Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Station occupancy”

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

Controlling hazardous energy sources (lockout/tagout)

The minimum requirements as established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard 29 CFR 1910.147 are discussed for preventing the unexpected operation of equipment or release of energy which could cause injury to personnel, damage to equipment, harm to the environment, or loss or compromise of test data. Safety requirements both for government and contractor personnel are explained for potentially hazardous energy sources during work operations at LeRC (Cleveland and Plum Brook Stations). Basic rules are presented to ensure protection against harmful exposures, and baseline implementation requirements are discussed from which detailed lockout/tagout procedures can be developed for individual equipment items. Examples of energy sources covered by this document include electrical, pneumatic, mechanical, chemical, cryogenic, thermal, spring tension/compression suspended or moving loads, and other potentially hazardous sources. Activities covered by this standard include, but are not limited to, construction, maintenance, installation, calibration, inspection, cleaning, or repair.

Dominguez, Manuel B.↗

A Review of Baseline Assumptions and Ersatz Waste Streams for Partial Gravity Habitats and Orbiting Micro-gravity Habitats

Highly efficient water management and recovery systems will be required to support human missions beyond the low Earth orbit of the International Space Station (ISS). A review of baseline assumptions for the human activities and associated water cycle in surface, partial gravity habitats and orbiting, microgravity habitats is conducted. The paper reviews and updates ersatz formulations and water flow rates for the main liquid water waste streams of urine, humidity condensate, hygiene, and laundry. Development of a new framework is recommended to coordinate advancement and commonalities of water recovery systems for 30- day crew occupancies under partial gravity with longer term, continuous occupancy in surface or orbiting microgravity habitats and the Mars transit habitat.

Dean Leslie Muirhead↗

Pharmacy in a New Frontier - The First Five Years at the Johnson Space Center Pharmacy

A poster entitled "Space Medicine - A New Role for Clinical Pharmacists" was presented in December 2001 highlighting an up-and-coming role for pharmacists at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. Since that time, the operational need for the pharmacy profession has expanded with the administration s decision to open a pharmacy on site at JSC to complement the care provided by the Flight Medicine and Occupational Medicine Clinics. The JSC Pharmacy is a hybrid of traditional retail and hospital pharmacy and is compliant with the ambulatory care standards set forth by the Joint Commission. The primary charge for the pharmacy is to provide medication management for JSC. In addition to providing ambulatory care for both clinics, the pharmacists also practice space medicine. A pharmacist had been involved in the packing of both the Space Shuttle and International Space Station Medical Kits before the JSC Pharmacy was established; however, the role of the pharmacist in packing medical kits has grown. The pharmacists are now full members of the operations team providing consultation for new drug delivery systems, regulations, and patient safety issues. As the space crews become more international, so does the drug information provided by the pharmacists. This presentation will review the journey of the JSC Pharmacy as it celebrated its five year anniversary in April of 2008. The implementation of the pharmacy, challenges to the incorporation of the pharmacy into an existing health-care system, and the current responsibilities of a pharmacist at the Johnson Space Center will be discussed.

Bayuse, Tina↗

Radiological health risks to astronauts from space activities and medical procedures

Radiation protection standards for space activities differ substantially from those applied to terrestrial working situations. The levels of radiation and subsequent hazards to which space workers are exposed are quite unlike anything found on Earth. The new more highly refined system of risk management involves assessing the risk to each space worker from all sources of radiation (occupational and non-occupational) at the organ level. The risk coefficients were applied to previous space and medical exposures (diagnostic x ray and nuclear medicine procedures) in order to estimate the radiation-induced lifetime cancer incidence and mortality risk. At present, the risk from medical procedures when compared to space activities is 14 times higher for cancer incidence and 13 times higher for cancer mortality; however, this will change as the per capita dose during Space Station Freedom and interplanetary missions increases and more is known about the risks from exposure to high-LET radiation.

Peterson, Leif E.↗

Proceedings from the 1998 Occupational Health Conference: Benchmarking for Excellence

The theme of the 1998 NASA Occupational Health Conference was "Benchmarking for Excellence." Conference participants included NASA and contractor Occupational Health professionals, as well as speakers from NASA, other Federal agencies and private companies. Addressing the Conference theme, speakers described new concepts and techniques for corporate benchmarking. They also identified practices used by NASA, other Federal agencies, and by award winning programs in private industry. A two-part Professional Development Course on workplace toxicology and indoor air quality was conducted a day before the Conference. A program manager with the International Space Station Office provided an update on station activities and an expert delivered practical advice on both oral and written communications. A keynote address on the medical aspects of space walking by a retired NASA astronaut highlighted the Conference. Discipline breakout sessions, poster presentations, and a KSC tour complemented the Conference agenda.

