toward the first launch of SLS, however, the Space Launch System Program is actively working toward its second launch. For its second flight, SLS will be upgraded to the more-capable Block 1B configuration. While the Block 1 configuration is capable of delivering more than 70 t to LEO, the Block 1B vehicle will increase that capability to 105 t. For that flight, the new configuration introduces two major new elements to the vehicle - an Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) that will be used for both ascent and in-space propulsion, and a Universal Stage Adapter (USA) that serves as a "payload bay" for the rocket, allowing the launch of large exploration systems along with the Orion spacecraft. Already, flight hardware is being prepared for the Block 1B vehicle. Welding is taking place on the second rocket's core stage. Flight hardware production has begun on booster components. An RS-25 engine slated for that flight has been tested. Development work is taking place on the EUS, with contracts in place for both the stage and the RL10 engines which will power it. (The EUS will use four RL10 engines, an increase from one on the ICPS.) For the crew configuration of the Block 1B vehicle, the SLS SPIE element is managing the USA and accompanying Payload Adapter, which will accommodate both large payloads co-manifested with Orion and small-satellite secondary payloads. This co-manifested payload capacity will be instrumental for missions into the proving ground around the moon, where NASA will test new systems and demonstrate new capabilities needed for human exploration farther into deep space.

Schorr, Andrew A.↗

Space Launch System Spacecraft and Payload Elements: Progress Toward Crewed Launch and Beyond

While significant and substantial progress continues to be accomplished toward readying the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket for its first test flight, work is already also underway on preparations for the second flight - using an upgraded version of the vehicle - and beyond. Designed to support human missions into deep space, Space Launch System (SLS), is the most powerful human-rated launch vehicle the United States has ever undertaken, and is one of three programs being managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Exploration Systems Development division. The Orion spacecraft program is developing a new crew vehicle that will support human missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), and the Ground Systems Development and Operations program is transforming Kennedy Space Center into a next-generation spaceport capable of supporting not only SLS but also multiple commercial users. Together, these systems will support human exploration missions into the proving ground of cislunar space and ultimately to Mars. For its first flight, SLS will deliver a near-term heavy-lift capability for the nation with its 70-metric-ton (t) Block 1 configuration. Each element of the vehicle now has flight hardware in production in support of the initial flight of the SLS, which will propel Orion around the moon and back. Encompassing hardware qualification, structural testing to validate hardware compliance and analytical modeling, progress in on track to meet the initial targeted launch date. In Utah and Mississippi, booster and engine testing are verifying upgrades made to proven shuttle hardware. At Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana, the world's largest spacecraft welding tool is producing tanks for the SLS core stage. Providing the Orion crew capsule/launch vehicle interface and in-space propulsion via a cryogenic upper stage, the Spacecraft/Payload Integration and Evolution (SPIE) element serves a key role in achieving SLS goals and objectives. The SPIE element marked a major milestone in 2014 with the first flight of original SLS hardware, the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA) which was used on Exploration Flight Test-1 with a design that will be used again on the first flight of SLS. The element has overseen production of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), an in-space stage derived from the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage, which was manufactured at United Launch Alliance in Decatur, Alabama, prior to being shipped to Florida for flight preparations. Manufacture of the Orion Stage Adapter and the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA) took place at the Friction Stir Facility located at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Marshall is also home to the Integrated Structural Test of the ICPS, LVSA, and OSA, subjecting the stacked components to simulated stresses of launch. The SPIE Element is also overseeing integration of 13 "CubeSat" secondary payloads that will fly on the first flight of SLS, providing access to deep space regions in a way currently not available to the science community. At the same time as this preparation work is taking place toward the first launch of SLS, however, the Space Launch System Program is actively working toward its second launch. For its second flight, SLS will be upgraded to the more-capable Block 1B configuration. While the Block 1 configuration is capable of delivering more than 70 metric tons to low Earth orbit, the Block 1B vehicle will increase that capability to 105 t. For that flight, the new configuration introduces two major new elements to the vehicle - an Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) that will be used for both ascent and in-space propulsion, and a Universal Stage Adapter (USA) that serves as a "payload bay" for the rocket, allowing the launch of large exploration systems along with the Orion spacecraft. Already, flight hardware is being prepared for the Block 1B vehicle. Welding is taking place on the second rocket's core stage. Flight hardware production has begun on booster components. An RS-25 engine slated for that flight has been tested. Development work is taking place on the Exploration Upper Stage, with contracts in place for both the stage and the RL10 engines which will power it. (The EUS will use four RL10 engines, an increase from one on the ICPS.) For the crew configuration of the Block 1B vehicle, the SLS SPIE element is managing the USA and accompanying Payload Adapter, which will accommodate both large payloads co-manifested with Orion and small-satellite secondary payloads. This co-manifested payload capacity will be instrumental for missions into the Proving Ground around the moon, where NASA will test new systems and demonstrate new capabilities needed for human exploration farther into deep space.

