Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “home”

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

Risk Tolerance and Safety Culture: Minimizing the Risk of Catastrophe by Bringing the Lessons of Space Home

The Johnson Space Center has pursued integrating safety culture and risk management practices and techniques throughout a large organization with an extraordinarily diverse mission. Past mission and institutional failures have been used to inform NASA's safety culture and a implement a uniform risk management environment. Basics from the loss prevention industry have influenced NASA's approach to sustaining its unique, yet aging, infrastructure. Lessons learned at NASA can augment and enhance occupational safety, health and risk management capabilities within hazardous industries. By focusing on risk informed decision-making, building a pervasive safety culture, and accommodating human factors, NASA's safety capabilities have been specifically developed to minimize the risk of loss of life and loss of mission.

Mishap↗

Generation of Precision Stimuli for Web-based and At-home Psychophysics

This oral presentation will present methods for “linearizing” a display to enable the delivery of precisely controlled stimuli in vision experiments, performing colorimetric calibrations using common objects, and testing for spatial and temporal nonlinearities.

visual display calibration↗

Protecting Our Home Planet With SmallSats

This presentation provides an overview the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Science Mission Directorate’s (SMD’s) Small Satellite missions that protect and improve life on earth and in space. In recent years, Small Satellites offer a path to new types of observations for Earth and space science. NASA recognizes the value and impact of Small Satellites, from CubeSats to ESPA-class satellites, for high-value science missions to support exploration through innovative technologies. With smaller size, lower cost, more rapid solicitation, and with constellation missions, our Small Satellite missions can perform targeted science, prove out new technologies, increase our science capabilities to add to our understanding of how we can improve life on earth and in space. Our Small Satellites missions have produced synchronic, high spatial, and temporal science measurements to our changing earth, demonstrating that such missions must be part of our platforms for unique science measurements. We are also able to educate and train the next generation of scientists and engineers by means of these high-risk lower-cost missions.

SmallSats↗

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗

Mobile Router Developed and Tested

The NASA Glenn Research Center, under a NASA Space Act Agreement with Cisco Systems, has been performing joint networking research to apply Internet-based technologies and protocols to space-based communications. As a result of this research, NASA performed stringent performance testing of the mobile router, including the interaction of routing and the transport-level protocol. In addition, Cisco Systems developed the mobile router for both commercial and Government markets. The code has become part of the Cisco Systems Internetworking Operating System (IOS) as of release 12.2 (4) T--which will make this capability available to the community at large. The mobile router is software code that resides in a network router and enables entire networks to roam while maintaining connectivity to the Internet. This router code is pertinent to a myriad of applications for both Government and commercial sectors, including the "wireless battlefield." NASA and the Department of Defense will utilize this technology for near-planetary observation and sensing spacecraft. It is also a key enabling technology for aviation-based information applications. Mobile routing will make it possible for information such as weather, air traffic control, voice, and video to be transmitted to aircraft using Internet-based protocols. This technology shows great promise in reducing congested airways and mitigating aviation disasters due to bad weather. The mobile router can also be incorporated into emergency vehicles (such as ambulances and life-flight aircraft) to provide real-time connectivity back to the hospital and health-care experts, enabling the timely application of emergency care. Commercial applications include entertainment services, Internet protocol (IP) telephone, and Internet connectivity for cruise ships, commercial shipping, tour buses, aircraft, and eventually cars. A mobile router, which is based on mobile IP, allows hosts (mobile nodes) to seamlessly "roam" among various IP subnetworks. This is essential in many wireless networks. A mobile router, unlike a mobile IP node, allows entire networks to roam. Hence, a device connected to the mobile router does not need to be a mobile node because the mobile router provides the roaming capabilities. There are three basic elements in the mobile IP: the home agent, the foreign agent, and the mobile node. The home agent is a router on a mobile node's home network that tunnels datagrams for delivery to the mobile node when it is away from home. The foreign agent is a router on a remote network that provides routing services to a registered mobile node. The mobile node is a host or router that changes its point of attachment from one network or subnetwork to another. In mobile routing, virtual communications are maintained by the home agent, which forwards all packets for the mobile networks to the foreign agent. The foreign agent passes the packets to the mobile router, which then forwards the packets to the devices on its networks. As the mobile router moves, it will register with its home agent on its whereabouts via the foreign agent to assure continuous connectivity.

