SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Research Program”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 559 records · Page 31

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2024

Cognitive Performance in ISS Astronauts on 6-Month Low Earth Orbit Missions

Introduction: Current and future astronauts will endure prolonged exposure to spaceflight hazards and environmental stressors that could compromise cognitive functioning, yet cognitive performance in current missions to the International Space Station remains critically under-characterized. We systematically assessed cognitive performance across 10 cognitive domains in astronauts on 6-month missions to the ISS. Methods: Twenty-five professional astronauts were administered the Cognition Battery as part of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Human Research Program Standard Measures Cross-Cutting Project. Cognitive performance data were collected at five mission phases: pre-flight, early flight, late flight, early post-flight, and late post-flight. We calculated speed and accuracy scores, corrected for practice effects, and derived z-scores to represent deviations in cognitive performance across mission phases from the sample’s mean baseline (i.e., pre-flight) performance. Linear mixed models with random subject intercepts and pairwise comparisons examined the relationships between mission phase and cognitive performance. Results: Cognitive performance was generally stable over time with some differences observed across mission phases for specific subtests. There was slowed performance observed in early flight on tasks of processing speed, visual working memory, and sustained attention. We observed a decrease in risk-taking propensity during late flight and post-flight mission phases. Beyond examining group differences, we inspected scores that represented a significant shift from the sample’s mean baseline score, revealing that 11.8% of all flight and post-flight scores were at or below 1.5 standard deviations below the sample’s baseline mean. Finally, exploratory analyses yielded no clear pattern of associations between cognitive performance and either sleep or ratings of alertness. Conclusions: There was no evidence for a systematic decline in cognitive performance for astronauts on a 6-month missions to the ISS. Some differences were observed for specific subtests at specific mission phases, suggesting that processing speed, visual working memory, sustained attention, and risk-taking propensity may be the cognitive domains most susceptible to change in Low Earth Orbit for high performing, professional astronauts. We provide descriptive statistics of pre-flight cognitive performance from 25 astronauts, the largest published preliminary normative database of its kind to date, to help identify significant performance decrements in future samples.

Data curation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Markerless Motion Capture for Monitoring Sensorimotor Performance

BACKGROUND Astronauts returning from long-duration exposure to microgravity frequently exhibit alterations in sensorimotor function leading to postural imbalance, impaired locomotion, and operational challenges to manual control. Mission duration and individual responses often influence both the severity of performance decrements and the variability in adaptation timelines. Postflight disruptions during functional tasks are often detected through body-worn inertial measurement unit (IMU) devices. While IMU sensors are relatively compact, the long-term wear may lead to discomfort, displacement of the sensors on the body, and restrictions in movement or crew behavior. Although IMU data offers valuable insights from a research standpoint, interpreting changes in pre- and post-flight measures can be difficult for crew support personnel beyond the research domain, which can hinder the application for medical assessments and rehabilitation. Finally, the availability of inertial sensors in-flight is limited. There is a need for unobtrusive monitoring tools to improve our ability to monitor adaptation following gravitational transitions in various postflight evaluations and rehabilitation settings. Markerless motion capture (MMC) is an evolving unobtrusive technology that builds upon decades of research with marker-based motion capture systems to provide 3D human pose estimation from multiple synchronized 2D camera views using deep learning algorithms. Markerless technology can revolutionize how data is captured pre- and post-flight and potentially in-flight during intravehicular activity by enabling pose estimation of multiple crew members from onboard camera hardware. METHODS The following presents the initial evaluation of a state-of-the-art commercial-off-the-shelf MMC system, Theia Markerless, compared to IMU devices during various ground-based functional tasks and environmental conditions. The featured functional tasks include assessments from Human Research Program (HRP) funded studies such as Sensorimotor Standard Measures and Sensorimotor Assessments. Synchronous data collected using both motion capture and IMUs are analyzed for six male and female subjects of varying anthropometry. The analysis includes limited assessments of clothing, capture volume configurations, and the tool's sensitivity to detecting performance changes after a spaceflight analog centrifuge exposure. The development of visualization tools to enhance the application of the pose estimation output is also presented. RESULTS Initial results demonstrate comparable root mean square error (RMSE) to existing literature evaluating markerless and marker-based motion capture systems. Considering the relative functional range of motion of the cervical spine, normalized error values for the markerless system’s accuracy of the head was 0.032 in pitch, 0.025 in roll, and 0.018 in yaw plane of motion across a subset of functional tasks. The raw RMSE values were 3.49, 2.25, and 2.81 degrees respectively. For the torso, results suggest normalized errors of 0.469 in pitch, 0.191 in roll, and 0.307 in yaw planes of motion and raw RMSE values of 3.52, 1.53, and 3.07 degrees respectively. The data suggests the functional demands of a particular task influences the estimation accuracy of the MMC system where more dynamic motion and cases where subjects are not upright may introduce diminished tracking accuracy. DISCUSSION The following work lays the foundation for future implementations leveraging markerless motion capture to assess the time course of recovery and provide insight for rehabilitation protocols to enhance crew readiness for the resumption of daily activities. These tools offer effective methods for anonymizing sensitive crew data, facilitating numerous applications across research, medical, and rehabilitation groups. Collaborations with the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility will provide further comparisons of the Markerless system to a marker-based system. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT</ This work is supported by NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate Mars Campaign Office Crew Health Countermeasures.

Hannah M. Weiss↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Custom Integration of Multiple Medical Functionalities

INTRODUCTION: Previous spaceflight experience and results from probabilistic risk assessment of spaceflight medical risk have highlighted the need for vital sign measurements, medical scopes, and clinical imaging tools for managing medical conditions during spaceflight. The Human Research Program’s Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element and the Mars Campaign Office’s Exploration Medical Integrated Product Team (XMIPT) have performed ground-based evaluations of two Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) Multi-functional Integrated Medical (MIM) devices, which integrate various medical capabilities together in one device. The key findings from these evaluations are presented in a complementary presentation, leaving this presentation to focus on forward recommendations for customized integration of multiple medical functionalities. KEY COMPONENTS: The key features of a custom integration of multiple medical functionalities includes devices and capabilities that optimally reduce medical risk. The COTS MIM devices incorporated functionality for best supporting Earth-based, emergency, pre-hospital care. Our custom integration will use probabilistic risk assessment tools, such as the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT), to determine the optimal functionality to include based on medical risk minimization. An additional feature of custom integration includes the ability to adapt to different requirements within different vehicles and/or missions. The COTS MIM devices store data in patient specific records, however, the format of the records is not modifiable, and data are not easily transferred from the MIM device to a central data architecture outside of the manufacturer’s established system. Our concept for custom integration will use devices that have an open application programming interface, which can easily connect to independent data architectures and third-party visualization software. The ultrasound capabilities included within the COTS MIM devices did not satisfy many of the Artemis Research and Operations Working Group’s ultrasound functional needs, and therefore, incorporation of higher quality ultrasound capabilities within a customized integration will be beneficial. The COTS MIM devices included minimal procedural guidance and clinical decision support tools. Supplemental tools of this type would need to be supplied along with the COTS MIM devices if they were to be used operationally, so another advantage of customization is the ability to integrate these support tools along with the medical functionality, for a more streamlined user experience. CONCLUSION: Investigation of a customized integration of medical functionality provides a method for further understanding the needs of a long-term exploration spaceflight medical system. The crew members of these exploration missions will need to operate more and more independently from Earth-based ground support. Therefore, having an optimized, streamlined medical system, which contains the functionality and supporting information needed, while remaining within mission and vehicle constraints, will help to maintain crew health and performance, which is necessary for achieving high levels of mission success.

B E Lewandowski↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Proof-of-Concept for a Long-Term Health Metric to Quantify End of Mission Health Status in Astronauts

NASA has long used Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) when high-stakes decisions need to be made about complex systems. For spaceflight medical risk, the Human Research Program’s Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) is a significant step towards robustly quantifying the risk to crew health during exploration missions. However, there remains a significant gap in the ability to comprehensively characterize and assess risk across the disparate functionalities and capabilities which comprise the entire Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system. To fill this gap, the Crew Health and Performance – Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) project aims to perform risk characterization for the CHP system by assessing performance risk in addition to medical risk. This effort also includes quantifying Long-Term Health (LTH) risk in addition to in-mission risk outcomes within the CHP-PRA results. LTH risk encompasses the timeframe from immediately post-flight, through the rest of an astronaut’s career, through retirement, and until death. A proof-of-concept LTH risk metric is based on medical condition end-state, as defined by the Evidence Library, capturing the spaceflight specific medical impacts persisting into post-flight[1]. Condition outcomes in the Evidence Library progress through three Clinical Phases (CP): the diagnostic phase (CP1), the treatment/convalescent phase (CP2), and the end-state phase (CP3) which represents the detrimental effects of the condition after the crew member has recovered to the maximal extent. Each CP has an associated Task Impairment (TI), defined as the degree of crew incapacity due to experiencing the condition, and is quantified with a 0-1 range. Conditions with an associated CP3 (e.g. Sepsis, Traumatic Hypovolemic Shock, Sudden Cardiac Arrest, etc.) typically have serious consequences that can cause an astronaut to be fully or partially debilitated throughout the remainder of the mission. Consequently, the Cumulative CP3 TI End-of-Mission Health Status Metric is developed by CHP-PRA to quantify the cumulative effects of all conditions which progressed to the CP3 state throughout the entirety of the mission. Hence, this End-of-Mission Health Status Metric attempts to serve as an indicator of an astronaut’s health state at the time of landing. The severity of the lingering effects of in-mission medical events are dependent on mission activities and the level of available in-mission medical care. This allows the associated cumulative TI metric to be used in comparison with the crew’s end of mission health status for different levels of in-mission resources. This presentation provides the strategy for using CP3 as an LTH metric component, as well as a proof-of-concept demonstration of LTH risk characterization using this component.

long term health↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Why We Do What We Do: Data Reuse, Open Access and Privacy in Data Management at the Life Sciences Data Archive

As custodians of the unique and irreplaceable collections of human subject research data generated by the Human Research Program and its predecessors throughout the agency’s history, the Life Sciences Data Archive (LSDA) is charged with protecting participants’ privacy and implementing their consent decisions as it provides retrospective data for use in new studies. This active, stewardship-focused approach to data management and preservation shapes the products that LSDA provides to researchers and the responsibilities of researchers in using the data and publishing their results. This presentation reviews how federal and agency mandates shape LSDA’s data management procedures and expectations for researchers. Topics covered will include LSDA’s movement towards implementation of the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles and the archive’s evolving data management practices; collaboration between LSDA and the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH) project (the repository of astronaut medical data); LSDA’s response to the challenges of performing its stewardship role and maintaining trust given the public profiles of the subjects whose data it preserves; and the ever-increasing challenges to expectations of subject privacy stemming from the growing power and ubiquity of data analysis and aggregation tools.

data management↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantifying the Sensitivity of Condition Incidence Parameters in the Evidence Library

One approach to quantifying spaceflight risk at NASA makes use event driven probabilistic techniques. The Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) is such a tool that estimates medical risk metrics via simulation and enables optimization of medical resources subject to mission constraints [1]. Previous analyses have informed medical set composition, exercise countermeasures, and water intake, where each analysis quantifies the risk associated with proposed variations in system design. As future mission profiles extend beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) and lengthen in duration, understanding these risks and contributing factors is critical. MEDPRAT employs Monte Carlo sampling techniques to simulate missions and track the occurrence of medical events. These events follow fault-tree-like progressions through levels of severity and mitigation via medical treatment to many possible outcomes and these are reported throughout the mission. Making this possible, are the medical databases that contain evidence gathered by the Human Research Program (HRP). Quantifying the impact of uncertainty or variability in the input data is an important step in evaluating the credibility of modeling and simulation results. In this work, we investigate the sensitivity of medical risk metrics with respect to the condition incidence parameters within the Evidence Library (EL) [2] as the medical database input for MEDPRAT. The medical conditions, contained in the EL, are equipped with incidence rates that describe the likelihood that the condition will occur. These incidence rates reflect historical spaceflight data or when appropriate, terrestrial data. In this presentation, we will explore how uncertainty in these rates propagate to the medical risk described by MEDPRAT. These results identify the conditions and parameters with the largest contribution to medical risks.