Schorr, Andrew A.↗

A low-cost centralized HVAC control system solution for energy savings, load shedding, and improved maintenance

University campuses rely on centralized controls for managing and optimizing complex HVAC systems in larger buildings. However, most campuses also have many smaller buildings with packaged HVAC systems controlled by a stand-alone thermostat. Even when these distributed and often overlooked systems have modern programmable thermostats, they cannot be centrally monitored or controlled, and they are typically not programmed adequately. This paper describes the implementation of a low-cost centralized control solution for these systems serving smaller campus buildings, mostly under 5,000 sf and representative of light commercial spaces. Thanks to advances in technology spurred by residential and commercial IoT developments, simple networked thermostat solutions exist that can easily replace original thermostats, and, connect these systems to a web-based portal for monitoring and control. We show that, with small customizations, these platforms can be integrated into facility management workflows. Beyond the energy savings potential from improved scheduling and closer management of these systems, there are significant advantages for maintenance crews since these systems can now be monitored on smart phones or tablets. A grid-responsive load-shedding program has also been implemented for additional cost savings. The networked thermostats can also be connected to additional systems such as economizer controls for improved ventilation management and energy savings. With data from these systems integrated centrally, it can also be used for improved analytics and fault detection. A toolkit has been developed to share the program with other campuses, whether for energy savings, improved management of ventilation, or a more proactive maintenance approach.

Fauchier-Magnan, Nicolas↗

SPS program review transportation perspective

The delivery of cargo and space workers to the SPS construction site requires the development of two different systems, one to handle large cargo deliveries and a smaller system to accommodate crew. The overall scenario of the transportation system is shown. Eight major elements comprise the transportation system: personnel launch vehicle (PLV) or shuttle; personnel orbital transfer vehicle (POTV); the heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV); the electric orbital transfer vehicle (EOTV); intra orbit transfer vehicle (IOTV); LEO support facility; GEO support facility and a shuttle derived HLLV (SDHLLV) for supporting the early SPS Demonstration Program. The HLLV and EOTV represent the cargo carriers while the PLV and POTV represent the people carriers. The IOTV is utilized to ferry people and cargo modules over short distances in the vicinity of its station.

Wales, W. W., Jr.↗

Nasa's Plans for Development of a Standard for Additively Manufactured Components

The current version of NASA standards for manned spaceflight hardware do not contain sufficient detail for the certification of additively manufactured components. The development of additively manufactured standards is currently in work by several standards organizations. However, NASA cannot wait on these organizations to develop such standards. NASA and its program partners in manned spaceflight (Commercial Crew, Space Launch System and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle) are actively developing additively manufactured components for flight as early as 2019.

Russell, Richard W.↗

Robotic Missions to Small Bodies and Their Potential Contributions to Human Exploration and Planetary Defense

