Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Dormancy”

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 91 records · Page 5

To Biocide or not to Biocide? Exploring the "No Biocide" Option in Spacecraft Potable Water Systems

Residual biocide has been used to protect against microbial growth in spacecraft potable water systems since the Gemini program. Iodine, the biocide currently used on the International Space Station (ISS) has a long history of use but presents a few challenges for exploration: it must be removed using a consumable absorbent before crew consumption and is known to lose its biocidal concentration due to interactions with wetted components, especially during periods of dormancy. Biocidal silver is being considered for exploration missions as it is safe for crew consumption, but it too has challenges with proper material design to maintain sufficient disinfection residuals. An idea proposed by some in the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) community has been that the biocide does not provide a true barrier against microbial growth, and therefore, perhaps the challenges of maintaining a residual biocide in the system could be best overcome by removing the biocide altogether. In this argument, they point to the regenerative water treatment system on the ISS which produces high purity water that theoretically meets the microbiological requirements before the iodine is added. Exploration water processing systems are expected to have similar water processing capabilities. This paper will discuss the role that residual biocide may play in controlling microbial growth and presents perspectives on the potential risks associated with removing it from exploration water systems.

biocide↗

Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) System Options for Mars Transit and Mars Surface Missions

The NASA led Artemis campaign will take humanity back to the Moon and serve as an analog for continued deep space exploration to Mars. Artemis utilizes crewed vehicles and habitats on both the Lunar surface and in Lunar orbit. The exploration of the Lunar surface and buildup of a basecamp is meant to be a “Mars forward” approach to testing and refining new technologies and techniques for living and working far outside of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and preparing for future Mars missions. The Lunar Surface Habitat is planned as a primary element for long duration crew habitation on the Moon and will be the primary testbed for ECLS system hardware in a partial gravity environment. The Mars Transit Habitat will be the crew vehicle for the roundtrip from Earth to Mars and spend a significant amount of time docked to the Gateway outfitting and testing its systems prior to making the first Mars mission transit. The Mars Transit Habitat will utilize closed loop ECLS system technologies while a Mars Surface Habitat could use either open loop, closed loop, or a mix of both. Better understanding the needs of both these system architectures operating for extended periods in the Lunar environment and outside LEO will help to establish the ECLS system architecture for the future Mars surface mission. There are many aspects to consider such as length of crew stay, level of autonomy and dormancy between crewed missions, power requirements, system mass, and overall system reliability and maintainability. Other considerations will include Mars gravity vs. Lunar gravity, Mars atmospheric pressure vs. hard vacuum, and possible use of in-situ resource utilization.

ECLSS↗

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

To Biocide or Not to Biocide? Exploring the "No Biocide" Option in Spacecraft Potable Water Systems

Residual biocide has been used to protect against microbial growth in spacecraft potable water systems since the Gemini program. Iodine, the biocide currently used on the International Space Station (ISS) has a long history of use but presents a few challenges for exploration: it must be removed using a consumable absorbent before crew consumption and is known to lose its biocidal concentration due to interactions with wetted components, especially during periods of dormancy. Biocidal silver is being considered for exploration missions as it is safe for crew consumption, but it too has challenges with proper material design to maintain sufficient disinfection residuals. An idea proposed by some in the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) community has been that the biocide does not provide a true barrier against microbial growth, and therefore, perhaps the challenges of maintaining a residual biocide in the system could be best overcome by removing the biocide altogether. In this argument, they point to the regenerative water treatment system on the ISS which produces high purity water that theoretically meets the microbiological requirements before the iodine is added. Exploration water processing systems are expected to have similar water processing capabilities. This paper will discuss the role that residual biocide may play in controlling microbial growth and presents perspectives on the potential risks associated with removing it from exploration water systems.

biocide↗

Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) System Options for Mars Transit and Mars Surface Missions

The NASA led Artemis campaign will take humanity back to the Moon and serve as an analog for continued deep space exploration to Mars. Artemis utilizes crewed vehicles and habitats on both the Lunar surface and in Lunar orbit. The exploration of the Lunar surface and buildup of a basecamp is meant to be a “Mars forward” approach to testing and refining new technologies and techniques for living and working far outside of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and preparing for future Mars missions. The Lunar Surface Habitat is planned as a primary element for long duration crew habitation on the Moon and will be the primary testbed for ECLS system hardware in a partial gravity environment. The Mars Transit Habitat will be the crew vehicle for the roundtrip from Earth to Mars and spend a significant amount of time docked to the Gateway outfitting and testing its systems prior to making the first Mars mission transit. The Mars Transit Habitat will utilize closed loop ECLS system technologies while a Mars Surface Habitat could use either open loop, closed loop, or a mix of both. Better understanding the needs of both these system architectures operating for extended periods in the Lunar environment and outside LEO will help to establish the ECLS system architecture for the future Mars surface mission. There are many aspects to consider such as length of crew stay, level of autonomy and dormancy between crewed missions, power requirements, system mass, and overall system reliability and maintainability. Other considerations will include Mars gravity vs. Lunar gravity, Mars atmospheric pressure vs. hard vacuum, and possible use of in-situ resource utilization.

ECLSS↗

Potential Biofilm Control Strategies for Extended Spaceflight Missions

Biofilms, surface-adherent microbial communities, are associated with microbial fouling and corrosion in terrestrial water-distribution systems. Biofilms are also present in human spaceflight, particularly in the Water Recovery System (WRS) on the International Space Station (ISS). The WRS is comprised of the Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) and the Water Processor Assembly (WPA) which together recycles wastewater from human urine and recovered humidity from the ISS atmosphere. These wastewaters and various process streams are continually inoculated with microorganisms primarily arising from the space crew microbiome. Biofilm-related fouling has been encountered and addressed in spacecraft in low Earth orbit, including ISS and the Russian Mir Space Station. However, planned future missions beyond low Earth orbit to the Moon and Mars present additional challenges, as resupplying spare parts or support materials would be impractical and the mission timeline would be in the order of years in the case of a mission to Mars. In addition, future missions are expected to include a period of dormancy in which the WRS would be unused for an extended duration. The concepts developed in this review arose from a workshop including NASA personnel and representatives with biofilm expertise from a wide range of industrial and academic backgrounds. Here, we address current strategies that are employed on Earth for biofilm control, including antifouling coatings and biocides and mechanisms for mitigating biofilm growth and damage. These ideas are presented in the context of their applicability to spaceflight and identify proposed new topics of biofilm control that need to be addressed in order to facilitate future extended, crewed, spaceflight missions.

Luis Zea↗

To Biocide or Not to Biocide? Exploring the "No Biocide" Option in Spacecraft Potable Water Systems

Residual biocide has been used to protect against microbial growth in spacecraft potable water systems since the Gemini program. Iodine, the biocide currently used on the International Space Station (ISS) has a long history of use but presents a few challenges for exploration: it must be removed using a consumable absorbent before crew consumption and is known to lose its biocidal concentration due to interactions with wetted components, especially during periods of dormancy. Biocidal silver is being considered for exploration missions as it is safe for crew consumption, but it too has challenges with proper material design to maintain sufficient disinfection residuals. An idea proposed by some in the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) community has been that the biocide does not provide a true barrier against microbial growth, and therefore, perhaps the challenges of maintaining a residual biocide in the system could be best overcome by removing the biocide altogether. In this argument, they point to the regenerative water treatment system on the ISS which produces high purity water that theoretically meets the microbiological requirements before the iodine is added. Exploration water processing systems are expected to have similar water processing capabilities. This paper will discuss the role that residual biocide may play in controlling microbial growth and presents perspectives on the potential risks associated with removing it from exploration water systems.

biocide↗

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Crew Health and Performance Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NextSTEP Appendix A Modular ECLSS Effort Lessons Learned

NASA’s Artemis program provides the first steps for earth-independent exploration starting with crewed habitats in cislunar space and progressing toward crewed landings on the lunar surface that will prepare systems and crews for the exploration of Mars. The Next Space Technology for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) is a public-private partnership model that facilitates commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities in support of more extensive human spaceflight missions in and beyond cislunar space. NASA issued the original NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) to U.S. industry in late 2014 and issued the second BAA (NextSTEP-2) in April 2016. The first appendix under NextSTEP-2, Appendix A, focused on developing deep space habitation concepts, engineering design and development, and risk reduction efforts leading to a habitation capability in cislunar space. NASA solicited concepts to develop and refine the evolvable, modular architecture, functional allocation options, standards, and common interfaces required to enable interoperability of the aggregate system to provide long duration deep space transit habitation, specifically enhancements and testing of deep space Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS). Collins Aerospace, formerly UTC Aerospace Systems (UTAS), was awarded a Phase 1 and subsequent Phase 2 contract to “develop concepts that group ECLS systems into logical modules maximizing the use of common components and the development of unique methods and design concepts that support in-flight maintenance and repair for future exploration systems.” This paper summarizes the work accomplished under this effort, the lessons that can be applied to development of forthcoming habitation elements, and the gaps remaining to achieve a more resilient, maintainable, repairable and adaptable system capable of installation on a wide variety of habitat platforms. A primary accomplishment of this effort is the development and maturation of a modular palletization concept to enable standard rack interfaces, post-launch outfitting, and decoupling of structural supports that withstand launch environments from those needed for lower on-orbit loads in order to reduce installed mass and repurposing of panels within the habitat. In the course of the effort, Collins assessed numerous architecture trades, including the use of condensing and noncondensing heat exchangers, the ability of modular units to accommodate various habitat volumes and thermal loading, and the most appropriate order of and timing of delivery of regenerative ECLSS hardware to orbital habitats. In addition to the modularity of hardware elements, Collins developed software approaches for distributed/modular command, control, and communication systems and innovative Bayesian fault detection and isolation techniques. Finally, the effort explored advanced maintainability and supportability concepts including the definition of maintenance units (MUs) in place of the traditional Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs), increasing parts commonality to reduce the number and type of spare parts, the use of augmented reality to guide crews during maintenance and repair procedures, and how crews would prepare for and recover from long durations of habitat dormancy. Now that the NextSTEP Modular ECLSS effort has come to a close, it’s important to identify the lessons learned and where they can be leveraged to improve NASA’s broader program of ECLSS technology development and demonstration and ultimately how they can increase the performance of future surface and orbital habitats.

NextSTEP↗

NextSTEP Appendix A Modular ECLSS Effort Lessons Learned

NASA’s Artemis program provides the first steps for earth-independent exploration starting with crewed habitats in cislunar space and progressing toward crewed landings on the lunar surface that will prepare systems and crews for the exploration of Mars. The Next Space Technology for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) is a public-private partnership model that facilitates commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities in support of more extensive human spaceflight missions in and beyond cislunar space. NASA issued the original NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) to U.S. industry in late 2014 and issued the second BAA (NextSTEP-2) in April 2016. The first appendix under NextSTEP-2, Appendix A, focused on developing deep space habitation concepts, engineering design and development, and risk reduction efforts leading to a habitation capability in cislunar space. NASA solicited concepts to develop and refine the evolvable, modular architecture, functional allocation options, standards, and common interfaces required to enable interoperability of the aggregate system to provide long duration deep space transit habitation, specifically enhancements and testing of deep space Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS). Collins Aerospace, formerly UTC Aerospace Systems (UTAS), was awarded a Phase 1 and subsequent Phase 2 contract to “develop concepts that group ECLS systems into logical modules maximizing the use of common components and the development of unique methods and design concepts that support in-flight maintenance and repair for future exploration systems.” This paper summarizes the work accomplished under this effort, the lessons that can be applied to development of forthcoming habitation elements, and the gaps remaining to achieve a more resilient, maintainable, repairable and adaptable system capable of installation on a wide variety of habitat platforms. A primary accomplishment of this effort is the development and maturation of a modular palletization concept to enable standard rack interfaces, post-launch outfitting, and decoupling of structural supports that withstand launch environments from those needed for lower on-orbit loads in order to reduce installed mass and repurposing of panels within the habitat. In the course of the effort, Collins assessed numerous architecture trades, including the use of condensing and noncondensing heat exchangers, the ability of modular units to accommodate various habitat volumes and thermal loading, and the most appropriate order of and timing of delivery of regenerative ECLSS hardware to orbital habitats. In addition to the modularity of hardware elements, Collins developed software approaches for distributed/modular command, control, and communication systems and innovative Bayesian fault detection and isolation techniques. Finally, the effort explored advanced maintainability and supportability concepts including the definition of maintenance units (MUs) in place of the traditional Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs), increasing parts commonality to reduce the number and type of spare parts, the use of augmented reality to guide crews during maintenance and repair procedures, and how crews would prepare for and recover from long durations of habitat dormancy. Now that the NextSTEP Modular ECLSS effort has come to a close, it’s important to identify the lessons learned and where they can be leveraged to improve NASA’s broader program of ECLSS technology development and demonstration and ultimately how they can increase the performance of future surface and orbital habitats.

NextSTEP↗

Overview of Crew Operations for Transit to Mars

Crewed Mars missions are estimated to be 700-1,200 days in length which is two to three times longer than any continuous human spaceflight mission to date. When architecting a Mars mission there are numerous resources that must be considered, evaluated, and planned for, including—but not limited to—mass, cost, performance, and risk. Crew time is a limited resource that will need to be appropriately allocated during future Mars missions. NASA’s “Moon to Mars Objectives” specifically recognizes as Recurring Tenets the need to return crews safely to Earth while mitigating adverse impacts to crew health and maximizing crew time available for science and engineering activities within planned mission durations. Crew operations and the crew time allocation for a Mars missions will likely be different than current operational planning aboard the ISS due to communication delays, crew health and performance needs, transportation system needs, potential vehicle dormancy, and mass ejection. Crew will need to operate much more Earth independently and potentially be responsible for more operations since traditional Earth ground support will be delayed. Incidents requiring immediate crew action will therefore either be the responsibility of the crew or an automated feature of the transit vehicle. This paper discusses the operational challenges of a Mars transit mission and the associated activities that will need to take place during each operational phase of transit to and from Mars.

Crew Time↗

Overview of Crew Operations for Transit to Mars

Crewed Mars missions are estimated to be 700-1,200 days in length which is two to three times longer than any continuous human spaceflight mission to date. When architecting a Mars mission there are numerous resources that must be considered, evaluated, and planned for, including—but not limited to—mass, cost, performance, and risk. Crew time is a limited resource that will need to be appropriately allocated during future Mars missions. NASA’s “Moon to Mars Objectives” specifically recognizes as Recurring Tenets the need to return crews safely to Earth while mitigating adverse impacts to crew health and maximizing crew time available for science and engineering activities within planned mission durations. Crew operations and the crew time allocation for a Mars missions will likely be different than current operational planning aboard the ISS due to communication delays, crew health and performance needs, transportation system needs, potential vehicle dormancy, and mass ejection. Crew will need to operate much more Earth independently and potentially be responsible for more operations since traditional Earth ground support will be delayed. Incidents requiring immediate crew action will therefore either be the responsibility of the crew or an automated feature of the transit vehicle. This paper discusses the operational challenges of a Mars transit mission and the associated activities that will need to take place during each operational phase of transit to and from Mars.

Crew Time↗

Microbial Adaptation to Spaceflight Is Correlated With Bacteriophage-Encoded Functions

Evidence from the International Space Station suggests microbial populations are rapidly adapting to the spacecraft environment; however, the mechanism of this adaptation is not understood. Bacteriophages are prolific mediators of bacterial adaptation on Earth. Here we survey 245 genomes sequenced from bacterial strains isolated on the International Space Station for dormant (lysogenic) bacteriophages. Our analysis indicates phage-associated genes are significantly different between spaceflight strains and their terrestrial counterparts. Additionally, we identify 283 complete prophages, those that could initiate bacterial lysis and infect additional hosts, of which 21% are novel. These prophage regions encode functions that correlate with increased persistence in extreme environments, such as spaceflight, to include antimicrobial resistance and virulence, DNA damage repair, and dormancy. Our results correlate microbial adaptation in spaceflight to bacteriophage-encoded functions that may impact human health in spaceflight.

Space Biology↗

Gateway Integrated Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Overview and Status

The Gateway comprised of modules provided by commercial and international partners will be a lunar orbiting platform that is a critical element in the Moon to Mars architecture. Of the 4 modules that comprise the Gateway, the core Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) is provided by the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) module provided by NASA, and the International Habitat (I-Hab) provided by the European Space Agency (ESA) with the ECLSS provided by the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA). These modules work together to provide pressure control, air revitalization, and air conditioning capabilities for the Gateway integrated habitable volumes and attached visiting vehicles during open hatch crewed operations. Individually, they maintain the internal atmosphere during the long periods of dormancy between crewed operations to support payload operations and ensure a safe environment when the crew returns. Additionally, NASA bolsters crew survivability by providing government furnished equipment (GFE) to support crew survival in the face of catastrophic hazards (such as fire or a cabin air leak) until the Gateway stack reaches a point in the orbit where crew can safely abort on Orion. This paper explains the key driving requirements, architecture, and development status of the Gateway ECLSS.

Gateway↗

Metabolic Suppression: A Promising Solution to Unlock the Future of Space Travel

Space tourism is no longer a distant dream but a present-day reality, with current excursions consisting of suborbital jaunts, and near future excursions to including lunar expeditions and, eventually, trips to Mars. Beneath the allure of weightlessness and cosmic views, however, lies a set of serious health risks for space travelers, including muscle and bone issues, heart problems, and cognitive impairment. In this mini review, we delve into the topic of metabolic suppression, an innovative approach to mitigating the deleterious effects of space travel that has been proposed for astronauts that may be appropriate for space tourists as well. Drawing inspiration from the survival strategies observed in hibernating animals and often depicted in sci-fi narratives where crews are in “suspended animation” throughout most of the voyage, this method involves inducing a reversible state of dormancy, akin to torpor, in human space travelers. The objective of metabolic suppression is to safeguard space travelers from the adverse impacts of extended exposure to microgravity and space radiation on long duration expeditions, so that on arrival at their destination, they can be healthy and ready to go. We shed light on ongoing research endeavors led by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency (ESA), and other prominent organizations dedicated to investing in and advancing metabolic suppression technologies for professional space travel, that may also enable space tourism to ever more distant destinations

Space Tourism↗

Silver Electrolysis for Disinfection of Spacecraft Potable Water: 2024 Update

Anodic dissolution of silver electrodes, or “silver electrolysis,” is being investigated as a means of introducing biocidal silver into potable water on exploration spacecraft. This paper provides an update on the effort to implement this technology into a spacecraft potable water system. Previous papers reported on the feasibility of the technology for this application, strategies to prevent a potential fault condition termed “electrode bridging,” results from a preliminary investigation into the cathode reaction, and preliminary multiphysics modeling of the reactor. Since then, work has begun on the design of a next-generation silver electrolysis reactor prototype that will incorporate improvements identified in previous testing and package the reactor in a more flight-like configuration. This development effort has included additional testing to optimize the reactor design for prevention of electrode bridging, further investigation into the cathode reaction (including the use of a dissolved hydrogen sensor), and an assessment of the feasibility of using the reactor in other applications, such as for microbial shock and preparation for system dormancy.

silver biocide↗

Modeling Logistics and Supportability for Crewed Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit

NASA’s future missions aim to establish a sustained human presence on the lunar surface and send humans to Mars. These missions will send crews farther from home than previous missions, limiting the opportunities for resupply missions. Additionally, the use of multiple launches and reusable elements will increase mission and campaign complexity. Logistics and supportability analysis evaluates the link between mission and system characteristics and key metrics such as logistics and spares mass and volume, crew time, and risk. As missions become increasingly complex and crews are logistically isolated for longer periods of time, logistics and supportability will become more powerful drivers of risk and cost and, therefore, more important considerations during system and mission development. When logistics and supportability are considered from the beginning of system and mission development, opportunities arise to create more efficient, lower-risk systems. Design choices made without detailed consideration of logistics and supportability have the potential to result in greater risks and increased costs as all options may not have been analyzed. This paper provides an overview of a methodology used for space mission logistics and supportability analysis, including key metrics, assumptions, and required inputs. Example applications of this methodology to explore the impacts of system architecture, dormancy, and synergies between lunar and Mars missions are also presented. Conducting these holistic analyses enables informed decision-making for mission planning and system design, which can help mitigate the risk of loss of mission, vehicle, or crew. Using the knowledge of historical missions, experiences gained on the lunar surface, and logistics and supportability analyses, NASA can examine and optimize supportability characteristics for safer and more effective operations for future lunar and Mars missions.

Supportability↗

A Historical Review of Logistics Mass and Crew Time Demands for ISS Operations

Following over 20 years of continuously crewed operations on the International Space Station (ISS), NASA is planning to return to the Moon and eventually send humans to Mars. ISS operations provide vital data to inform mission analysts as NASA prepares for longer and more complex missions with increased mission endurance. Endurance, defined as crewed operating time between cargo deliveries (or crew launch and return to Earth), is an important metric when analyzing mission needs. NASA is developing architectures to support sustained deep-space habitats in cislunar space, the lunar surface, Mars transit, and the surface of Mars. Unlike the ISS, these systems will not be continuously crewed, and unlike the Space Shuttle, these systems will not return to Earth for regular refurbishment between missions. Lunar systems will routinely go through long uncrewed periods between crewed missions. The systems on board will need to survive these dormancy periods with no crew present to provide maintenance. Mars systems will experience significantly longer endurance than past experience. Additionally, the inability to have quick aborts to return to Earth increases the need for system reliability, redundancy, and maintainability, as well as plans for contingency operations. This paper examines the historical logistics and crew time demand for ISS operations and mission objectives and provides an overview of missions to the ISS over its operating history, the mass and items delivered with the missions, and the crew time spent during missions. These parameters provide insight and valuable data to inform logistics and crew time estimates for future long-endurance crewed exploration missions.

Crew Logistics↗