Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Number of Crew”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2001

Evolution of telemedicine in the space program and earth applications

Remote monitoring of crew, spacecraft, and environmental health has always been an integral part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) operations. Crew safety and mission success face a number of challenges in outerspace, including physiological adaptations to microgravity, radiation exposure, extreme temperatures and vacuum, and psychosocial reactions to space flight. The NASA effort to monitor and maintain crew health, system performance, and environmental integrity in space flight is a sophisticated and coordinated program of telemedicine combining cutting-edge engineering with medical expertise. As missions have increased in complexity, NASA telemedicine capabilities have grown apace, underlying its role in the field. At the same time, the terrestrial validation of telemedicine technologies to bring healthcare to remote locations provides feedback, improvement, and enhancement of the space program. As NASA progresses in its space exploration program, astronauts will join missions lasting months, even years, that take them millions of miles from home. These long-duration missions necessitate further technological breakthroughs in tele-operations and autonomous technology. Earth-based monitoring will no longer be real-time, requiring telemedicine capabilities to advance with future explorers as they travel deeper into space. The International Space Station will serve as a testbed for the telemedicine technologies to enable future missions as well as improve the quality of healthcare delivery on Earth.

long duration↗
NASA NTRS2010

Flight Crew Health Stabilization Program

This document establishes the policy and procedures for the HSP and is authorized through the Director, Johnson Space Center (JSC). This document delineates the medical operations requirements for the HSP. The HSP goals are accomplished through an awareness campaign and procedures such as limiting access to flight crewmembers, medical screening, and controlling flight crewmember activities. NASA's Human Space Flight Program uses strategic risk mitigation to achieve mission success while protecting crew health and safety. Infectious diseases can compromise crew health and mission success, especially in the immediate preflight period. The primary purpose of the Flight Crew Health Stabilization Program (HSP) is to mitigate the risk of occurrence of infectious disease among astronaut flight crews in the immediate preflight period. Infectious diseases are contracted through direct person-to-person contact, and through contact with infectious material in the environment. The HSP establishes several controls to minimize crew exposure to infectious agents. The HSP provides a quarantine environment for the crew that minimizes contact with potentially infectious material. The HSP also limits the number of individuals who come in close contact with the crew. The infection-carrying potential of these primary contacts (PCs) is minimized by educating them in ways to avoid infections and avoiding contact with the crew if they are or may be sick. The transmission of some infectious diseases can be greatly curtailed by vaccinations. PCs are strongly encouraged to maintain updated vaccinations.

Johnston, Smith L.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Spaceflight Microbiology: Benefits for Long Duration Spaceflight and Our Understanding of Microorganisms on Earth

Spaceflight microbiology is composed of both operational and experimental components that complement each other in our understanding of microbial interactions and their responses in the microgravity of spaceflight. Operationally, efforts to mitigate microbiological risk to the crew and the spacecraft have historically focused on minimizing the number of detectable organisms, relying heavily on preventative measures, including appropriate vehicle design, crew quarantine prior to flight, and stringent microbial monitoring. Preflight monitoring targets have included the astronauts, spaceflight foods, potable water systems, the vehicle air and surfaces, and the cargo carried aboard the spacecraft. This approach has been very successful for earlier missions; however, the construction and long-term habitation of the International Space Station (ISS) has created the need for additional inflight monitoring of the environment and potable water systems using hardware designed for both in-flight microbial enumeration and sample collection and return to Earth. In addition to operational activities, the ISS is providing a research platform to advance our understanding of microbiomes in the built environment. Adding to the research possibilities of this system are multiple reports of unique changes in microbial gene expression and phenotypic responses, including virulence and biofilm formation, in response to spaceflight culture. The tremendous potential of the ISS research platform led the National Research Council to recommend that NASA utilize the ISS as a microbial observatory. Collectively, the findings from operational and research activities on the ISS are expected to both enable future space exploration and translate to basic and applied research on Earth.

Ott, C. Mark↗
NASA NTRS1983

Space-station crew-safety requirements

Baseline rescue and survival concepts for future space station crews are described. Preliminary studies are being carried out to identify potential threats to crew safety and means to counteract the dangers. Significant factors being considered include the type of threat, the warning time, the number of crewmembers, strategies for protection of the crew (including life-support measures redundancy), and the dependence of space station crews on ground personnel. Attention is being given to the impact of safety devices on the space station geometry and cost, as well as the equipment necessary to maintain the crew in a psychological status positive enough to cope with emergencies. Typical threats would be fire, crewmember illness or injury, and abandonment of the station. A Shuttle launch could take up to 12 days, while equipping the space station with an emergency return capsule would permit return on the same day as the capsule was occupied.

