Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “assessment”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Assessment Study (MSAS)

NASA, in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA), is seeking to return Martian geological and atmospheric samples to Earth for scientific study in the early 2030s. Due to the possibility that the samples could contain extraterrestrial life, Mars Sample Return (MSR) is classified as a Category V: Restricted Earth Return mission by the NASA Planetary Protection Office. As a result of this classification, a MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) must not only provide a pristine environment to ensure samples are protected from terrestrial contamination for scientific investigations, it must also provide high-containment (biosafety level 4 [BSL-4]-equivalence) to isolate the samples from Earth’s biosphere until the samples are deemed safe for release and/or sterilized. The nominal utilization period for a SRF is anticipated to be 2-5 years and is intended to enable curation activities, biohazard assessment, select early science activities, and the rapid release of samples to the scientific community. However, to account for possible delays in schedule or the identification of extant life, this anticipated period of time must be flexible to accommodate schedule extensions and contingency plans. Due to requirements for high-level biological containment and cleanliness, a traditional receiving/curation facility cannot be utilized for MSR. Therefore, beginning in 2022, NASA Johnson Space Center is performing a MSR SRF Assessment Study (MSAS) to investigate the most optimal facility modality for a MSR SRF, as well as start to define programmatic early estimate of costs and schedules before the initial design phase begins. NASA is partnering with industry contractors (architectural and engineering firms with BSL-4 and cleanroom technology experience, as well as other contracted infrastructure and construction specialists) along with selected experts from NASA, ESA, existing U.S. BSL-4 facilities, and other U.S. government agencies, to carry out the assessment study. The MSAS should also aid in the future refinement of the science requirements (e.g., contamination control, equipment accommodations) before site-specific design would commence. As part of the MSAS, NASA is planning to assess an array of possibilities for a MSR SRF. One of the main considerations is the facility modality and whether an existing BSL-4 facility can be utilized (for some or all functions); or, if new constructure would be required, would a traditional fixed facility or a modular facility the best choice. MSAS will also investigate the ability of the modalities to accommodate two different facility capability endmembers: 1) a minimal facility focusing on biohazard assessment and curation tasks with a small footprint, and 2) an enhanced facility with additional capabilities to enable expedited processing and the completion of time-sensitive and (some) sterilization-sensitive science. The assessment is intended to generate information that will inform the selection of facility modalities for high-level conceptual design development. While the assessment study will focus on SRF requirements for accommodating curation, science, and sample safety assessment infrastructure, it will also consider an array of other factors, such as ease of access for international users, decommissioning, repurposing, future sale or lease following MSR’s use of the facility, and uncontained preparatory laboratory spaces. Upon completion of the study, the preferred modality and refined requirements would be utilized for site-specific design but will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

A.D. Harrington↗
NASA NTRS2024

Safe Exploration: Sensorimotor Assessments for Early Extravehicular Activities

BACKGROUND: Artemis missions will require a new level of crew autonomy around periods of gravitational transition, where sensorimotor disturbances are at their highest. There is a need to define performance thresholds for key sensorimotor assessments that indicate when performance in early extravehicular activities (EVAs) might be impacted or unsafe. This panel presentation will discuss the development of sensorimotor assessments for determining crew preparedness of early EVAs by utilizing a novel portable sensorimotor disorientation analog and other spaceflight analogs. OVERVIEW: To define performance thresholds, a proposed set of sensorimotor assessment tasks must be validated under various spaceflight analogs. A Sensorimotor Disorientation Analog (SDA) was developed that could induce varying levels of disorientation through combined vestibular (galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS)) and proprioceptive (weighted chest, ankles, and wrists) disruptions. The SDA was first pilot tested using subjective feedback from previously flown astronauts to determine the levels of disorientation that mimic motor performance immediately (R+0) and +24 hours (R+1) postflight. A second study was performed using healthy non-astronaut ground subjects to validate the SDA levels by comparing to astronaut postflight data. The validated SDA was utilized in a third study to map performance in the proposed set of sensorimotor assessment tasks to operational tasks. The assessment tasks were defined based on lessons learned from Apollo and subject matter experts (e.g., flight surgeons) to include the following: 1) aid in progressive adaptation to the novel gravitational environment; 2) provide opportunities to develop strategies to recover from off-nominal body positions; and 3) mimic operational tasks such that crew can self-assess their potential ability to complete their missions. This presentation will conclude with a discussion on future validation studies of the proposed assessment tasks using other spaceflight analogs such as centrifugation and gravity offload systems. DISCUSSION: Exploration class missions will require crew to be able to self-assess and treat their sensorimotor dysfunction after gravity transitions, and in off-nominal situations they may be required to perform provocative, challenging tasks soon after landing. This panel presentation will discuss current and ongoing research strategies to address the sensorimotor risk on safe exploration during Artemis missions.