Ian Lim↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Investigating Risks Due to Artemis EVA Tempo Via Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Spaceflight operations pose unique challenges to crew health, safety, and resource management. As space agencies and private companies continue to push the boundaries of human exploration, it is essential to understand the risks associated with Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) and develop strategies to mitigate them. The tempo at which EVAs are conducted – the total number and frequency of these activities – can have a profound impact on medical risks, resource consumption, and overall mission success. Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) provides a powerful framework for evaluating complex systems and identifying potential hazards. Our work employs the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) [1] to simulate mission events, occurrence and treatment of medical conditions, and track the utilization of resources. Coupled with the Evidence Library [2], a medical evidence base for exploration-class missions developed by the Exploration Medical Capability within NASA’s Human Research Program, we can estimate these risks with increased fidelity and optimize medical kit contents to meet specific mission requirements. This presentation provides a detailed examination of how EVA tempo influences medical risk estimates for a lunar surface design reference mission. A comprehensive analysis is conducted to assess the additional mass and volume burden imposed on medical kits required to maintain adequate levels of risk mitigation. Furthermore, we estimate the distribution of the number of successful EVAs completed based on the level of task impairment imposed by medical events and flight rules related to specific medical events, such as decompression sickness.

Modeling↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Future of Integrated Performance Modeling in the Crew Health and Performance – Probabilistic Risk Assessment Project

The NASA engineering community utilizes event-driven and fault-tree probabilistic techniques to classify risks in the space environment by taking advantage of the inherent knowledge of complex spaceflight system design and testing to quantify failure risk. In harmonizing the risk of human space flight, answering the question of ‘How do we balance health, performance and resource risks with other engineering risks on long duration space missions?’ remains a deeply challenging and largely qualitative practice. The Human Research Program’s Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) was a significant step forward in efforts to robustly quantify the risk to crew health for exploration missions. However, there remains a significant gap in the ability to comprehensively assess and characterize risk across the disparate functionalities and capabilities which comprise the Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system. The Crew Health and Performance – Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) project seeks to characterize CHP risks by expanding beyond the foundation established by its PRA predecessors like IMM and MEDPRAT, that simulate medical risk metrics like loss of crew life and evacuations. One of the new risk measures in the CHP-PRA system is embodied in our Performance Risk Model (PRisM). PRisM provides a novel way of assessing crew performance on mission tasks, using a generalized framework which relates back to NASA-STD-3001. This approach allows PRisM to capture and integrate data from a variety of different domains into a single, unified, reproducible representation of astronaut performance. In this presentation, we discuss the motivation for the CHP-PRA work and give a high level overview of the goals of the project, outline the forward work for PRisM, and discuss collaboration opportunities for the community who might explore if their domain knowledge and data could be represented, integrated, and quantified with these tools, whose outcomes are metrics useful for supporting operational mission planning and decision making.

Lauren McIntyre↗

NASA NTRS1982

An evaluation of NASA's program in human factors research: Aircrew-vehicle system interaction

Research in human factors in the aircraft cockpit and a proposed program augmentation were reviewed. The dramatic growth of microprocessor technology makes it entirely feasible to automate increasingly more functions in the aircraft cockpit; the promise of improved vehicle performance, efficiency, and safety through automation makes highly automated flight inevitable. An organized data base and validated methodology for predicting the effects of automation on human performance and thus on safety are lacking and without such a data base and validated methodology for analyzing human performance, increased automation may introduce new risks. Efforts should be concentrated on developing methods and techniques for analyzing man machine interactions, including human workload and prediction of performance.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2015

Human System Risk Management for Space Flight

This brief abstract reviews the development of the current day approach to human system risk management for space flight and the development of the critical components of this process over the past few years. The human system risk management process now provides a comprehensive assessment of each human system risk by design reference mission (DRM) and is evaluated not only for mission success but also for long‐term health impacts for the astronauts. The discipline of bioastronautics is the study of the biological and medical effects of space flight on humans. In 1997, the Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) initiated the Bioastronautics Roadmap (Roadmap) as the "Critical Path Roadmap", and in 1998 participation in the roadmap was expanded to include the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) and the external community. A total of 55 risks and 250 questions were identified and prioritized and in 2000, the Roadmap was base-lined and put under configuration control. The Roadmap took into account several major advisory committee reviews including the Institute of Medicine (IOM) "Safe Passage: Astronaut care for Exploration Missions", 2001. Subsequently, three collaborating organizations at NASA HQ (Chief Health and Medical Officer, Office of Space Flight and Office of Biological & Physical Research), published the Bioastronautics Strategy in 2003, that identified the human as a "critical subsystem of space flight" and noted that "tolerance limits and safe operating bands must be established" to enable human space flight. These offices also requested a review by the IOM of the Roadmap and that review was published in October 2005 as "A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Exploration of Space: A Review of NASA's Bioastronautics Roadmap", that noted several strengths and weaknesses of the Roadmap and made several recommendations. In parallel with the development of the Roadmap, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) began a process in 2004 of evaluating the tolerance limits and safe operating bands called for in the Bioastronautics Strategy. Over the next several years, the concept of the "operating bands" were turned into Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS), developed by the technical resources of the SLSD at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). These standards were developed and reviewed at the SLSD and then presented to the OCHMO for acceptance. The first set of standards was published in 2007 as the NASA‐STD‐3001, Volume 1, Crew Health that elaborated standards for several physiological areas such as cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, radiation exposure and nutrition. Volume 2, Human Factors, Habitability and Human Health was published in 2011, along with development guidance in the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH). Taken together, the SFHSS Volumes 1 and 2, and the HIDH replaced the NASA‐STD‐3000 with new standards and revisions of the older document. Three other changes were also taking place that facilitated the development of the human system risk management approach. In 2005, the life sciences research and development portfolio underwent a comprehensive review through the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) that resulted in the reformulation of the Bioastronautics Program into Human Research Program (HRP) that was focused on appropriate mitigation results for high priority human health risks. The baseline HRP budget was established in August 2005. In addition, the OCHMO formulated the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) in 2006 that established the position of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at the NASA JSC along with other key technical disciplines, and the OCHMO became the responsible office for the SFHSS as noted above. The final change was the establishment in 2008 of the Human System Risk Board (HSRB), chaired by the CMO with representation from the HRP, SLSD management and technical experts. The HSRB then began to review all human system risks, established a comprehensive risk management and configuration management plan and data sharing policy. These major developments of standards, the HRP, the HMTA and a forum for review of human system risks (HSRB) facilitated the integration of human research, medical operations, systems engineering and many other disciplines in the comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB began a comprehensive review of all potential inflight medical conditions and events and over the course of several reviews consolidated the number of human system risks to 30 where the greatest emphasis is placed for investing program dollars for risk mitigation. The HSRB considers all available evidence from human research, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit 6 and 12 months, deep space sortie for 30 days and 1 year, a one year lunar mission, and a planetary mission for 3 years) are considered as human system risks are modified by the hazards associated with space flight such as microgravity, exposure to radiation, distance from the earth, isolation and a closed environment. Each risk has a summary assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence base for that risk, the available risk mitigations, traceability to the SFHSS and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the HRP, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets. These risk assessments were completed for 6 DRMs in December of 2014 and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB will review each risk at least annually and especially when new information is available that must be considered for effective risk mitigation. The current status of each risk can be reported to program management for operations, budget reviews and general oversight of the human system risk management program.

Davis, Jeffrey↗

NASA NTRS2008

NASA's Plans for Materials Science on ISS: Cooperative Utilization of the MSRR-MSL

The ISS Research Project draws Life (non-human) and Physical Sciences investigations on the ISS, free flyer and ground-based into one coordinated project. The project has two categories: I. Exploration Research Program: a) Utilizes the ISS as a low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) test bed for technology development, demonstration and problem resolution in the areas of life support, fire safety, power, propulsion, thermal management, materials technology, habitat design, etc.; b) Will include endorsement letters from other ETDP projects to show relevancy. II. Non-Exploration Research Program; a) Not directly related to supporting the human exploration program. Research conducted in the life (non-human) and physical sciences; b) The program will sustain, to the maximum extent practicable, the United States scientific expertise and research capability in fundamental microgravity research. Physical Sciences has about 44 grants, and Life Sciences has approximately 32 grants, mostly with universities, to conduct low TRL research; this includes grants to be awarded from the 2008 Fluid Physics and Life Science NRA's.

Chiaramonte, Francis↗

NASA NTRS1982

Aircraft-vehicle system interaction. An evaluation of NASA's program in human factors research

Research in the areas of man machine interaction and human factors engineering are assessed in relation to improved effeciency and aviation safety. The appropriateness, relevance, adequacy, and timeliness of the research is evaluated, and recommendations are provided regarding the objectives, approach and content.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2024

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the Moon and to eventually enable humans to explore Mars. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the research and technology development (R&TD) that will be necessary to enable crew health and performance (CHP) during these future missions. These organizations include flight programs, the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), the Human Research Program, the Space Technology Mission Directorate, System Capability Leadership Teams, and other organizations, many of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for managing risks and supporting strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA to identify and prioritize R&TD needs. These strategic planning constructs are evolving to allow M2M objectives and R&TD investments to be aligned and traced at a detailed level. A recognized need exists among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&TD priorities in a unified and digestible way that addresses the perspectives of NASA’s CHP community. To achieve this, the HMTA arranged a series of discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, during which the 8 highest priority CHP capabilities that will enable human missions to Mars, referred to as the “top human system capability needs for Mars”, were identified. The list includes Earth-independent human operations; Mars-duration food system; Mars-duration effects on human physiology; risk mitigations for vehicle atmospheres; computational injury and anthropometric models; exploration exercise countermeasures; individual variability in responses to spaceflight; and sensorimotor countermeasures. Existing tools and processes for strategic planning and risk management were evaluated, as well as the technical practicalities, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&TD investments in different capability need areas. This capability needs report is not owned by any one NASA organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. These top capability needs will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&TD progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

technology gaps↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

technology gaps↗

NASA NTRS1990

Applied human factors research at the NASA Johnson Space Center Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory

The applied human factors research program performed at the NASA Johnson Space Center's Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory is discussed. Research is conducted to advance knowledge in human interaction with computer systems during space crew tasks. In addition, the Laboratory is directly involved in the specification of the human-computer interface (HCI) for space systems in development (e.g., Space Station Freedom) and is providing guidelines and support for HCI design to current and future space missions.

Rudisill, Marianne↗

NASA NTRS1989

Airline Crew Training

The discovery that human error has caused many more airline crashes than mechanical malfunctions led to an increased emphasis on teamwork and coordination in airline flight training programs. Human factors research at Ames Research Center has produced two crew training programs directed toward more effective operations. Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) defines areas like decision making, workload distribution, communication skills, etc. as essential in addressing human error problems. In 1979, a workshop led to the implementation of the CRM program by United Airlines, and later other airlines. In Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT), crews fly missions in realistic simulators while instructors induce emergency situations requiring crew coordination. This is followed by a self critique. Ames Research Center continues its involvement with these programs.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the moon and eventually enable a human Mars mission. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the crew health and performance (CHP) research and technology development (R&D) necessary to enable these future missions. These organizations include flight programs as well as other organizations such as the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), Human Research Program, Space Technology Mission Directorate, and System Capability Leadership Teams, each of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for the management of risks and strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA for identifying and prioritizing R&D needs. Alignment and evolution of these strategic planning constructs is ongoing and will allow for alignment and traceability between M2M objectives and R&D investments at a detailed level. While this reorganization is ongoing, and even after it is established, there is a recognized need among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&D priorities in a unified and digestible way that synthesizes the considerations and perspectives of the CHP community across NASA. To achieve this, the HMTA facilitated a series of group discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, which culminated in a product identifying the eight highest priority mission-enabling CHP capabilities for human missions to Mars, referred to as the “Top Human System Capability Needs for Mars”. The list includes Earth-Independent Human Operations; Mars Duration Food System; Mars Duration Effects on Human Physiology; Risks Mitigations for Vehicle Atmospheres; Computational Injury & Anthropometric Models; Exploration Exercise Countermeasures; Individual Variability in Responses to Spaceflight; and Sensorimotor Countermeasures. Existing strategic planning and risk management tools and processes were considered, as well as practicalities of technical, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&D risk mitigations and technology solutions. The product is not owned by any one organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. It is anticipated that this list will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&D progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

Life Support↗