Introduction: Robotic missions to small bodies will directly address aspects of NASA's Asteroid Initiative and will contribute to future human exploration and planetary defense. The NASA Asteroid Initiative is comprised of two major components: the Grand Challenge and the Asteroid Mission. The first component, the Grand Challenge, focuses on protecting Earth's population from asteroid impacts by detecting potentially hazardous objects with enough warning time to either prevent them from impacting the planet, or to implement civil defense procedures. The Asteroid Mission involves sending astronauts to study and sample a near-Earth asteroid (NEA) prior to conducting exploration missions of the Martian system, which includes Phobos and Deimos. The science and technical data obtained from robotic precursor missions that investigate the surface and interior physical characteristics of an object will help identify the pertinent physical properties that will maximize operational efficiency and reduce mission risk for both robotic assets and crew operating in close proximity to, or at the surface of, a small body. These data will help fill crucial strategic knowledge gaps (SKGs) concerning asteroid physical characteristics that are relevant for human exploration considerations at similar small body destinations. These data can also be applied for gaining an understanding of pertinent small body physical characteristics that would also be beneficial for formulating future impact mitigation procedures. Small Body Strategic Knowledge Gaps: For the past several years NASA has been interested in identifying the key SKGs related to future human destinations. These SKGs highlight the various unknowns and/or data gaps of targets that the science and engineering communities would like to have filled in prior to committing crews to explore the Solar System. An action team from the Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG) was formed specifically to identify the small body SKGs under the direction of the Human Exploration and Operations Missions Directorate (HEOMD), given NASA's recent interest in NEAs and the Martian moons as potential human destinations. The action team organized the SKGs into four broad themes: 1) Identify human mission targets; 2) Understand how to work on and interact with the small body surface; 3) Understand the small body environment and its potential risk/benefit to crew, systems, and operational assets; and 4) Understand the small body resource potential. Of these four SKG themes, the first three have significant overlap with planetary defense considerations. The data obtained from investigations of small body physical characteristics under these three themes can be directly applicable to planetary defense initiatives. Conclusions: Missions to investigate small bodies can address small body strategic knowledge gaps and contribute to the overall success for human exploration missions to asteroids and the Martian moons. In addition, such reconnaissance of small bodies can also provide a wealth of information relevant to the science and planetary defense of NEAs.

Abell, Paul A.↗

Robotic Reconnaissance Missions to Small Bodies and Their Potential Contributions to Human Exploration

Introduction: Robotic reconnaissance missions to small bodies will directly address aspects of NASA's Asteroid Initiative and will contribute to future human exploration. The NASA Asteroid Initiative is comprised of two major components: the Grand Challenge and the Asteroid Mission. The first component, the Grand Challenge, focuses on protecting Earth's population from asteroid impacts by detecting potentially hazardous objects with enough warning time to either prevent them from impacting the planet, or to implement civil defense procedures. The Asteroid Mission involves sending astronauts to study and sample a near- Earth asteroid (NEA) prior to conducting exploration missions of the Martian system, which includes Phobos and Deimos. The science and technical data obtained from robotic precursor missions that investigate the surface and interior physical characteristics of an object will help identify the pertinent physical properties that will maximize operational efficiency and reduce mission risk for both robotic assets and crew operating in close proximity to, or at the surface of, a small body. These data will help fill crucial strategic knowledge gaps (SKGs) concerning asteroid physical characteristics that are relevant for human exploration considerations at similar small body destinations. Small Body Strategic Knowledge Gaps: For the past several years NASA has been interested in identifying the key SKGs related to future human destinations. These SKGs highlight the various unknowns and/or data gaps of targets that the science and engineering communities would like to have filled in prior to committing crews to explore the Solar System. An action team from the Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG) was formed specifically to identify the small body SKGs under the direction of the Human Exploration and Operations Missions Directorate (HEOMD), given NASA's recent interest in NEAs and the Martian moons as potential human destinations [1]. The action team organized the SKGs into four broad themes: 1) Identify human mission targets; 2) Understand how to work on and interact with the small body surface; 3) Understand the small body environment and its potential risk/benefit to crew, systems, and operational assets; and 4) Understand the small body resource potential. Each of these themes were then further subdivided into categories to address specific SKG issues. Robotic Precursor Contributions to SKGs: Robotic reconnaissance missions should be able to address specific aspects related to SKG themes 1 through 4. Theme 1 deals with the identification of human mission targets within the NEA population. The current guideline indicates that human missions to fastspinning, tumbling, or binary asteroids may be too risky to conduct successfully from an operational perspective. However, no spacecraft mission has been to any of these types of NEAs before. Theme 2 addresses the concerns about interacting on the small body surface under microgravity conditions, and how the surface and/or sub-surface properties affect or restrict the interaction for human exploration. The combination of remote sensing instruments and in situ payloads will provide good insight into the asteroid's surface and subsurface properties. SKG theme 3 deals with the environment in and around the small body that may present a nuisance or hazard to any assets operating in close proximity. Impact and surface experiments will help address issues related to particle size, particle longevity, internal structure, and the near-surface mechanical stability of the asteroid. Understanding or constraining these physical characteristics are important for mission planning. Theme 4 addresses the resource potential of the small body. This is a particularly important aspect of human exploration since the identification and utilization of resources is a key aspect for deep space mission architectures to the Martian system (i.e., Phobos and Deimos). Conclusions: Robotic reconnaissance of small bodies can provide a wealth of information relevant to the science and planetary defense of NEAs. However, such missions to investigate NEAs can also provide key insights into small body strategic knowledge gaps and contribute to the overall success for human exploration missions to asteroids.