Witcofski, R. D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Habitable Working and Living Spaces in the Deep Space Science Vessel

The Deep Space Science Vessel (DSSV) is a conceptual design of a very large spacecraft intended as a mobile microgravity science platform. It represents an effort to conceptualize the systems and internal architectures needed to support a forty-eight-person crew for multi-year missions throughout the inner solar system and potentially beyond. The general arrangement of the DSSV is a modular spacecraft. Considering only the pressurized, habitable elements, the DSSV includes two large pressurized modules (Hab and Lab) docked together along with eight smaller node modules completing the habitable configuration. The Hab and Lab modules are docked side by side, with the longitudinal axes parallel to each other and a single docking port connecting them. A node module is docked to each dome on the Hab and Lab modules, such that the two small node modules on each end of the large Hab and Lab domes are docked both to each other and to the Hab and Lab. This creates a “racetrack” translation path on the interior. The other four node modules are docked at the center of the Hab and Lab modules, two on each side, creating another “racetrack” translation path perpendicular to the first one. The DSSV has a generally vertical orientation. Within the Hab and Lab modules the decks are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. The node modules are oriented with their longitudinal axes perpendicular to those of the Hab and Lab modules, so the nodes have a horizontal internal orientation. Decks are numbered one through nine, with decks two and eight representing the “top” and “bottom” domes of the Hab and Lab modules. The Hab Module decks encompass the ship’s galley, crew quarters, waste, hygiene, portions of crew exercise, and group recreation. The Lab Module contains food production facilities, the life science lab, the ship’s infirmary, the physical science lab, and the maintenance and fabrication workshop. The Node Modules serve a number of different functions. The two Exercise Nodes are docked to deck five of both the Hab and Lab modules and contain most of the aerobic and resistive exercise devices. Also docked to deck five but on the opposite side of the Hab and Lab modules are the Observation Deck and Space Café. These two node modules provide social gathering space for small numbers of crew. The Mission Operations Node is on deck nine directly above the Galley and contains spacecraft monitoring and commanding capabilities. Docked to it is the EVA Operations Node, which contains suit maintenance and storage. (The airlock is a separate, external element docked to the EVA Operations Node.) The Subsystems Node is on deck one beneath the maintenance and fabrication workshop. Docked to it is the Stowage Node. This node does not house DSSV primary stowage, but is a staging point where stowage brought in from logistics modules can be sorted, unpacked, or repacked as needed prior to distribution to the appropriate sections of the spacecraft.

Deep Space Habitat↗
NASA NTRS1971

The effects of spacecraft environments on some hydrolytic enzyme patterns in bacteria

The effects of space flight on the production and characteristics of proteolytic enzymes are studied for a number of bacterial species isolated from crew members and spacecraft. Enzymatic make-up and cultural characteristics of bacteria isolated from spacecraft crew members are determined. The organism Aeromonas proteolytica and the proteolytic enzymes which it produces are used as models for future spacecraft experiments.

Prescott, J. M.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Tektite 2 habitability research program: Day-to-day life in the habitat

Because it is widely agreed that the field of environmental psychology is quite young, it was determined that a sample of recorded observations from a representative mission should be included in the report on Tektite to give the professional reader a better feeling of normal day-to-day life in the isolated habitat. Names of the crew members have been replaced with numbers and some off-color words have been replaced by more acceptable slang; some remarks have been omitted that might lead to easy identification of the subjects. Otherwise, the following pages are exactly as transcribed during the late afternoons and the evenings of the mission.

Nowlis, D. P.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Crew factors in flight operations. Part 3: The operational significance of exposure to short-haul air transport operations

Excessive flightcrew fatigue has potentially serious safety consequences. Laboratory studies have implicated fatigue as a causal factor associated with varying levels of performance deterioration depending on the amount of fatigue and the type of measure utilized in assessing performance. These studies have been of limited utility because of the difficulty of relating laboratory task performance to the demands associated with the operation of a complex aircraft. The performance of 20 volunteer twin-jet transport crews is examined in a full-mission simulator scenario that included most aspects of an actual line operation. The scenario included both routine flight operations and an unexpected mechanical abnormality which resulted in a high level of crew workload. Half of the crews flew the simulation within two to three hours after completing a three-day, high-density, short-haul duty cycle (Post-Duty condition). The other half flew the scenario after a minimum of three days off duty (Pre-Duty) condition). The results revealed that, not surprisingly, Post-Duty crews were significantly more fatigued than Pre-Duty crews. However, a somewhat counter-intuitive pattern of results emerged on the crew performancemeasures. In general, the performance of Post-Duty crews was significantly better than that of Pre-Duty crews, as rated by an expert observer on a number of dimensions relevant to flight safety. Analyses of the flightcrew communication patterns revealed that Post-Duty crews communicated significantly more overall, suggesting, as has previous research, that communication is a good predictor of overall crew performance.

Foushee, H. C.↗
NASA NTRS1991

User modeling techniques for enhanced usability of OPSMODEL operations simulation software

The PC based OPSMODEL operations software for modeling and simulation of space station crew activities supports engineering and cost analyses and operations planning. Using top-down modeling, the level of detail required in the data base can be limited to being commensurate with the results required of any particular analysis. To perform a simulation, a resource environment consisting of locations, crew definition, equipment, and consumables is first defined. Activities to be simulated are then defined as operations and scheduled as desired. These operations are defined within a 1000 level priority structure. The simulation on OPSMODEL, then, consists of the following: user defined, user scheduled operations executing within an environment of user defined resource and priority constraints. Techniques for prioritizing operations to realistically model a representative daily scenario of on-orbit space station crew activities are discussed. The large number of priority levels allows priorities to be assigned commensurate with the detail necessary for a given simulation. Several techniques for realistic modeling of day-to-day work carryover are also addressed.

Davis, William T.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Haughton-Mars Project (HMP)/NASA 2006 Lunar Medical Contingency Simulation: An Overview

Medical requirements are currently being developed for NASA's space exploration program. Lunar surface operations for crews returning to the moon will be performed on a daily basis to conduct scientific research and construct a lunar habitat. Inherent to aggressive surface activities is the potential risk of injury to crew members. To develop an evidence-base for handling medical contingencies on the lunar surface, a simulation project was conducted using the moon-Mars analog environment at Devon Island, Nunavut, high Canadian Arctic. A review of the Apollo lunar surface activities and personal communications with Apollo lunar crew members provided a knowledge base of plausible scenarios that could potentially injure an astronaut during a lunar extravehicular activity. Objectives were established to 1) demonstrate stabilization, field extraction and transfer an injured crew member to the habitat and 2) evaluate audio, visual and biomedical communication capabilities with ground controllers at multiple mission control centers. The simulation project s objectives were achieved. Among these objectives were 1) extracting a crew member from a sloped terrain by a two-member team in a 1-g analog environment, 2) establishing real-time communication to multiple space centers, 3) providing biomedical data to flight controllers and crew members, and 4) establishing a medical diagnosis and treatment plan from a remote site. The simulation project provided evidence for the types of equipment and methods needed for planetary space exploration. During the project, the crew members were confronted with a number of unexpected scenarios including environmental, communications, EVA suit, and navigation challenges. These trials provided insight into the challenges of carrying out a medical contingency in an austere environment. The knowledge gained from completing the objectives of this project will be incorporated into the exploration medical requirements involving an incapacited astronaut on the lunar surface.

Scheuring, R. A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Aerothermal Anchoring of CBAERO Using High Fidelity CFD

The Configuration Based Aerodynamics (CBAERO) software package is used to predict the convective and radiative heating environments for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). A limited number of high fidelity CFD solutions are used to "anchor" the engineering level estimates obtained using CBAERO.

Kinney, David J.↗
NASA NTRS2009

The Effect of Center of Gravity and Anthropometrics on Human Performance in Simulated Lunar and Mars Gravity

Drawing from the experiences of the Apollo missions, it is evident that the off nominal center of gravity (CG) induced by the portable life support system (PLSS) had significant impact on the locomotion stability of the crew. This in turn is believed to have been a major contributor to the high numbers of falls and high metabolic rates experienced by the crew, and thus significantly hampered the crew s performance. With this in mind, the EVA Physiology, Systems and Performance (EPSP) group at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) has been conducting tests to assess how spacesuit CG location impacts human performance in simulated lunar and Mars gravity. The results acquired to date show correlations between CG location and performance. However, noticeable variations in the performance data have been observed across subjects for fixed CG configurations. Consequently, it was hypothesized that this variability may be attributed to the anthropometrics of the different test subjects. It was further hypothesized that trunk-to-height ratio (THR) may be directly correlated to performance in reduced gravity; i.e. subjects with increased THR may have increased performance. To test this hypothesis, lunar and Mars gravity test data acquired over three years during NASA Neural Buoyancy Lab (NBL) tests and NASA Extreme Environment Missions Operation (NEEMO) missions were analyzed against THR, height, trunk length, and subject body mass/weight. The results of the study supported the hypothesis relating THR and performance, while the other three anthropometric parameters did not provide consistent correlations with performance. This in turn suggests that human performance in reduced gravity may be more dependent on anthropometric proportions than on body segment lengths and mass/weight.

Mulugeta, Lealem↗
NASA NTRS2010

Three Years of on Orbit ISS Oxygen Generation System Operation 2007-2010

The International Space Station (ISS) United States Orbital Segment (USOS) Oxygen Generation System (OGS) has accumulated 240 days of continuous operation at varied oxygen production rates within the US Laboratory Module (LAB) since it was first activated in July 2007. OGS relocated from the ISS LAB to Node 3 during 20A Flight (February 2010). The OGS rack delivery was accelerated for on-orbit checkout in the LAB, and it was launched to ISS in July of 2006. During the on-orbit checkout interval within the LAB from July 2007 to October 2008, OGS operational times were limited by the quantity of feedwater in a Payload Water Reservoir (PWR) bag. Longer runtimes are now achievable due to the continuous feedwater availability after ULF2 delivery and activation of the USOS Water Recovery System (WRS) racks. OGS is considered a critical function to maintaining six crew capability. There have been a number of failures which interrupted or threatened to interrupt oxygen production. Filters in the recirculation loop have clogged and have been replaced, Hydrogen sensors have fallen out of specifications, a pump delta pressure sensor failed, a pump failed to start, and the voltage on the cell stack increased out of tolerance. This paper will discuss the operating experience and characteristics of the OGS, as well as operational issues and their resolution.

Diderich, Greg S.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Autonomous Mission Operations Roadmap

As light time delays increase, the number of such situations in which crew autonomy is the best way to conduct the mission is expected to increase. However, there are significant open questions regarding which functions to allocate to ground and crew as the time delays increase. In situations where the ideal solution is to allocate responsibility to the crew and the vehicle, a second question arises: should the activity be the responsibility of the crew or an automated vehicle function? More specifically, we must answer the following questions: What aspects of mission operation responsibilities (Plan, Train, Fly) should be allocated to ground based or vehicle based planning, monitoring, and control in the presence of significant light-time delay between the vehicle and the Earth?How should the allocated ground based planning, monitoring, and control be distributed across the flight control team and ground system automation? How should the allocated vehicle based planning, monitoring, and control be distributed between the flight crew and onboard system automation?When during the mission should responsibility shift from flight control team to crew or from crew to vehicle, and what should the process of shifting responsibility be as the mission progresses? NASA is developing a roadmap of capabilities for Autonomous Mission Operations for human spaceflight. This presentation will describe the current state of development of this roadmap, with specific attention to in-space inspection tasks that crews might perform with minimum assistance from the ground.

Mission Operations↗
NASA NTRS2012

Issues and Design Drivers for Deep Space Habitats

A cross-disciplinary team of scientists and engineers applied expertise gained in Lunar Lander development to the conceptual design of a long-duration, deep space habitat for Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) missions. The design reference mission involved two launches to assemble 5-modules for a 380-day round trip mission carrying 4 crew members. The conceptual design process yielded a number of interesting debates, some of which could be significant design drivers in a detailed Deep Space Habitat (DSH) design. These issues included: Design to minimize crew radiation exposure, launch loads, communications challenges, docking system and hatch commonality, pointing and visibility, consumables, and design for contingency operations.

Rucker, Michelle A.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Crew Resource Management for Automated Teammates (CRM-A)

Crew Resource Management (CRM) is the application of human factors knowledge and skills to ensure that teams make effective use of all resources. This includes ensuring that pilots bring in opinions of other teammates and utilize their unique capabilities. CRM was originally developed 40 years ago in response to a number of airline accidents in which the crew was found to be at fault. The goal was to improve teamwork among airline cockpit crews. The notion of "team" was later expanded to include cabin crew and ground resources. CRM has also been adopted by other industries, most notably medicine. Automation research now finds itself faced with similar issues to those faced by aviation 40 years ago: how to create a more robust system by making full use of both the automation and its human operators. With advances in machine intelligence, processing speed and cheap and plentiful memory, automation has advanced to the point that it can and should be treated as a teammate to fully take advantage of its capabilities and contributions to the system. This area of research is known as Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT). Research on HAT has identified reusable patterns that can be applied in a wide range of applications. These patterns include features such as bi-directional communication and working agreements. This paper will explore the synergies between CRM and HAT. We believe that HAT research has much to learn from CRM and that there are benefits to expanding CRM to cover automation.

Crew Resource Management↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