G Wyckliffe Hoffler↗

The Standardization of In-space and Surface Docking Systems

The International Docking System Standard (IDSS) was developed and establish to aid on-orbit crew rescue and joint operations between different spacecraft. For the International Space Station (ISS), the IDSS has successfully enabled Global interoperability for Commercial Crew and it is now being extended to the Artemis campaign. Similarly, as more companies, agencies, and nations announce their intentions to explore and occupy Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Cis-Lunar space, including the Lunar surface, it is a natural supposition that new, vehicle interface standards will be required to support the build-up of infrastructure for campaign-based exploration or permanent occupation by national and multi-national Agencies, Industries, and Companies. A surface version of the IDSS, a.k.a. IDSS-Surface (IDSS-S), is under consideration at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) by the docking discipline leads responsible for the leadership of technical development and negotiation of the original IDSS over a decade ago. The IDSS-S, like its predecessor, will ultimately detail the physical geometric mating interface and design load requirements to ensure physical interoperability and to support a broad set of design reference missions which, if accommodated, increases the probability of successful Lunar surface docking between different modules enabling the accessibility and inclusivity required for multi-national, sustainable Lunar exploration.

Docking↗

Deep Space Storm Shelter Simulation Study

Missions outside of Earth's magnetic field are impeded by the presence of radiation from galactic cosmic rays and solar particle events. To overcome this issue, NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Radiation Works Storm Shelter (RadWorks) has been studying different radiation protective habitats to shield against the onset of solar particle event radiation. These habitats have the capability of protecting occupants by utilizing available materials such as food, water, brine, human waste, trash, and non-consumables to build short-term shelters. Protection comes from building a barrier with the materials that dampens the impact of the radiation on astronauts. The goal of this study is to develop a discrete event simulation, modeling a solar particle event and the building of a protective shelter. The main hallway location within a larger habitat similar to the International Space Station (ISS) is analyzed. The outputs from this model are: 1) the total area covered on the shelter by the different materials, 2) the amount of radiation the crew members receive, and 3) the amount of time for setting up the habitat during specific points in a mission given an event occurs.

Dugan, Kathryn↗

Southern California Water Resources: Using NASA Earth Observations to Monitor Seagrass Extent and Water Quality Parameters in Southern California

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a species of submerged aquatic vegetation found in shallow bays and estuaries with soft seafloors. Eelgrass is recognized for providing ecosystem benefits, such as carbon sequestration, sediment stabilization, water clarification, and fish and wildlife habitats. However, eelgrass is impacted by both marine and terrestrial threats associated with climate change. In this project, we worked with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service, and the State of California San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board to investigate water quality parameters (i.e., chlorophyll-a concentration, sea surface temperature, and turbidity) associated with eelgrass in Newport Bay and Mission Bay, California. The team used Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager and Thermal Infrared Sensor, Landsat 9 Operational Land Imager-2 and Thermal Infrared Sensor-2, Sentinel-2 MultiSpectral Instrument, and ECOsystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment on Space Station land surface temperature and cloud mask to create a time series of these water quality parameters from 2019–2023. We found that the parameters followed cyclical, seasonal patterns with turbidity and sea surface temperature peaking in the summer. We did not find that the parameters had changed significantly over longer time periods. These results will be used in a model developed by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project to assess eelgrass ecosystem health and predict ecosystem occupancy in the future.

Katya Beener↗

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

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.

N Newby↗

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

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.

N Newby↗

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

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.

N Newby↗

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

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.

P Greenhalgh↗

Station Program Note Pull Automation

Upon commencement of my internship, I was in charge of maintaining the CoFR (Certificate of Flight Readiness) Tool. The tool acquires data from existing Excel workbooks on NASA's and Boeing's databases to create a new spreadsheet listing out all the potential safety concerns for upcoming flights and software transitions. Since the application was written in Visual Basic, I had to learn a new programming language and prepare to handle any malfunctions within the program. Shortly afterwards, I was given the assignment to automate the Station Program Note (SPN) Pull process. I developed an application, in Python, that generated a GUI (Graphical User Interface) that will be used by the International Space Station Safety & Mission Assurance team here at Johnson Space Center. The application will allow its users to download online files with the click of a button, import SPN's based on three different pulls, instantly manipulate and filter spreadsheets, and compare the three sources to determine which active SPN's (Station Program Notes) must be reviewed for any upcoming flights, missions, and/or software transitions. Initially, to perform the NASA SPN pull (one of three), I had created the program to allow the user to login to a secure webpage that stores data, input specific parameters, and retrieve the desired SPN's based on their inputs. However, to avoid any conflicts with sustainment, I altered it so that the user may login and download the NASA file independently. After the user has downloaded the file with the click of a button, I defined the program to check for any outdated or pre-existing files, for successful downloads, to acquire the spreadsheet, convert it from a text file to a comma separated file and finally into an Excel spreadsheet to be filtered and later scrutinized for specific SPN numbers. Once this file has been automatically manipulated to provide only the SPN numbers that are desired, they are stored in a global variable, shown on the GUI, and transferred over to a new Excel worksheet for comparison. I managed to get my application to acquire the CSWG (Computer Safety Working Group) and the SPNWG (Space Station Working Group) SPN's with just two mouse clicks for each pull, as opposed to several from the original process. When all three pulls are performed, an Excel sheet containing all three different results will be generated for the user to compare and determine which SPN's will be presented or reviewed the following month. The experience from this internship has been spectacular. As a high school senior who will begin attending college in the fall, this internship has been both educationally and occupationally beneficial. The internship has allowed me the opportunities to learn new programming languages, effectively network with NASA personnel from a variety of departments at JSC, and allowed me to learn new professional skills and etiquette. My internship at NASA's Johnson Space Center has further motivated me to pursue a Master's degree in Software Engineering and strive for a prosperous career with NASA as a civil servant.

Delgado, Ivan↗

Learning electric vehicle driver range anxiety with an initial state of charge-oriented gradient boosting approach

This manuscript focuses on the modeling of electric vehicle (EV) driver’s range anxiety, a fear that a vehicle does not have sufficient range, or state of charge (SOC) of the battery pack, to reach its destination and would strand its occupants. Despite numerous research studies on the modeling of charging behaviors, modeling efforts to understand at what battery percentages do EV drivers charge their vehicles, and what are the associated contributing factors, are rather limited. To this end, an ensemble learning model based on gradient boosting is developed. The model sequentially fits new predictors to new residuals of the previous prediction and, then, minimizes the loss when adding the latest prediction. A total of 18 features are defined and extracted from the multisource data, which cover information on driver, vehicles, stations, traffic conditions, as well as spatial-temporal context information of the charging events. The analyzed dataset includes 4.5-year’s charging event log data from 3,096 users and 468 public charging stations in Kansas City Missouri, and the macroscopic travel demand model maintained by the metropolitan planning organization. Here, the result shows the proposed model achieved a satisfactory result with a R square value of 0.54 and root mean square error of 0.14, both better than multiple linear regression model and random forest model. To reduce range anxiety, it is suggested that the priorities of deploying new charging facilities should be given to the areas with higher daily traffic prediction, with more conservative EV users or that are further from residential areas.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Historic Significance and Current Condition Assessment of Building 06-CP-170, the Yucca Flat Weather Station, Area 6, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

This report was produced in partial fulfillment of the mitigation of adverse effects to Building 06-CP-170, the Yucca Flat Weather Station on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), and is intended to comply with the 2021 Memorandum of Agreement DE-GM58-21NA25543 Between the U.S. Department of Energy and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Demolition of Fourteen Buildings and Structures in Area 6 of the Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada (hereafter referred to as the MOA). This MOA was executed to resolve adverse effects from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plan to demolish 14 architectural resources at the Control Point and in the vicinity in Area 6 of the NNSS. The management and operations contractor for the NNSS identified these 14 architectural resources as environmental hazards unsafe for human occupation due to deterioration and rodent infestation. Building 06-CP-170 is scheduled for demolition as part of this undertaking. Building 06-CP-170 was originally recorded in 2018 during a Section 106 cultural resources inventory for a proposed installation of a 138-kilovolt transmission line on the NNSS. The building was determined individually eligible by the DOE, in consultation with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under the Secretary of the Interior’s Significance Criterion A because of its association with nuclear testing. Pursuant to Stipulation III.D.3 of the MOA, this report provides a summary of the historic significance of Building 06-CP-170 and a description of its current condition and accessory resources. In addition, an updated Architectural Resource Assessment (ARA) form with new information and photographs is included in the appendix in fulfillment of Stipulation III.D.2.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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↗