Abell, P. A.↗

Medical Systems Engineering to Support Mars Mission Crew Autonomy

Human spaceflight missions to Mars face exceptionally challenging resource limitations that far exceed those faced before. Increasing transit times, decreasing opportunity for resupply, communications challenges, and extended time to evacuate a crew to definitive medical care dictate a level of crew autonomy in medical care that is beyond the current medical model. To approach this challenge, a medical systems engineering approach is proposed that relies on a clearly articulated Concept of Operations and risk analysis tools that are in development at NASA. This paper proposes an operational clinical model with key terminology and concepts translated to a controls theory paradigm to frame a common language between clinical and engineering teams. This common language will be used for design and validation of an exploration medical system that is fully integrated into a Mars transit vehicle. This approach merges medical simulation, human factors evaluation techniques, and human-in-the-loop testing in ground based analogs to tie medical hardware and software subsystem performance and overall medical system functionality to metrics of operational medical autonomy. Merging increases in operational clinical autonomy with a more restricted vehicle system resource scenario in interplanetary spaceflight will require an unprecedented level of medical and engineering integration. Full integration of medical capabilities into a Mars vehicle system may require a new approach to integrating medical system design and operations into the vehicle Program structure. Prior to the standing-up of a Mars Mission Program, proof of concept is proposed through the Human Research Program.

Antonsen, Erik↗

Science Capabilities of the Common Habitat

The Common Habitat is the primary habitable element in a conceptual architecture feasibility study for long-duration space exploration with an eight-person crew size. On lunar or planetary surfaces, the Common Habitat forms the core of a Surface Base Camp. In microgravity, the Common Habitat is the core of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle (DSEV), an in-space transportation spacecraft. The Common Habitat employs a horizontal orientation that is divided internally into a lower deck, mid deck, and upper deck, roughly separating outfitting into individual, work, and group functions. On a planetary surface, the habitat is incorporated into a base camp, located near the south pole in the case of the Moon. The Mars base camp is currently location agnostic. Each base camp is divided into habitation, landing, resource production, and power zones. In microgravity, the habitat is incorporated into the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle, a vessel capable of transporting the crew within the inner solar system. In addition to crew and teleoperated control of external science assets, the Common Habitat employs a suite of life and physical science laboratory systems to enable it to support science investigations across a variety of destination environments, primarily featuring the Moon and Mars, along with the intervening interplanetary space. Other potential destinations include Near Earth Asteroids and Venus and Earth orbits. Located in the aft starboard section of the Common Habitat mid deck, the life science laboratory supports primarily biology and human research. In its baseline configuration, the laboratory includes horizontal work surfaces, freezers, multiple gloveboxes, sample transfer/exposure capability, large instruments, and reconfigurable ISPR-compatible payload bays. The Medical Care Facility and exercise facility can also support life science research. In the aft port section of the mid deck, the physical science laboratory supports physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, and remote sensing (including astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science, planetary science, and meteorology). It provides a baseline of similar ISPR-compatible payload bays and adds additional freezers, including those for cryogenic sample storage, a remote sensing workstation, more gloveboxes, also with sample transfer/exposure, combustion chambers, fluid mechanics chambers, and a gas chromatograph. It leverages the Command & Control Center for teleoperations of mobile science assets. Both laboratories are highly modular, with the ability to swap out both payloads and instruments on an as-needed basis. The integrated science outfitting of the Common Habitat positions its crew to contribute to all of NASA’s Moon to Mars science objectives and extend human understanding into the inner solar system.

Lunar Suface↗

Water Recovery System Architecture and Operational Concepts to Accommodate Dormancy

Future manned missions beyond low Earth orbit will include intermittent periods of extended dormancy. The mission requirement includes the capability for life support systems to support crew activity, followed by a dormant period of up to one year, and subsequently for the life support systems to come back online for additional crewed missions. NASA personnel are evaluating the architecture and operational concepts that will allow the Water Recovery System (WRS) to support such a mission. Dormancy could be a critical issue due to concerns with microbial growth or chemical degradation that might prevent water systems from operating properly when the crewed mission began. As such, it is critical that the water systems be designed to accommodate this dormant period. This paper identifies dormancy issues, concepts for updating the WRS architecture and operational concepts that will enable the WRS to support the dormancy requirement.

Carter, Layne↗