Sarah Moudy↗
NASA NTRS2015

Representative Agricultural Pathways and Scenarios for Regional Integrated Assessment of Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation: Chapter - 5

The global change research community has recognized that new pathway and scenario concepts are needed to implement impact and vulnerability assessment where precise prediction is not possible, and also that these scenarios need to be logically consistent across local, regional, and global scales. For global climate models, representative concentration pathways (RCPs) have been developed that provide a range of time-series of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations into the future. For impact and vulnerability assessment, new socio-economic pathway and scenario concepts have also been developed, with leadership from the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC).This chapter presents concepts and methods for development of regional representative agricultural pathways (RAOs) and scenarios that can be used for agricultural model intercomparison, improvement, and impact assessment in a manner consistent with the new global pathways and scenarios. The development of agriculture-specific pathways and scenarios is motivated by the need for a protocol-based approach to climate impact, vulnerability, and adaptation assessment. Until now, the various global and regional models used for agricultural-impact assessment have been implemented with individualized scenarios using various data and model structures, often without transparent documentation, public availability, and consistency across disciplines. These practices have reduced the credibility of assessments, and also hampered the advancement of the science through model intercomparison, improvement, and synthesis of model results across studies. The recognition of the need for better coordination among the agricultural modeling community, including the development of standard reference scenarios with adequate agriculture-specific detail led to the creation of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) in 2010. The development of RAPs is one of the cross-cutting themes in AgMIP's work plan, and has been the subject of ongoing work by AgMIP since its creation.

agriculture↗
NASA NTRS2017

Near Earth Asteroid Characterization for Threat Assessment

Physical characteristics of NEAs are an essential input to modeling behavior during atmospheric entry and to assess the risk of impact but determining these properties requires a non-trivial investment of time and resources. The characteristics relevant to these models include size, density, strength and ablation coefficient. Some of these characteristics cannot be directly measured, but rather must be inferred from related measurements of asteroids and/or meteorites. Furthermore, for the majority of NEAs, only the basic measurements exist so often properties must be inferred from statistics of the population of more completely characterized objects. The Asteroid Threat Assessment Project at NASA Ames Research Center has developed a probabilistic asteroid impact risk (PAIR) model in order to assess the risk of asteroid impact. Our PAIR model and its use to develop probability distributions of impact risk are discussed in other contributions to PDC 2017 (e.g., Mathias et al.). Here we utilize PAIR to investigate which NEA characteristics are important for assessing the impact threat by investigating how changes in these characteristics alter the damage predicted by PAIR. We will also provide an assessment of the current state of knowledge of the NEA characteristics of importance for asteroid threat assessment. The relative importance of different properties as identified using PAIR will be combined with our assessment of the current state of knowledge to identify potential high impact investigations. In addition, we will discuss an ongoing effort to collate the existing measurements of NEA properties of interest to the planetary defense community into a readily accessible database.