Ivancic, William D.↗

The Timing of Noise-Sensitive Activities in Residential Areas

Data from a nationally representative survey of time use was analyzed to provide estimates of the percentage of the population which is engaged in noise sensitive activities during each hour of the day on weekdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Estimates are provided of the percentage engaged in aural communication activities at home, sleeping at home, or simply at home. The day can be roughly divided into four noise sensitivity periods consisting of two relatively steady state periods, night and day and the early morning and evening transition periods. Weekends differ from weekdays in that the morning transition period is one hour later and the numbers of people engaged in aural communication during the day at home are approximately one-half to three-quarters greater. The extent and timing of noise sensitive activities was found to be similiar for all parts of the United States, for different sizes of urban areas, and for the three seasons surveyed (September through May). The timing of activity periods does not differ greatly by sex or age even though women and people over 65 are much more likely to be at home during the daytime.

Fields, J. M.↗

A New Look For Greenbelt

Greenbelt, Maryland, 12 miles from the nation's capital, is an efficiently planned model town and most of its 1600 homes are almost identical in appearance. Four of them, however, stand out from their neighbors; they have distinctive blue glass rooftop superstructures made up of a series of solar collectors. They are part of a NASA community aid program, a joint energy research project involving the Greenbelt housing cooperative and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, located near the community. Built in 1935, Greenbelt is one of three government-planned communities of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first administration; the others are Greendale, Wisconsin and Greenhills, Ohio. The government built the towns to make available low-cost housing, provide employment for workers on relief in the Great Depression era, and to establish models designed to encourage construction of similar developments by private industry. In 1952, the residents of Greenbelt formed a nonprofit cooperative called Greenbelt Homes, Inc., which bought the dwellings, facilities and a large part of the land from the government. The homes are individually owned but collectively maintained by the co-op, with each owner paying a prorated share of utility and maintenance costs. Greenbelt residents are mostly in the low and medium income brackets, and one of every three families lives on a fixed retirement income. For that reason, the sharp escalation of fuel oil prices that began in 1973 imposed particular hardship on the co-op community. So Greenbelt Homes' management asked its NASA neighbor, Goddard Space Flight Center, for assistance in setting up a solar energy research project. The idea was to conduct a small scale demonstration to show what savings could be realized by solar heating Greenbelt homes, with an eye toward possible future expansion of solar energy systems as a means of combating rising fuel costs. Goddard undertook the project as part of the federal government's effort to research and demonstrate ways of conserving energy. The Center was well qualified for the assignment, having acquired extensive expertise in designing thermal control systems for satellites, which must maintain stable temperatures for successful operation.

Source record↗

Tech House

The members of the Swain family- Dr. Charles "Bill" Swain, wife Elaine, daughter Carol, 17, son "Chuck", 12, and dog Susie have an interesting assignment. They are active participants in an important NASA research program involving the application of space-age technology to home construction. b' Transplanted Floridians, the Swains now reside in NASA's Tech House, lo~atedat Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. Their job is to use and help evaluate the variety of advanced technology systems in Tech House. A contemporary three-bedroom home, Tech House incorporates NASA technology, the latest commercial building techniques and other innovations, all designed to reduce energy and water consumption and to provide new levels of comfort, convenience, security and fire safety. Tech House equipment performed well in initial tests, but a house is not a home until it has people. That's where the Swains come in. NASA wants to see how the various systems work under actual living conditions, to confirm the effectiveness of the innovations or to determine necessary modifications for improvement. The Swains are occupying the house for a year, during which NASA engineers are computer monitoring the equipment and assembling a record of day-to-day performance. . Tech House is a laboratory rather than a mass production prototype, but its many benefits may influence home design and construction. In a period of sharply rising utility costs, widespread adoption of Tech House features could provide large-scale savings to homeowners and potentially enormous national benefit in resources conservation. Most innovations are aerospace spinoffs: Some of the equipment is now commercially available; other systems are expected to be in production within a few years. Around 1980, a Tech House-type of home could be built for $45-50,000 (1 976 dollars). It is estimated that the homeowner would save well over $20,000 (again 1976 dollars) in utility costs over the average mortgage span of 20 years.

Source record↗

Annoyance due to multiple airplane noise exposure

A laboratory study was conducted to investigate the annoyance effects of multiple aircraft noise exposure in which 250 subjects judged the annoyance of half-hour periods of airplane noise simulative of typical indoor home exposures. The variables of the aircraft noise exposure were the peak noise level of flyovers, which was constant within each period, and the number of flyovers. Each subject judged 5 of the possible 25 factorial combinations of level and number. Other variables investigated included the experience of the test subjects in making annoyance judgments and their home exposure to airplane noise. The annoyance judgments increased with both noise level and number of flyovers. The increased annoyance produced by doubling the number of flyovers was found to be the equivalent of a 4 to 6 db increase in noise level. The sensitivity of the subjects to changes in both noise level and number of flyovers increased with laboratory experience. Although the means of the annoyance judgments made in the laboratory were found to decrease with the subjects' home exposure to aircraft noise, the subjects' sensitivities to changes in both level and number were unaffected by their home exposure.

Powell, C. A.↗