SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
The use of cross-correlation for certain types of spectral analysis is discussed. Under certain circumstances, the use of cross-correlation between a real spectrum and either a model or another spectrum can provide a very powerful tool for spectral analysis. The method (and its limitations) will be described with concrete examples using ATMOS data.
The early Constellation space missions are expected to have medical capabilities very similar to those currently on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS). For Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) missions to ISS, medical equipment will be located on ISS, and carried into CEV in the event of an emergency. Flight Surgeons (FS) on the ground in Mission Control will be expected to direct the Crew Medical Officer (CMO) during medical situations. If there is a loss of signal and the crew is unable to communicate with the ground, a CMO would be expected to carry out medical procedures without the aid of a FS. In these situations, performance support tools can be used to reduce errors and time to perform emergency medical tasks. Work on medical training has been conducted in collaboration with the Medical Training Group at the Space Life Sciences Directorate and with Wyle Lab which provides medical training to crew members, Biomedical Engineers (BMEs), and to flight surgeons under the JSC Space Life Sciences Directorate s Bioastronautics contract. The space medical training work is part of the Human Factors in Training Directed Research Project (DRP) of the Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Project under the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP). Human factors researchers at Johnson Space Center have recently investigated medical performance support tools for CMOs on-orbit, and FSs on the ground, and researchers at the Ames Research Center performed a literature review on medical errors. The work proposed for FY10 continues to build on this strong collaboration with the Space Medical Training Group and previous research. This abstract focuses on two areas of work involving Performance Support Tools for Space Medical Operations. One area of research building on activities from FY08, involved the feasibility of just-in-time (JIT) training techniques and concepts for real-time medical procedures. In Phase 1, preliminary feasibility data was gathered for two types of prototype display technologies: a hand-held PDA, and a Head Mounted Display (HMD). The PDA and HMD were compared while performing a simulated medical procedure using ISS flight-like medical equipment. Based on the outcome of Phase 1, including data on user preferences, further testing was completed using the PDA only. Phase 2 explored a wrist-mounted PDA, and compared it to a paper cue card. For each phase, time to complete procedures, errors, and user satisfaction ratings were captured.
The important user experiments conducted during the fourteen year period from 1966 to 1980 are summarized. A description of each of the satellites and a brief summary of each user experiment is presented. A cross index of user experiments sorted by various parameters and a listing of keywords versus experiment number is included. The experiments are grouped by type of service offered; for example, education, health services, and data transmission. A bibliography of reports by accession number and by author is also presented. User viewpoints of the systems are presented.
Previous JPL ground systems have been designed with the Ground Data System (GDS) engineer in mind. The focus on these systems has been on packaging and delivery of low level information (frames, packets, telemetry values) to the end user. It was not that long ago when project teams would be huddled over a workstation, examining crude displays of telemetry bits organized in various ways, trying to determine the status of a spacecraft. Understanding the data often required additional levels of GDS expertise, or worse, transformation of the raw data into alternative formats followed by ingestion into other tools so that the data became meaningful. The primary focus was often to answer these types of questions: "Why did this particular frame fail Reed-Solomon decode? Why did this packet get marked as invalid? Why am I missing a block of telemetry from my query?" -- which are completely valid questions to ask from a GDS Engineer's point of view, and large families of tools have been designed to help answer these questions. But these are not the questions that most users care about - which are more like: "Why is the battery state of charge trending down? Show me a summary image report for the last traverse to the target. Show me a data accountability summary for the last DSN pass." Answers to these questions, which are what users are looking for, requires a higher level of abstraction and supporting tools than mining through ones and zeros. JPL has created a next generation capability called the Mission Data Processing and Control System (MPCS) which is designed to support this higher level of abstraction by providing customizable views of the ground system combining collections of lower level information into more meaningful ways. Instead of examining frames, packets, and individual telemetry data points -- MPCS is capable of providing comprehensive summary reports, product status, overall flight/ground event status, as well as payload health summaries. Based on these higher level views, end users can make tactical or strategic decisions, or drop into detailed analysis as needed. System designers need to continue building systems that support low level GDS troubleshooting - but the basic design of a GDS should be geared towards what end users actually need to see. This paper will describe the capabilities of MPCS that directly support these higher levels of abstraction, and which are being used today in missions such as the Mars Science Laboratory and other NASA missions.
The original objectives of the study consisted of five broad areas of investigation: criteria and issues for explanation of communication and tracking system anomaly detection, isolation, and recovery; data storage simplification issues for fault detection expert systems; data selection procedures for decision tree pruning and optimization to enhance the abstraction of pertinent information for clear explanation; criteria for establishing levels of explanation suited to needs; and analysis of expert system interaction and modularization. Progress was made in all areas, but to a lesser extent in the criteria for establishing levels of explanation suited to needs. Among the types of expert systems studied were those related to anomaly or fault detection, isolation, and recovery.