Asteroid characterization↗
NASA NTRS2020

Burning Embers: Towards More Transparent and Robust Climate-change Risk Assessments

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports provide policy-relevant insights about climate impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation through a process of peer-reviewed literature assessments underpinned by expert judgement. An iconic output from these assessments is the burning embers diagram, first used in the Third Assessment Report to visualize reasons for concern, which aggregate climate-change-related impacts and risks to various systems and sectors. These burning embers use colour transitions to show changes in the assessed level of risk to humans and ecosystems as a function of global mean temperature. In this Review, we outline the history and evolution of the burning embers and associated reasons for concern framework, focusing on the methodological approaches and advances. While the assessment framework and figure design have been broadly retained over time, refinements in methodology have occurred, including the consideration of different risks, use of confidence statements, more formalized protocols and standardized metrics. Comparison across reports reveals that the risk level at a given temperature has generally increased with each assessment cycle, reflecting accumulating scientific evidence. For future assessments, an explicit, transparent and systematic process of expert elicitation is needed to enhance comparability, quality and credibility of burning embers.

burning embers diagram↗
NASA NTRS1974

The southern regional conference on technology assessment: Summary

The proceedings of a conference on technology assessment are presented. A survey of recent Federal activity in technology assessment was discussed initially. Emphasis was placed on state and local activities with respect to technology assessment to include the following subjects: (1) the technology assessment desired by states, (2) organization of technology assessment activities, (3) how to perform technology assessments for less than $5,000, and (4) the preparation of environmental impact statements. Specific application of technology assessment to solid waste management in Connecticut is reported.

Coates, V. T.↗
NASA NTRS1999

NASA Occupational Health Program FY98 Self-Assessment

The NASA Functional Management Review process requires that each NASA Center conduct self-assessments of each functional area. Self-Assessments were completed in June 1998 and results were presented during this conference session. During FY 97 NASA Occupational Health Assessment Team activities, a decision was made to refine the NASA Self-Assessment Process. NASA Centers were involved in the ISO registration process at that time and wanted to use the management systems approach to evaluate their occupational health programs. This approach appeared to be more consistent with NASA's management philosophy and would likely confer status needed by Senior Agency Management for the program. During FY 98 the Agency Occupational Health Program Office developed a revised self-assessment methodology based on the Occupational Health and Safety Management System developed by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. This process was distributed to NASA Centers in March 1998 and completed in June 1998. The Center Self Assessment data will provide an essential baseline on the status of OHP management processes at NASA Centers. That baseline will be presented to Enterprise Associate Administrators and DASHO on September 22, 1998 and used as a basis for discussion during FY 99 visits to NASA Centers. The process surfaced several key management system elements warranting further support from the Lead Center. Input and feedback from NASA Centers will be essential to defining and refining future self assessment efforts.

Brisbin, Steven G.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Spaceliner Class Operability Gains Via Combined Airbreathing/ Rocket Propulsion: Summarizing an Operational Assessment of Highly Reusable Space Transports

In discussing a new NASA initiative in advanced space transportation systems and technologies, the Director of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Arthur G. Stephenson, noted that, "It would use new propulsion technology, air-breathing engine so you don't have to carry liquid oxygen, at least while your flying through the atmosphere. We are calling it Spaceliner 100 because it would be 100 times cheaper, costing $ 100 dollars a pound to orbit." While airbreathing propulsion is directly named, rocket propulsion is also implied by, "... while you are flying through the atmosphere." In-space final acceleration to orbital speed mandates rocket capabilities. Thus, in this informed view, Spaceliner 100 will be predicated on combined airbreathing/rocket propulsion, the technical subject of this paper. Interestingly, NASA's recently concluded Highly Reusable Space Transportation (HRST) study focused on the same affordability goal as that of the Spaceliner 100 initiative and reflected the decisive contribution of combined propulsion as a way of expanding operability and increasing the design robustness of future space transports, toward "aircraft like" capabilities. The HRST study built on the Access to Space Study and the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) development activities to identify and characterize space transportation concepts, infrastructure and technologies that have the greatest potential for reducing delivery cost by another order of magnitude, from $1,000 to $100-$200 per pound for 20,000 lb. - 40.000 lb. payloads to low earth orbit (LEO). The HRST study investigated a number of near-term, far-term, and very far-term launch vehicle concepts including all-rocket single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) concepts, two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) concepts, concepts with launch assist, rocket-based combined cycle (RBCC) concepts, advanced expendable vehicles, and more far term ground-based laser powered launchers. The HRST study consisted of preliminary concept studies, assessments and analysis tool development for advanced space transportation systems, followed by end-to-end system concept definitions and trade analyses, specific system concept definition and analysis, specific key technology and topic analysis, system, operational and economics model development, analysis, and integrated assessments. The HRST Integration Task Force (HITF) was formed to synthesize study results in several specific topic areas and support the development of conclusions from the study: Systems Concepts Definitions, Technology Assessment, Operations Assessment, and Cost Assessment. This paper summarizes the work of the Operations Assessment Team: the six approaches used, the analytical tools and methodologies developed and employed, the issues and concerns, and the results of the assessment. The approaches were deliberately varied in measures of merit and procedure to compensate for the uncertainty inherent in operations data in this early phase of concept exploration. In general, rocket based combined cycle (RBCC) concepts appear to have significantly greater potential than all-rocket concepts for reducing operations costs.

Nix, Michael B.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Traffic Management Advisor: Iterative Field Development and Assessment at Multiple Sites

Previous studies have demonstrated the necessity of involving users in the development of automation aids, especially for complex domains such as air traffic control (ATC). Traditional development only demanded a single field test to validate a completed system, but a more iterative combination of development and assessment ensures that the technology meets the requirements of its application domain. Exposure across an adequate spectrum of field users is also required during development, and the use of multiple development sites provides an opportunity to consider individual facility cultures as they relate to implementation strategies. The development of the Center/TRACON Automation System (CTAS) Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) at the Denver and Dallas ATC facilities demonstrates successful iterative development and assessment at multiple field sites. The use of field development changes the nature of assessment. As development progresses, periodic assessments are required to validate that system development is progressing along an appropriate track. In the development of the TMA, assessments were performed based on software in the field, and input from traffic managers was analyzed and incorporated into subsequent releases of the TMA, to be reassessed in the field. This has led to a tool with operational suitability and broad user acceptance. Assessment at multiple sites provides a more generalizable perspective that allows the production of a system that is both generic enough to be used at different sites and tailored enough to be of use at any site. In addition to providing a better understanding of specific facility requirements, the use of multiple assessment sites in the development of TMA has provided an opportunity to consider individual facility operations, procedures and cultures as they relate to development and implementation strategies.

Sanford, Beverly D.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Nutritional Status Assessment (SMO 016E)

Until 2006, it was not been possible to assess nutritional status of crewmembers on the ISS during flight because blood and urine could not be collected during ISS missions. Postflight observations of alterations in status of several nutrients are troubling, and we require the ability to monitor the status of these nutrients during flight to determine if there is a specific impetus or timeframe for these changes. In addition to the monitoring of crew nutritional status during flight, in-flight sample collection would allow better assessment of countermeasure effectiveness. Collecting samples during flight is one of the objectives of SMO 016E, and it is also designed to expand the current medical requirement for nutritional assessment (MR016L) to include additional normative markers for assessing crew health and countermeasure effectiveness. Additional markers of bone metabolism will be measured to better monitor bone health and the effectiveness of countermeasures to prevent bone resorption. New markers of oxidative damage will be measured to better assess the type of oxidative insults that occur during space flight. The array of nutritional assessment variables will be expanded to include ones that will allow us to better understand changes in folate, vitamin K, and vitamin B6 status, as well as risk factors for cardiovascular and oxidative damage during and after flight. Stress hormones and hormones that affect bone and muscle metabolism will also be measured. Measuring these additional variables will allow us to better monitor the health of crewmembers and make more accurate recommendations for their rehabilitation. Several nutritional assessment variables are altered at landing, but it is not known how long these changes persist. We extended the original protocol to include an additional postflight blood and urine sample collection 30 days after landing. Data are being collected before, during, and after flight. These data will provide a complete survey of how nutritional status and related systems are affected by space flight. Analyzing the data will help us to define nutritional requirements for long-duration missions. This expanded set of measurements will also aid in the identification of nutritional countermeasures to counteract, for example, the deleterious effects of microgravity on bone and muscle and the effects of space radiation.

