Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Testing data and general test protocols”

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.

41 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Increasing Cognitive Ability/Reserve Using Software – Pilot (ICARUS-Pilot)

Background: This research study was competitively awarded under the 2022 JSC Innovation Charge Account (ICA) program administered by NASA Johnson Space Center’s Joint Technology Working Group. Study period of performance was May through September 2022, with a maximum allowed procurement budget of $10K. The study sought to quantify and assess the potential benefit of using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) cognitive training software to improve cognitive performance in an astronaut-like terrestrial population. Methods: Five volunteer research participants were recruited from the JSC employee population to mimic certain demographic characteristics of the NASA astronaut population (age, education/discipline). Participant cognitive performance was assessed before and after executing eighteen sessions of remote cognitive training executed nominally three times per week using six exercises within an adaptive app-based COTS software package (BrainHQ, Posit Science) on study-provided tablets. Pre- and post-training cognitive performance was measured using internal assessments in BrainHQ as well as Cognition Test Battery (CTB) version ISS B01 v3 (3.0.9-201710021500), an independent software test developed specifically for NASA and used currently in research studies on astronauts. BrainHQ exercises were posited to map well or partially to several CTB sub-tests. Participants provided feedback on their study experience formally via semi-structured interview at the conclusion of testing and informally throughout the study if they encountered issues. Results: The enrolled ICARUS-Pilot study participants generally matched Artemis crew demographic characteristics. Four of five participants have completed study training and assessment activities as of the writing of this abstract. These test participants complied well with desired training session frequency and duration yielding an average cumulative active training duration of 15 hours over an average of 45 days; participants showed 78% average improvement in metric performance for the six trained exercises, with an associated overall 33%ile ranking increase against performance of the entire BrainHQ subscribing population for internal pre/post assessment, agreeing with post-study survey self-reported performance increases. CTB overall feedback scoring, not corrected for learning effects, showed an average of 19% performance improvement across its 10 performance measures over the training period for the completed participants. Detailed analyses will be conducted once participant data collection for the study is complete and the resulting dataset is fully populated. Discussion: These preliminary results provide a positive trend for the effectiveness of the training approach, but further analysis will be needed to establish significance, investigate far transfer, and suggest the needed participant pool size for subsequent efforts to achieve statistically significant outcomes given similar results. The pilot study has already been helpful by allowing the study team to learn a great deal about the capabilities and limitations of the COTS software package that will be reflected in future proposals along with revised timelines for study execution and test participant management. From participant feedback, one common thread regarding the COTS training was that it felt overly repetitive – future proposals should reassess overall training duration, available levels for each trained exercise, and the behavior of the BrainHQ internal scheduler in determining which exercises should be trained and for how long. If the final analysis of this feasibility study ultimately supports it, the study team will recommend further investigation to fully evaluate this potential countermeasure and optimize its implementation. Future proposals would cite this feasibility study’s outcome and would seek to refine the training protocol and obtain statistically significant results for cognitive performance increases as well as retention data.