The Java seminar covers the fundamentals of Java programming language. No prior programming experience is required for participation in the seminar. The first part of the seminar covers introductory concepts in Java programming including data types (integer, character, ..), operators, functions and constants, casts, input, output, control flow, scope, conditional statements, and arrays. Furthermore, introduction to Object-Oriented programming in Java, relationships between classes, using packages, constructors, private data and methods, final instance fields, static fields and methods, and overloading are explained. The second part of the seminar covers extending classes, inheritance hierarchies, polymorphism, dynamic binding, abstract classes, protected access. The seminar conclude by introducing interfaces, properties of interfaces, interfaces and abstract classes, interfaces and cailbacks, basics of event handling, user interface components with swing, applet basics, converting applications to applets, the applet HTML tags and attributes, exceptions and debugging.
In a typical multi-fidelity design process, different levels of geometric abstraction are used for different analysis methods, and transitioning from one phase of design to the next often requires a complete re-creation of the geometry. To maintain consistency between lower-order and higher-order analysis results, Vehicle Sketch Pad (OpenVSP) recently introduced the ability to generate and export several degenerate forms of the geometry, representing the type of abstraction required to perform low- to medium-order analysis for a range of aeronautical disciplines. In this research, the functionality of these degenerate models was extended, so that in addition to serving as repositories for the geometric information that is required as input to an analysis, the degenerate models can also store the results of that analysis mapped back onto the geometric nodes. At the same time, the results are also mapped indirectly onto the nodes of lower-order degenerate models using a process called aggregation, and onto higher-order models using a process called disaggregation. The mapped analysis results are available for use by any subsequent analysis in an integrated design and analysis process. A simple multi-fidelity analysis process for a single-aisle subsonic transport aircraft is used as an example case to demonstrate the value of the approach.
Introduction: A scientist with experience as a sample science analyst, provider of flight hardware for multiple missions, and senior engineer in an ISO 2000-rated manufacturing plant has described the timeline of key participants in any PI-led sample return mission, the breadth of the organizations involved [1,2], and, of interest to this meeting, choosing the types of data to preserve and issues of future data accessibility. This work broadens that perspective by giving similar lessons from Genesis sample curation point-of-view. Curation participation regarding data gathering was part of the mission review process from the beginning. Genesis’ story illustrates outcome of several choices about types of data to record and preserve. Precision analysis of solar wind atoms captured in pure, ultraclean substrates is the driving science goal; therefore, detailed documentation was captured from all mission and curation phases and from investigator laboratories because these processes affect the final analytical results [3]. Pre-flight: Design and fabrication of the spacecraft. Like many modern small sample return missions, Genesis was a tightly managed team integrated across science, engineering and curation. Communication across the team was excellent, and, for the most part, the hands-on engineering technicians understood the impacts of “small choices” they routinely make, and the eyes-on oversight of manufacturing processes by scientists was mindful of details. The payload was designed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the spacecraft by Lockheed Martin. Solar wind collectors and instruments were fabricated by multiple vendors and laboratories. The main portion of the payload was assembled at JSC. Fabrication procedures and contamination-control data (with witness coupons) were stored primarily at JSC. The original composition, dimensions and configuration of components, results of thermal testing, etc. are still needed for interpretation of analytical data. At times, these must be estimated from secondary information acquired pre-flight. Moreover, some files (e.g., original 3-D models and early Powerpoint) cannot be opened using software. Archived curation data includes 2-D drawings, material usage lists, QA documentation and analyses of consumables used during fabrication. Important chemical information still resides in archived hardware, paints and lubricants, material coupons, cleaning coupons, environmental witness plates and reference materials from manufacturing facilities. Purity and cleanliness of collector substrates. Semi-conductor vendors provided surface cleanliness data and some purity data. Purity for specific elements of interest was verified by science team members in their laboratories [4]. Curation archived procurement and shipping records, analysis reports, and non-proprietary fabrication data. A physical archive of flight collector reference materials is maintained for future use so additional data can be collected as analytical techniques improve. These are of increased value due to the hard landing upon re-entry. Cleaning and cleanliness assessments of flight hardware. Cleaning of the science canister payload was performed at JSC in a dedicated ISO 4 cleanroom using ultrapure water (UPW). The cleanliness of this UPW was monitored throughout processing. The archive for the clean lab also includes airborne particle counts, airborne molecular and inorganic contamination measurements as well as cleanroom construction material coupons and witness coupons. Hardware cleanliness was assessed by particle counts in rinse water batches. This information is recorded in batch cleaning forms and logbooks, and are, perhaps, of decreased value due to the hard landing. Post-flight: Curation-generated data. The curation handling history of each Genesis sample is documented in a typical astromaterials sample database which captures sample location, physical description and characterization data. Samples have a “shelf life”. Crucial to the preservation of samples is ongoing documentation of the sample environment, initially under curatorial control but is now a separate facility function with requires coordination. PI-generated data. Data on sample characterization and cleaning techniques continues to be generated by sample users [5]. These are often captured in LPSC abstracts, but these “engineering” results often are not publishable as stand-alone papers. We are actively looking for ways to make this information more accessible to users. Ion implants into samples have aided science return and can be shared among investigators. These (and similar) materials should be added to the curatorial collection with appropriate process and characterization data generated externally. Summary: Complete data archives for returned astromaterial samples must be broad in types and formats, and inclusive of environmental monitoring.