Improving Bone-Health Monitoring in Astronauts: Recommended Use of Quantitative Computed Tomography [QCT] for Clinical and Operational Decisions by NASA

DXA measurement of areal bone mineral density [aBMD,g/cm2] is required by NASA for assessing skeletal integrity in astronauts. Due to the abundance of population-based data that correlate hip and spine BMDs to fragility fractures, BMD is widely applied as a predictor of fractures in the general aging population. In contrast, QCT is primarily a research technology that measures three-dimensional , volumetric BMD (vBMD,mg/cm3) of bone and is therefore capable of differentiating between cortical and trabecular components. Additionally, when combined with Finite Element Modeling [FEM], a computational tool, QCT data can be used to estimate the whole bone strength of the hip [FE strength] for a specific load vector. A recent report demonstrated that aBMD failed to correlate with incurred changes in FE strength (for fall and stance loading) by astronauts over typical 180-day ISS (International Space Station) missions. While there are no current guidelines for using QCT data in clinical practice, QCT increases the understanding of how bone structure and mineral content are affected by spaceflight and recovery on Earth. In order to understand/promote/consider the use of QCT, NASA convened a panel of clinicians specializing in osteoporosis. After reviewing the available, albeit limited, medical and research information from long-duration astronauts (e.g., data from DXA, QCT, FEM, biochemistry analyses, medical records and in-flight exercise performance) the panelists were charged with recommending how current and future research data and analyses could inform clinical and operational decisions. The Panel recommended that clinical bone tests on astronauts should include QCT (hip and lumbar spine) for occupational risk surveillance and for the estimation of whole hip bone strength as derived by FEM. FE strength will provide an improved index that NASA could use to select astronauts of optimal bone health for extended duration missions, for repeat missions or for specific mission operations.

Sibonga, J. D.↗

Monitoring and Modeling Astronaut Occupational Radiation Exposures in Space: Recent Advances

In 1982 astronauts were declared to be radiation workers by OSHA, and as such were subject to the rules and regulations applied to that group. NASA was already aware that space radiation was a hazard to crewmembers and had been studying and monitoring astronaut doses since 1962 at the Johnson Space Center. It was quickly realized NASA would not be able to accomplish all of its goals if the astronauts were subject to the ground based radiation worker limits, and thus received a waiver from OSHA to establish independent limits. As part of the stipulation attached to setting new limits, OSHA included a requirement to perform preflight dose projections for each crew and inform them of the associated risks. Additional requirements included measuring doses from various sources during the flight, making every effort to prevent a crewmember from exceeding the new limits, and keeping all exposures As Low As Reasonably Achievable (a.k.a. ALARA - a common health physics principle). The assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) and its initial manned operations will coincide with the 4-5 year period of high space weather activity at the next maximum in the solar cycle. For the first time in NASA's manned program, US astronauts will be in orbit continuously throughout a solar maximum period. During this period, crews are at risk of significantly increased radiation exposures due to solar particle events and trapped electron belt enhancements following geomagnetic storms. The problem of protecting crews is compounded by the difficulty of providing continuous real-time monitoring over a period of a decade in an era of tightly constrained budgets. In order to prepare for ISS radiological support needs, the NASA Space Radiation Analysis Group and the NOAA Space Environment Center have undertaken a multiyear effort to improve and automate ground-based space weather monitoring systems and real-time radiation analysis tools. These improvements include a coupled, automated space weather monitoring and alarm system--SPE exposure analysis system, an advanced space weather data distribution and display system, and a high-fidelity space weather simulation system. In addition, significant new real-time space weather data sets, which will enhance the forecasting and now-casting of near-Earth space environment conditions, are being made available through unique NASA-NOAA-USAF collaborations. These new data sets include coronal mass ejection monitoring by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and in-situ plasma and particle monitoring at the L1 libration point by the Solar Wind Monitor (SWIM) and Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft. Advanced real-time radiation monitoring data from charged particle telescopes and tissue equivalent proportional counters will also be available to assist crew and flight controllers in monitoring the external and intravehicular radiation environment.

Weyland, Mark↗