cognitive training↗
NASA NTRS2012

SpaceCube Mini

This version of the SpaceCube will be a full-fledged, onboard space processing system capable of 2500+ MIPS, and featuring a number of plug-andplay gigabit and standard interfaces, all in a condensed 3x3x3 form factor [less than 10 watts and less than 3 lb (approximately equal to 1.4 kg)]. The main processing engine is the Xilinx SIRF radiation- hardened-by-design Virtex-5 FX-130T field-programmable gate array (FPGA). Even as the SpaceCube 2.0 version (currently under test) is being targeted as the platform of choice for a number of the upcoming Earth Science Decadal Survey missions, GSFC has been contacted by customers who wish to see a system that incorporates key features of the version 2.0 architecture in an even smaller form factor. In order to fulfill that need, the SpaceCube Mini is being designed, and will be a very compact and low-power system. A similar flight system with this combination of small size, low power, low cost, adaptability, and extremely high processing power does not otherwise exist, and the SpaceCube Mini will be of tremendous benefit to GSFC and its partners. The SpaceCube Mini will utilize space-grade components. The primary processing engine of the Mini is the Xilinx Virtex-5 SIRF FX-130T radiation-hardened-by-design FPGA for critical flight applications in high-radiation environments. The Mini can also be equipped with a commercial Xilinx Virtex-5 FPGA with integrated PowerPCs for a low-cost, high-power computing platform for use in the relatively radiation- benign LEOs (low-Earth orbits). In either case, this version of the Space-Cube will weigh less than 3 pounds (.1.4 kg), conform to the CubeSat form-factor (10x10x10 cm), and will be low power (less than 10 watts for typical applications). The SpaceCube Mini will have a radiation-hardened Aeroflex FPGA for configuring and scrubbing the Xilinx FPGA by utilizing the onboard FLASH memory to store the configuration files. The FLASH memory will also be used for storing algorithm and application code for the PowerPCs and the Xilinx FPGA. In addition, it will feature highspeed DDR SDRAM (double data rate synchronous dynamic random-access memory) to store the instructions and data of active applications. This version will also feature SATA-II and Gigabit Ethernet interfaces. Furthermore, there will also be general-purpose, multi-gigabit interfaces. In addition, the system will have dozens of transceivers that can support LVDS (low-voltage differential signaling), RS-422, or SpaceWire. The SpaceCube Mini includes an I/O card that can be customized to meet the needs of each mission. This version of the SpaceCube will be designed so that multiple Minis can be networked together using SpaceWire, Ethernet, or even a custom protocol. Scalability can be provided by networking multiple SpaceCube Minis together. Rigid-Flex technology is being targeted for the construction of the SpaceCube Mini, which will make the extremely compact and low-weight design feasible. The SpaceCube Mini is designed to fit in the compact CubeSat form factor, thus allowing deployment in a new class of missions that the previous SpaceCube versions were not suited for. At the time of this reporting, engineering units should be available in the summer 2012.

Michael Lin↗
NASA NTRS2011

Performance Comparison of Wireless Sensor Network Standard Protocols in an Aerospace Environment: ISA100.11a and ZigBee

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) can provide a substantial benefit in spacecraft systems, reducing launch weight and providing unprecedented flexibility by allowing instrumentation capabilities to grow and change over time. Achieving data transport reliability on par with that of wired systems, however, can prove extremely challenging in practice. Fortunately, much progress has been made in developing standard WSN radio protocols for applications from non-critical home automation to mission-critical industrial process control. The relative performances of candidate protocols must be compared in representative aerospace environments, however, to determine their suitability for spaceflight applications. In this paper, we will present the results of a rigorous laboratory analysis of the performance of two standards-based, low power, low data rate WSN protocols: ZigBee Pro and ISA100.11a. Both are based on IEEE 802.15.4 and augment that standard's specifications to build complete, multi-hop networking stacks. ZigBee Pro targets primarily the home and office automation markets, providing an ad-hoc protocol that is computationally lightweight and easy to implement in inexpensive system-on-a-chip components. As a result of this simplicity, however, ZigBee Pro can be susceptible to radio frequency (RF) interference. ISA100.11a, on the other hand, targets the industrial process control market, providing a robust, centrally-managed protocol capable of tolerating a significant amount of RF interference. To achieve these gains, a coordinated channel hopping mechanism is employed, which entails a greater computational complexity than ZigBee and requires more sophisticated and costly hardware. To guide future aerospace deployments, we must understand how well these standards relatively perform in analog environments under expected operating conditions. Specifically, we are interested in evaluating goodput -- application level throughput -- in a representative crewed environment in the presence of varying levels of 802.11g Wi-Fi traffic. To do so, we use the NASA Johnson Space Center Wireless Habitat Testbed (WHT), a metallic, habitation-sized module designed for co-existence testing of wireless systems. In its quiescent state, the sealed WHT provides an RF-quiet environment to which we can selectively add interfering systems; it also provides a realistic level of multi-path self-interference for systems under investigation. In our test, we deploy two representative five node networks, configured in a star topology with all nodes reporting directly to a WSN gateway. Each ZigBee network WSN node is built using a Texas Instruments (TI) CC2530 system-on-a-chip radio running TI's ZigBee Pro Z-stack. Each ISA100.11a network node is built using a Nivis VersaNode 210 system-on-a-chip radio. In both cases, radios interface with TI MSP430-F5438 microcontroller implementing a common test application. Interference is provided by a D-link 802.11g Wi-Fi router transporting traffic generated using the Iperf network testing tool. For the single-channel ZigBee network, effects of both direct and indirect Wi-Fi interference are evaluated. For the channel-hopping ISA100.11a network, effects of interference from multiple Wi-Fi routers configured in non-overlapping 802.11g channels are evaluated. Our results show that, in general, the more lightweight ZigBee network performs well at low interference levels, but performance degrades as interference increases. Conversely, the more complex and costly ISA100.11a network continues to perform well as Wi-Fi interference levels increase.

Wagner, Raymond S.↗
NASA NTRS2015

2015 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel

The 2015 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 8 - 9, 2015. The SRP met with representatives from the Space Radiation Element and members of the Human Research Program (HRP) to review the updated research plan for the Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis Cancer Risk. The SRP also reviewed the newly revised Evidence Reports for the Risk of Acute Radiation Syndromes Due to Solar Particle Events (SPEs) (Acute Risk), the Risk of Acute (In-flight) and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure (CNS Risk), and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Other Degenerative Tissue Effects from Radiation (Degen Risk), as well as a status update on these Risks. The SRP would like to commend Dr. Simonsen, Dr. Huff, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Patel for their detailed presentations. The Space Radiation Element did a great job presenting a very large volume of material. The SRP considers it to be a strong program that is well-organized, well-coordinated and generates valuable data. The SRP commended the tissue sharing protocols, working groups, systems biology analysis, and standardization of models. In several of the discussed areas the SRP suggested improvements of the research plans in the future. These include the following: It is important that the team has expanded efforts examining immunology and inflammation as important components of the space radiation biological response. This is an overarching and important focus that is likely to apply to all aspects of the program including acute, CVD, CNS, cancer and others. Given that the area of immunology/inflammation is highly complex (and especially so as it relates to radiation), it warrants the expansion of investigators expertise in immunology and inflammation to work with the individual research projects and also the NASA Specialized Center of Research (NSCORs). Historical data on radiation injury to be entered into the Watson “big data” study must be used with caution. The general scientific issues of reproducibility, details of experimental methods and data analysis from preclinical and basic research laboratories have been raised broadly over the last few years (not specific to this work) and indicate that caution must be applied in the ways these data are used. This pertains to preclinical data and also to phase 3 clinical trials in radiation oncology and medical oncology. Of course, appropriate use and analysis of these “big-data” sets also offer the potential of pinpointing limitations and extracting remaining useful information. Emphasis should be placed on the latter possibility. A key target is risk reduction from radiation exposure. Progress of the entire space program, now moving towards the Mars mission, requires timely answers to key components of human risk, which are known to be complex. Periodic review of progress should be conducted with additional resources directed into achieving critical milestones. Turning the long red bars to yellow and green (or for some risks such as CNS possibly to grey) must be high priority. That such progress will require new science and not engineering means that it should be viewed in a knowledge-based light. The technology-based aspects of engineering issues are certainly as important, however, science and knowledge-based problems are solved in a different way than engineering. Timelines for engineering are more predictable, while for science, progress can be methodical with occasional major incremental findings that can rapidly change the rate of progress. As opportunities for rapid incremental changes arise, periodic enhancement of investment is strongly recommended to enable such new knowledge to be quickly and efficiently exploited. Collaborations and linkages with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are in place and more are encouraged, where possible, with the radiation injury and medical countermeasure studies. This could include utilizing some of their animal model testing contracts to facilitate obtaining results using common platforms. Such approach will facilitate the comparison of results among laboratories, and will facilitate and accelerate the development of medical countermeasures. It is particularly noteworthy that the NASA Space Radiation Element is reaching out to the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI) platform coordinating low dose radiation risk research, and to other international agencies that are studying low dose radiation effects in an effort to fill the void generated by the cancelation of the Department of Energy (DOE) low dose radiation program. While NASA is working actively with NIAID and BARDA to integrate their relevant findings of radiation mitigator investigations to NASA programs, the committee notes its disappointment that the United States currently lacks a dedicated low dose radiation program with clear mechanistic orientation and aimed at the quantification and mitigation of human radiation risk on Earth. This void gives to the NASA Space Radiation Program Element special societal value, but also makes its overall design more challenging.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