Increasingly sophisticated applications of static analysis place increased burden on the reliability of the analysis techniques. Often, the failure of the analysis technique to detect some information my mean that the time or space complexity of the generated code would be altered. Thus, it is important to precisely characterize the power of static analysis techniques. We follow the approach of Selur et. al. who studied the power of strictness analysis techniques. Their result can be summarized by saying 'strictness analysis is perfect up to variations in constants.' In other words, strictness analysis is as good as it could be, short of actually distinguishing between concrete values. We use this approach to characterize a broad class of analysis techniques based on abstract interpretation including, but not limited to, strictness analysis. For the first-order case, we consider abstract interpretations where the abstract domain for data values is totally ordered. This condition is satisfied by Mycroft's strictness analysis that of Sekar et. al. and Wadler's analysis of list-strictness. For such abstract interpretations, we show that the analysis is complete in the sense that, short of actually distinguishing between concrete values with the same abstraction, it gives the best possible information. We further generalize these results to typed lambda calculus with pairs and higher-order functions. Note that products and function spaces over totally ordered domains are not totally ordered. In fact, the notion of completeness used in the first-order case fails if product domains or function spaces are added. We formulate a weaker notion of completeness based on observability of values. Two values (including pairs and functions) are considered indistinguishable if their observable components are indistinguishable. We show that abstract interpretation of typed lambda calculus programs is complete up to this notion of indistinguishability. We use denotationally-oriented arguments instead of the detailed operational arguments used by Selur et. al.. Hence, our proofs are much simpler. They should be useful for further future improvements.
Disclosed herein are systems, computer-implemented methods, and tangible computer-readable media for coordinating communications between a ground station, a control center, and a spacecraft. The method receives a call to a simple, unified application programmer interface implementing communications protocols related to outer space, when instruction relates to receiving a command at the control center for the ground station generate an abstract message by agreeing upon a format for each type of abstract message with the ground station and using a set of message definitions to configure the command in the agreed upon format, encode the abstract message to generate an encoded message, and transfer the encoded message to the ground station, and perform similar actions when the instruction relates to receiving a second command as a second encoded message at the ground station from the control center and when the determined instruction type relates to transmitting information to the control center.
Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable 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 challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.
The three accomplishments during this grant include: 1) Travel to 2004 Division of Planetary Science (of American Astronomical Society) Conference in Louisville, KY and presentation of Rotationally resolved spectroscopy of Vesta in the 1-4 micron region, abstract 28.07. 2) Remote observations using the IRTF on 20-21 June 2004 and 28-3 1 August 2004, and reduction of data as described in the grant proposal and descoping document. These observations confirm the presence of two different band shapes among C-class asteroid spectra in the 3-micron region. This allowed a revision of the known distribution of Ceres- and Pallas-type objects. 3) Remote observations using the IRTF on 7-10 August 2004. These observations of Vesta were presented, and the manuscript will be submitted to Icarus in June.
Recently the simplest amino acid, glycine, has been detected in interstellar clouds, ISC, although this has since been contested. In order to substantiate either of these claims, plausible routes to amino acids need to be investigated. For gas phase synthesis, the SIFT technique has been employed to study simple amino acids via ion-molecule reactions of several ions of interstellar interest with methylamine, ethylamine, formic acid, acetic acid, and methyl formate. Carboxylic acid type ions were considered in the reactions involving the amines. In reactions where the carboxylic acid and methyl formate neutrals were studied, the reactant ions were primarily amine ion fragments. It was observed that the amines and acids preferentially fragment or accept a proton whenever energetically possible. NH3(+), however, uniquely reacted with the neutrals via atom abstraction to form NH4(+). These studies yielded a body of data relevant to astrochemistry, supplementing the available literature. However, the search for gas phase routes to amino acids using conventional molecules has been frustrated. Our most recent research investigates the fragmentation patterns of several amino acids and several possible routes have been suggested for future study.
INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of 2021. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.
INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.
INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crew members and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3%) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.
Multigrid methods can be formulated as an algorithm for an abstract problem that is independent of the partial differential equation, domain, and discretization method. In such an abstract setting, problems not arising from partial differential equations can be treated. A general theory exists for linear problems. The general theory was motivated by a series of abstract solvers (Madpack). The latest version was motivated by the theory. Madpack now allows for a wide variety of iterative and direct solvers, preconditioners, and interpolation and projection schemes, including user callback ones. It allows for sparse, dense, and stencil matrices. Mildly nonlinear problems can be handled. Also, there is a fast, multigrid Poisson solver (two and three dimensions). The type of solvers and design decisions (including language, data structures, external library support, and callbacks) are discussed. Based on the author's experiences with two versions of Madpack, a better approach is proposed. This is based on a mixed language formulation (C and FORTRAN + preprocessor). Reasons for not using FORTRAN, C, or C++ (individually) are given. Implementing the proposed strategy is not difficult.
INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of the occurrences of injury during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study. Injuries are classified as either contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), and Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), and then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings. The MDRI is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI also vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it will be important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles, and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning.