Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “NASA Discipline General Space Life Sciences”

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.

80 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2008

Assessment of the NASA Astrobiology Institute

Astrobiology is a scientific discipline devoted to the study of life in the universe--its origins, evolution, distribution, and future. It brings together the physical and biological sciences to address some of the most fundamental questions of the natural world: How do living systems emerge? How do habitable worlds form and how do they evolve? Does life exist on worlds other than Earth? As an endeavor of tremendous breadth and depth, astrobiology requires interdisciplinary investigation in order to be fully appreciated and examined. As part of a concerted effort to undertake such a challenge, the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) was established in 1998 as an innovative way to develop the field of astrobiology and provide a scientific framework for flight missions. Now that the NAI has been in existence for almost a decade, the time is ripe to assess its achievements. At the request of NASA's Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), the Committee on the Review of the NASA Astrobiology Institute undertook the assignment to determine the progress made by the NAI in developing the field of astrobiology. It must be emphasized that the purpose of this study was not to undertake a review of the scientific accomplishments of NASA's Astrobiology program, in general, or of the NAI, in particular. Rather, the objective of the study is to evaluate the success of the NAI in achieving its stated goals of: 1. Conducting, supporting, and catalyzing collaborative interdisciplinary research; 2. Training the next generation of astrobiology researchers; 3. Providing scientific and technical leadership on astrobiology investigations for current and future space missions; 4. Exploring new approaches, using modern information technology, to conduct interdisciplinary and collaborative research among widely distributed investigators; and 5. Supporting outreach by providing scientific content for use in K-12 education programs, teaching undergraduate classes, and communicating directly with the public. The committee s assessment of the NAI's progress in these five areas is presented in Chapters 2 to 6, respectively.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2000

Hardware Development Process for Human Research Facility Applications

The simple goal of the Human Research Facility (HRF) is to conduct human research experiments on the International Space Station (ISS) astronauts during long-duration missions. This is accomplished by providing integration and operation of the necessary hardware and software capabilities. A typical hardware development flow consists of five stages: functional inputs and requirements definition, market research, design life cycle through hardware delivery, crew training, and mission support. The purpose of this presentation is to guide the audience through the early hardware development process: requirement definition through selecting a development path. Specific HRF equipment is used to illustrate the hardware development paths. The source of hardware requirements is the science community and HRF program. The HRF Science Working Group, consisting of SCientists from various medical disciplines, defined a basic set of equipment with functional requirements. This established the performance requirements of the hardware. HRF program requirements focus on making the hardware safe and operational in a space environment. This includes structural, thermal, human factors, and material requirements. Science and HRF program requirements are defined in a hardware requirements document which includes verification methods. Once the hardware is fabricated, requirements are verified by inspection, test, analysis, or demonstration. All data is compiled and reviewed to certify the hardware for flight. Obviously, the basis for all hardware development activities is requirement definition. Full and complete requirement definition is ideal prior to initiating the hardware development. However, this is generally not the case, but the hardware team typically has functional inputs as a guide. The first step is for engineers to conduct market research based on the functional inputs provided by scientists. CommerCially available products are evaluated against the science requirements as well as modifications needed to meet program requirements. Options are consolidated and the hardware development team reaches a hardware development decision point. Within budget and schedule constraints, the team must decide whether or not to complete the hardware as an in-house, subcontract with vendor, or commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) development. An in-house development indicates NASA personnel or a contractor builds the hardware at a NASA site. A subcontract development is completed off-site by a commercial company. A COTS item is a vendor product available by ordering a specific part number. The team evaluates the pros and cons of each development path. For example, in-bouse developments utilize existing corporate knowledge regarding bow to build equipment for use in space. However, technical expertise would be required to fully understand the medical equipment capabilities, such as for an ultrasound system. It may require additional time and funding to gain the expertise that commercially exists. The major benefit of subcontracting a hardware development is the product is delivered as an end-item and commercial expertise is utilized. On the other hand, NASA has limited control over schedule delays. The final option of COTS or modified COTS equipment is a compromise between in-house and subcontracts. A vendor product may exist that meets all functional requirements but req uires in-house modifications for successful operation in a space environment. The HRF utilizes equipment developed using all of the paths described: inhouse, subcontract, and modified COTS.

Bauer, Liz↗
NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors, Habitability and Environmental Health and the Human Integration Design Handbook

For decades, Space Life Sciences and NASA as an Agency have considered NASA-STD-3000, Man-Systems Integration Standards, a significant contribution to human spaceflight programs and to human-systems integration in general. The document has been referenced in numerous design standards both within NASA and by organizations throughout the world. With research program and project results being realized, advances in technology and new information in a variety of topic areas now available, the time arrived to update this extensive suite of requirements and design information. During the past several years, a multi-NASA center effort has been underway to write the update to NASA-STD-3000 with standards and design guidance that would be applicable to all future human spaceflight programs. NASA-STD-3001 - Volumes 1 and 2 - and the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH) were created. Volume 1, Crew Health, establishes NASA s spaceflight crew health standards for the pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight phases of human spaceflight. Volume 2, Human Factors, Habitability and Environmental Health, focuses on the requirements of human-system integration and how the human crew interacts with other systems, and how the human and the system function together to accomplish the tasks for mission success. The HIDH is a compendium of human spaceflight history and knowledge, and provides useful background information and research findings. And as the HIDH is a stand-alone companion to the Standards, the maintenance of the document has been streamlined. This unique and flexible approach ensures that the content is current and addresses the fundamental advances of human performance and human capabilities and constraints research. Current work focuses on the development of new sections of Volume 2 and collecting updates to the HIDH. The new sections in development expand the scope of the standard and address mission operations and support operations. This effort is again collaboration with representatives from the Johnson Space Center Missions Operations and Space Life Sciences Directorates and the Engineering Directorate from Kennedy Space Center as well as discipline experts from across the Agency.

Houbec, Keith↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Observatory Implementation and Challenges

NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (Roman), previously referred to as Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), was named after Dr. Nancy Grace Roman, an astronomer and NASA pioneer of modern space-based astronomy who is known as the “mother of the Hubble Space Telescope”. Roman is a deep space infrared observatory with a Hubble-sized telescope and wide field of view instrument (greater than 100 times that of Hubble’s) that will conduct a high latitude time-domain survey, a high latitude imaging and spectroscopic survey, and a galactic bulge time-domain survey to characterize dark energy and expand the census of exoplanets in our galaxy while allowing a broad range of astrophysics research. Roman will also demonstrate exoplanet coronagraphy with active wave front control technology and provide general investigator programs for the science community. Roman is finishing the critical design phase and is planning for launch in 2026. It will operate in a quasi-halo orbit about Sun-Earth L2, 1.5 million kilometers from Earth, for a five-year primary mission life. The Observatory features an Optical Telescope Assembly with an existing, repurposed 2.4m primary mirror, a Wide Field Instrument with a focal plane array comprised of 18 HgCdTe near-infrared detectors and a grism, prism and filter elements for imaging and spectroscopy in support of the primary surveys, as well as a Coronagraph instrument technology demonstration with starlight suppression technology for direct imaging and spectroscopy of exoplanets. The telescope is mounted to the Instrument Carrier composite truss structure which also optically meters each instrument, includes a Launch Load and Vibration Isolation System to provide passive isolation of spacecraft jitter sources while also supporting the payload during launch and is attached to the Spacecraft Bus. The Spacecraft also includes a Solar Array Sunshield ,Deployable Aperture Cover, Lower Instrument Sunshade, High Gain Antenna System, and Outer Barrel Assembly. Figure 1 shows an overview of the Roman Observatory. When fully integrated, Roman will be the largest Observatory assembled and tested at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Figure 1. Roman Observatory Overview Development of scientific satellites is challenging by nature, as the pursuit to broaden scientific knowledge always pushes the boundary of what has come before. The implementation of the Roman mission is a prime example and expected challenges have been augmented by the foundational decision to use the existing telescope components, developed in the early 2000s by another Government agency for a different application. Other unique aspects of the Roman mission, such as its survey nature, the vast amount of data required to meet science objectives, and packaging of the Observatory elements around the existing telescope components, create constrained design spaces that drive competing requirements across Observatory subsystems. Given these challenges, systems engineering has been a critical discipline in balancing implementation decisions for the Roman mission and will continue to play a key role going forward. This paper will discuss details of the Roman Observatory configuration, as well as some of the systems engineering challenges and the decision-making process used to mature the Roman Space Telescope preliminary design to implementation.

Lisa Ml Bartusek↗
NASA NTRS2002

Work and fatigue characteristics of unsuited and suited humans during isolated isokinetic joint motions

The effects of a pressurized suit on human performance were investigated. The suit is known as an Extra-Vehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) and is worn by astronauts while working outside their spacecraft in a low earth orbit. Isolated isokinetic joint torques of three female and three male subjects (all experienced users of the suit in 1G gravity) were measured while working at 100% and 80% of their maximum voluntary torque (MVT, which is synonymous with maximum voluntary contraction (MVC)). It was found that the average decrease in the total amount of work (the sum of the work in each repetition until fatigue) done when the subjects were wearing the EMU were 48% and 41% while working at 100% and 80% MVT, respectively. There is a clear relationship between the MVT and the time and amount of work done until fatigue. Here, the time to fatigue is defined as the ending time of the repetition for which the computed work done during that repetition dropped below 50% of the work done during the first repetition. In general the stronger joints took longer to fatigue and did more work than the weaker joints. It was found that the EMU decreases the work output at the wrist and shoulder joints the most, due to the EMU joint geometry. The EMU also decreased the joint range of motion. The average total amount of work done by the test subjects increased by 5.2% (20.4%) for the unsuited (suited) case, when the test subjects decreased the level of effort from 100% to 80% MVT. Also, the average time to fatigue increased by 9.2% (25.6%) for the unsuited (suited) case, when the test subjects decreased the level of effort from 100% to 80% MVT. It was also found that the experimentally measured torque decay could be predicted by a logarithmic equation. The absolute average errors in the predictions were found to be 18.3% and 18.9% for the unsuited and suited subjects, respectively, when working at 100% MVT, and 22.5% and 18.8% for the unsuited and suited subjects, respectively, when working at 80% MVT. These results could be very useful in the design of future EMU suits and the planning of Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) for the future International Space Station assembly operations.

NASA Discipline Life Sciences Technologies↗
NASA NTRS1995

The effects of spaceflight on open-loop and closed-loop postural control mechanisms: human neurovestibular studies on SLS-2

Stabilogram-diffusion analysis was used to examine how prolonged periods in microgravity affect the open-loop and closed-loop postural control mechanisms. It was hypothesized that following spaceflight: (1) the effective stochastic activity of the open-loop postural control schemes in astronauts is increased; (2) the effective stochastic activity and uncorrelated behavior, respectively, of the closed-loop postural control mechanisms in astronauts are increased; and (3) astronauts utilized open-loop postural controls schemes for shorter time intervals and smaller displacements. Four crew members and two alternates from the 14-day Spacelab Life Sciences 2 Mission were included in the study. Each subject was tested under eyes-open, quiet-standing conditions on multiple preflight and postflight days. The subjects' center-of-pressure trajectories were measured with a force platform and analyzed according to stabilogram-diffusion analysis. It was found that the effective stochastic activity of the open-loop postural control schemes in three of the four crew members was increased following spaceflight. This result is interpreted as an indication that there may be in-flight adaptations to higher-level descending postural control pathways, e.g., a postflight increase in the tonic activation of postural muscles. This change may also be the consequence of a compensatory (e.g., "stiffening") postural control strategy that is adopted by astronauts to account for general feeling of postflight unsteadiness. The crew members, as a group, did not exhibit any consistent preflight/postflight differences in the steady-state behavior of their closed-loop postural control mechanisms or in the functional interaction of their open-loop and closed-loop postural control mechanisms. These results are interpreted as indications that although there may be in-flight adaptations to the vestibular system and/or proprioceptive system, input from the visual system can compensate for such changes during undisturbed stance.

NASA Program Flight↗
NASA NTRS2000

Thermoregulation and heat exchange in a nonuniform thermal environment during simulated extended EVA. Extravehicular activities

BACKGROUND: Nonuniform heating and cooling of the body, a possibility during extended duration extravehicular activities (EVA), was studied by means of a specially designed water circulating garment that independently heated or cooled the right and left sides of the body. The purpose was to assess whether there was a generalized reaction on the finger in extreme contradictory temperatures on the body surface, as a potential heat status controller. METHOD: Eight subjects, six men and two women, were studied while wearing a sagittally divided experimental garment with hands exposed in the following conditions: Stage 1 baseline--total body garment inlet water temperature at 33 degrees C; Stage 2--left side inlet water temperature heated to 45 degrees C; right side cooled to 8 degrees C; Stage 3--left side inlet water temperature cooled to 8 degrees C, right side heated to 45 degrees C. RESULTS: Temperatures on each side of the body surface as well as ear canal temperature (Tec) showed statistically significant Stage x Side interactions, demonstrating responsiveness to the thermal manipulations. Right and left finger temperatures (Tfing) were not significantly different across stages; their dynamic across time was similar. Rectal temperature (Tre) was not reactive to prevailing cold on the body surface, and therefore not informative. Subjective perception of heat and cold on the left and right sides of the body was consistent with actual temperature manipulations. CONCLUSIONS: Tec and Tre estimates of internal temperature do not provide accurate data for evaluating overall thermal status in nonuniform thermal conditions on the body surface. The use of Tfing has significant potential in providing more accurate information on thermal status and as a feedback method for more precise thermal regulation of the astronaut within the EVA space suit.

Non-NASA Center↗
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↗