Search NASA⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 577 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1993

Limitations to the study of man in space in the U.S. space program

Research on humans conducted during spaceflight is fraught both with great opportunities and great obstacles. The purpose of this paper is to review some of the limitations to research in space in the United States with hope that an informed scientific community may lead to more rapid and efficient solution of these problems. Limitations arise because opportunities to study the same astronauts in well-controlled situations on repeated spaceflights are practically non-existent. Human research opportunities are further limited by the necessity of avoiding simultaneous mutually-interfering experiments. Environmental factors, including diet and other physiological perturbations concomitant with spaceflight, also complicate research design and interpretation. Technical limitations to research methods and opportunities further restrict the development of the knowledge base. Finally, Earth analogues of space travel all suffer from inadequacies. Though all of these obstacles will eventually be overcome, creativity, diligence, and persistence are required to further our knowledge of humans in space.

Bishop, Phillip A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Limitations to the study of man in the United States space program

Research on humans conducted during space flight is fraught both with great opportunities and great obstacles. The purpose of this paper is to review some of the limitations to United States research in space in the hope that an informed scientific community may lead to more rapid and efficient solution of these problems. Limitations arise because opportunities to study the same astronauts in well-controlled situations on repeated space flights are practically non-existent. Human research opportunities are further limited by the necessity of avoiding simultaneous mutually-interfereing experiments. Environmental factors including diet and other physiological perturbations concomitant with space flight also complicates research design and interpretation. Technical limitations to research methods and opportunities further restrict the development of the knowledge base. Finally, earth analogues of space travel all suffer from inadequacies. Though all of these obstacles will eventually be overcome; creativity, diligence, and persistence are required to further our knowledge of humans in space.

Bishop, Phillip A.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Maintaining Human Health for Humans-Mars

The Human Health Research Program states that Radiation is the most challenging hazard to human spaceflight beyond LEO. The International Space Station provides an analog for evaluating techniques for dealing with Altered Gravity, the Radiation Environment of the ISS is only about 45% of the deep space values where radiation due to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) dominate the spectrum. The Moon and cis-lunar space are being considered as a Mars Analog training ground for preparing crews for human mission to Mars. Spending more than 200 days in deep space is considered unsafe based on our current proxy for lifetime radiation dose. The paper outlines a way forward for spending days training near the Moon and for completing roundtrip missions to Mars while remaining below the current proxy. In the first case, a GCR overcoat shields crews from radiation during cis-lunar activities before making fast transits without in-space GCR overcoats to and from Mars. This case requires continued maturation of low TRL propulsion and power technologies currently around 4 to 5 while depending on repeatable reductions in launch costs by a factor of 6 expected of current reusable rockets. The second case requires no new technology development except for the expectation that the next near-term generation of reusable rockets will reduce launch costs by a factor of around 14. Five trajectories and GCR overcoat sizes for all mission legs are presented herein to illustrate the opportunities to maintain human health for Humans-Mars missions.

Robert W Moses↗
NASA NTRS2011

Mission Possible: BioMedical Experiments on the Space Shuttle

Biomedical research, both applied and basic, was conducted on every Shuttle mission from 1981 to 2011. The Space Shuttle Program enabled NASA investigators and researchers from around the world to address fundamental issues concerning living and working effectively in space. Operationally focused occupational health investigations and tests were given priority by the Shuttle crew and Shuttle Program management for the resolution of acute health issues caused by the rigors of spaceflight. The challenges of research on the Shuttle included: limited up and return mass, limited power, limited crew time, and requirements for containment of hazards. The sheer capacity of the Shuttle for crew and equipment was unsurpassed by any other launch and entry vehicle and the Shuttle Program provided more opportunity for human research than any program before or since. To take advantage of this opportunity, life sciences research programs learned how to: streamline the complicated process of integrating experiments aboard the Shuttle, design experiments and hardware within operational constraints, and integrate requirements between different experiments and with operational countermeasures. We learned how to take advantage of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware and developed a hardware certification process with the flexibility to allow for design changes between flights. We learned the importance of end-to-end testing for experiment hardware with humans-in-the-loop. Most importantly, we learned that the Shuttle Program provided an excellent platform for conducting human research and for developing the systems that are now used to optimize research on the International Space Station. This presentation will include a review of the types of experiments and medical tests flown on the Shuttle and the processes that were used to manifest and conduct the experiments. Learning Objective: This paper provides a description of the challenges related to launching and implementing biomedical experiments aboard the Space Shuttle.

Bopp, E.↗
NASA NTRS1993

A white paper: NASA virtual environment research, applications, and technology

Research support for Virtual Environment technology development has been a part of NASA's human factors research program since 1985. Under the auspices of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST), initial funding was provided to the Aerospace Human Factors Research Division, Ames Research Center, which resulted in the origination of this technology. Since 1985, other Centers have begun using and developing this technology. At each research and space flight center, NASA missions have been major drivers of the technology. This White Paper was the joint effort of all the Centers which have been involved in the development of technology and its applications to their unique missions. Appendix A is the list of those who have worked to prepare the document, directed by Dr. Cynthia H. Null, Ames Research Center, and Dr. James P. Jenkins, NASA Headquarters. This White Paper describes the technology and its applications in NASA Centers (Chapters 1, 2 and 3), the potential roles it can take in NASA (Chapters 4 and 5), and a roadmap of the next 5 years (FY 1994-1998). The audience for this White Paper consists of managers, engineers, scientists and the general public with an interest in Virtual Environment technology. Those who read the paper will determine whether this roadmap, or others, are to be followed.

Null, Cynthia H.↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA Armstrong (AFRC) Human Factors Program

Armstrong Flight Research Center is NASA’s premier flight research center. It is located on Edwards AFB in the high desert of California. The AFRC Safety and Mission Assurance Directorates Human Factors Program is one tool that enables Armstrong to be the national center of excellence for conducting leading edge aerospace flight research, airborne science, and airborne astronomy by providing responsive, effective, and adaptive Safety & Mission Assurance support. The AFRC Human Factors Specialist is also a member of the Agency Human Factors Task Force which provides and expands the understanding and impact of Human Factors across the Agency. The Program is managed by the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance at NASA Headquarters.

Kiriokos, Nick C.↗
NASA NTRS2010

A New Method for Interfacing Unsuited Subjects to Overhead Suspension Partial Gravity Simulators

The purpose of performing unsuited testing as part of a reduced gravity extravehicular (EVA) suited human performance research program is to define baseline performance. These results are then coupled with suited test results to evaluate how the suit system affects human performance at reduced gravity. The primary drawback to this approach is that previous studies used notably different systems to interface suited and unsuited subjects to overhead-suspension, partial-gravity simulators. A spreader bar (SB) assembly previously used for unsuited tests allowed limited pitch and roll of the subject, whereas the gimbal for suited tests allowed more pitch and roll, although the mass distribution led to large moments of inertia in the yaw axis. It is hypothesized that use of the same methods for offload of both unsuited and suited subjects is needed to make meaningful comparisons. A new gimbal (GIM) was designed with the idea that it could function with both suited and unsuited subjects. GIM was designed to minimize mass and moments of inertia and to be adjustable to co-locate the 3 axes of rotation with the subject s center of gravity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate human performance differences between SB and GIM. METHODS: Ten unsuited subjects were off-loaded to 1/6-g using both interfaces. Subjects completed tasks including overground and treadmill ambulation, picking up objects, shoveling, postural stability, range of motion testing, and recovery from the kneeling and prone positions. Metabolic, biomechanical, and/or subjective data were collected based on task. RESULTS: Initial analyses suggest that subjects completed all tasks with lower levels of compensation and a more terrestrial approach to movement when suspended via GIM. With SB, subjects were not able to fall or get into a prone position and had increased difficulty both retrieving objects off the floor and with overground ambulation, especially at gait initiation, because they were unable to bend their torso. GIM shows promise as a new method.

Norcross, Jason R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

A New Method for Interfacing Unsuited Subjects to Overhead Suspension Partial Gravity Simulators

The purpose of performing unsuited testing as part of a reduced gravity extravehicular (EVA) suited human performance research program is to define baseline performance. These results are then coupled with suited test results to evaluate how the suit system affects human performance at reduced gravity. The primary drawback to this approach is that previous studies used notably different systems to interface suited and unsuited subjects to overhead-suspension, partial-gravity simulators. A spreader bar (SB) assembly previously used for unsuited tests allowed limited pitch and roll of the subject, whereas the gimbal for suited tests allowed more pitch and roll, although the mass distribution led to large moments of inertia in the yaw axis. It is hypothesized that use of the same methods for offload of both unsuited and suited subjects is needed to make meaningful comparisons. A new gimbal (GIM) was designed with the idea that it could function with both suited and unsuited subjects. GIM was designed to minimize mass and moments of inertia and to be adjustable to co-locate the 3 axes of rotation with the subject s center of gravity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate human performance differences between SB and GIM. METHODS: Ten unsuited subjects were offloaded to 1/6-g using both interfaces. Subjects completed tasks including overground and treadmill ambulation, picking up objects, shoveling, postural stability, range of motion testing, and recovery from the kneeling and prone positions. Metabolic, biomechanical, and/or subjective data were collected based on task. RESULTS: Initial analyses suggest that subjects completed all tasks with lower levels of compensation and a more terrestrial approach to movement when suspended via GIM. With SB, subjects were not able to fall or get into a prone position and had increased difficulty both retrieving objects off the floor and with overground ambulation, especially at gait initiation, because they were unable to bend their torso. GIM shows promise as a new method.

Norcross, Jason↗
NASA NTRS2006

New Directions for NASA's Advanced Life Support Program

Advanced Life Support (ALS), an element of Human Systems Research and Technology s (HSRT) Life Support and Habitation Program (LSH), has been NASA s primary sponsor of life support research and technology development for the agency. Over its history, ALS sponsored tasks across a diverse set of institutions, including field centers, colleges and universities, industry, and governmental laboratories, resulting in numerous publications and scientific articles, patents and new technologies, as well as education and training for primary, secondary and graduate students, including minority serving institutions. Prior to the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) announced on January 14th, 2004 by the President, ALS had been focused on research and technology development for long duration exploration missions, emphasizing closed-loop regenerative systems, including both biological and physicochemical. Taking a robust and flexible approach, ALS focused on capabilities to enable visits to multiple potential destinations beyond low Earth orbit. ALS developed requirements, reference missions, and assumptions upon which to structure and focus its development program. The VSE gave NASA a plan for steady human and robotic space exploration based on specific, achievable goals. Recently, the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) was chartered by NASA s Administrator to determine the best exploration architecture and strategy to implement the Vision. The study identified key technologies required to enable and significantly enhance the reference exploration missions and to prioritize near-term and far-term technology investments. This technology assessment resulted in a revised Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) technology investment plan. A set of new technology development projects were initiated as part of the plan s implementation, replacing tasks previously initiated under HSRT and its sister program, Exploration Systems Research and Technology (ESRT). The Exploration Life Support (ELS) Project, under the Exploration Technology Development Program, has recently been initiated to perform directed life support technology development in support of Constellation and the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). ELS) has replaced ALS, with several major differences. Thermal Control Systems have been separated into a new stand alone project (Thermal Systems for Exploration Missions). Tasks in Advanced Food Technology have been relocated to the Human Research Program. Tasks in a new discipline area, Habitation Engineering, have been added. Research and technology development for capabilities required for longer duration stays on the Moon and Mars, including bioregenerative system, have been deferred.

Barta, Daniel J.↗
NASA NTRS1970

The development of human factors research objectives for civil aviation

Human factors research programs which would support civil aviation and be suitable for accomplishment by NASA research centers are identified. Aviation problems formed the basis for the research program recommendations and, accordingly, problems were identified, ranked and briefly defined in an informal report to the project monitor and other cognizant NASA personnel. The sources for this problem foundation were literature reviews and extensive interviews with NASA and non-NASA personnel. An overview of these findings is presented.

Post, T. J.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Human factors: Space

The objectives are to provide a technology base for intelligent operator interfaces, especially with autonomous subsystems, and to develop a new generation of high performance space suits, gloves, and tools/end effectors to meet the requirements of advanced space missions. The technology base is intended to meet the requirements of productivity, efficiency, and safety in complex manned operations within automated onboard systems and extravehicular activities (EVA) environments. Crew station research is the first of two major areas. Development of methods for the astronaut to supervise, monitor, and evaluate the performance of robotic systems, other space subsystems, and orbital vehicles are key areas of research. The second major area is development of an EVA space suit and gloves. Emphasis in the space human factors research program is placed on technology baseline studies and development of methods, techniques, and data to support productive and safe operations by the astronaut and crew as they interface with complex systems, advance automation, and robotic assistants.

Jenkins, James P.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Notional Habitat Science Outfitting for a Lunar Surface Habitat or Mars Transit Habitat

Science outfitting is often given insufficient treatment in the development of early conceptual studies for lunar surface habitats. In some cases, only control masses and volumes are used as placeholders. In others, one science discipline may be given detailed treatment while others are largely ignored. It is not unheard of for science outfitting to be entirely forgotten in initial concept layouts. This is exacerbated by the reality that spacecraft design studies are often initiated long before science objectives have been established for any given human spaceflight destination. When those objectives later emerge, they can be difficult to accommodate if sizing studies did not allocate sufficient resources for them. A notional science outfitting can be created for virtually any human exploration habitat, however, utilizing data created by the International Space Station and Constellation programs. Biology, human research, physics, and geology science laboratories and a general-purpose work area for a lunar surface habitat will be derived using equipment identified by the Constellation-era Optimizing Science and Exploration Working Group (OSEWG) or flown on the International Space Station. Early science outfitting definition and inclusion in surface habitat sizing is critical for developing an exploration architecture that meets science needs. The mass, volume, power, and use cases associated with these notional laboratories impacts all of the habitat subsystems, habitat dimensions, hatch dimensions, logistics operations, launch vehicles and landers.

Lunar Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A PI’s Guide to Analog Research

Spaceflight Research in Analogs - Analog missions prepare us for near-future exploration to asteroids, Mars, and the moon. - Not all experiments can be done in space – there is not enough time, money, equipment, and crew time. - Measures, countermeasures, procedures, and equipment can be tested in analogs to address issues prior to flying them in space. - Ground-based analog studies are completed more quickly and less expensively. - Analogs provide conditions similar to some (but not all) conditions encountered in space - Analogs provide a more “controlled” environment, often more repeatable scenarios, and higher “n” than available in space

Analogs↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Active and Passive Head Impulse Testing of the Horizontal Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex: Exploring the Feasibility of Different Approaches for Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION: Astronauts experience a wide variety of sensorimotor disturbances primarily due to microgravity-induced vestibular adaptations during spaceflight. Head Impulse Testing (HIT) will be conducted during the Complement of Integrated Protocols for Human Exploration Research program(CIPHER) Vestibular Health study to examine changes in the horizontal vestibulo-ocular reflex in response to high-velocity head movements to detect changes in peripheral vestibular function [1,2]. However, correct interpretation will require consideration of potential artifacts and the constraints of conducting this test across different phases of the mission. Therefore, the aims of our study were to (1) examine reliability across different test operators, and (2) compare results of active (aHIT) versus passive (pHIT) approaches to evaluate the feasibility of self-administered versus operator-assisted approaches. A comparison of responses with visual viewing of a wall target (default condition) versus vision occluded evaluated the influence of other oculomotor control influence across conditions, and comparison with computer-generated rotator head impulse tests (rHIT) examined the variability associated with the ocular responses independent of the variability in executing the head movements themselves. METHODS: Seventeen non-astronaut volunteers (male n=12, age=22.9 ± 3.0; female n=5, age=27.0 ± 6.0, mean ± std) completed HIT testing using video-oculography (VOG) goggles and a high-torque rotator system. The test order was counterbalanced across conditions: (1) passive head-on-torso (pHIT, default condition for flight study) using two operators (Op1 and Op2), (2) active head-on-torso (aHIT, subject initiated), and (3) passive head and torso using rotary chair (rHIT). Eye and head movement data were processed to obtain gain in each direction. The main outcome measures were average gain and asymmetry [1], as well as the percentage of acceptable trials not excluded due to insufficient head amplitude or recording artifacts. RESULTS: While the pHIT gains were similar with vision (1.032 ± 0.043) and vision occluded (1.029 ± 0.038) conditions, the percentage of acceptable trials was greater with vision (Op1 = 93.0%, Op2 = 93.2%) versus occluded (Op1 = 70.7%, Op2 = 67.6%). The reliability between operators was greater for pHIT gain (Intraclass Correlation, ICC = 0.66, p = 0.001) than for pHIT asymmetry (ICC = 0.57, p = 0.01). The percentage of acceptable trials reduced by ~20% during the self-administered aHITs for both visual conditions and tended to be lower than computer-generated rHITs (76% versus 83%). While the aHIT gains were not significantly different than pHIT gains for vision or vision occluded conditions, these measures were poorly correlated. Both aHIT and pHIT gains were significantly greater than the rHIT gains, presumably due to the reduced velocities from the rotator. The asymmetry measures were poorly correlated across pHIT, aHIT, and rHIT conditions, although none of the subjects had asymmetries greater than 16%. DISCUSSION: Our findings support the feasibility of using the standard pHIT methodology for spaceflight. Similarities between visual conditions reflect that these responses are mediated by the peripheral lateral canals rather than other oculomotor mechanisms. The inter-tester reliability was acceptable despite differences in the tester training. In addition to concerns of non-vestibular mechanisms introduced during self-administered aHITs [2], operator-assisted pHITs resulted in higher percentage of acceptable trials and should result in more efficient and reliable measures during spaceflight.

M R Ehrenburg↗