Smith, S. M.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Hybrid Wing Body Aircraft System Noise Assessment with Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustic Experiments

A system noise assessment of a hybrid wing body configuration was performed using NASA s best available aircraft models, engine model, and system noise assessment method. A propulsion airframe aeroacoustic effects experimental database for key noise sources and interaction effects was used to provide data directly in the noise assessment where prediction methods are inadequate. NASA engine and aircraft system models were created to define the hybrid wing body aircraft concept as a twin engine aircraft with a 7500 nautical mile mission. The engines were modeled as existing technology high bypass ratio turbofans. The baseline hybrid wing body aircraft was assessed at 22 dB cumulative below the FAA Stage 4 certification level. To determine the potential for noise reduction with relatively near term technologies, seven other configurations were assessed beginning with moving the engines two fan nozzle diameters upstream of the trailing edge and then adding technologies for reduction of the highest noise sources. Aft radiated noise was expected to be the most challenging to reduce and, therefore, the experimental database focused on jet nozzle and pylon configurations that could reduce jet noise through a combination of source reduction and shielding effectiveness. The best configuration for reduction of jet noise used state-of-the-art technology chevrons with a pylon above the engine in the crown position. This configuration resulted in jet source noise reduction, favorable azimuthal directivity, and noise source relocation upstream where it is more effectively shielded by the limited airframe surface, and additional fan noise attenuation from acoustic liner on the crown pylon internal surfaces. Vertical and elevon surfaces were also assessed to add shielding area. The elevon deflection above the trailing edge showed some small additional noise reduction whereas vertical surfaces resulted in a slight noise increase. With the effects of the configurations from the database included, the best available noise reduction was 40 dB cumulative. Projected effects from additional technologies were assessed for an advanced noise reduction configuration including landing gear fairings and advanced pylon and chevron nozzles. Incorporating the three additional technology improvements, an aircraft noise is projected of 42.4 dB cumulative below the Stage 4 level.

Thomas, Russell H.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Analyzing Discrepancies in a Software Development Project Change Request (CR) Assessment Process and Recommendations for Process Improvements

The Change Request (CR) assessment process is essential in the display development cycle. The assessment process is performed to ensure that the changes stated in the description of the CR match the changes in the actual display requirements. If a discrepancy is found between the CR and the requirements, the CR must be returned to the originator for corrections. Data was gathered from each of the developers to determine the type of discrepancies and the amount of time spent assessing each CR. This study sought to determine the most common types of discrepancies, and the amount of time required to assessing those issues. The study found that even though removing discrepancy before an assessment would save half the time needed to assess an CR with a discrepancy, the number of CR's found to have a discrepancy was very small compared to the total number of CR's assessed during the data gathering period.

Cunningham, Kenneth James↗
NASA NTRS2015

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment - How They Play Together

Since the Space Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, NASA has extensively used probabilistic analysis methods to assess, understand, and communicate the risk of space launch vehicles. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), used in the nuclear industry, is one of the probabilistic analysis methods NASA utilizes to assess Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) risk for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability distributions to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: 1) what can go wrong that would lead to loss or degraded performance (i.e., scenarios involving undesired consequences of interest), 2) how likely is it (probabilities), and 3) what is the severity of the degradation (consequences). Since the Challenger accident, PRA has been used in supporting decisions regarding safety upgrades for launch vehicles. Another area that was given a lot of emphasis at NASA after the Challenger accident is reliability engineering. Reliability engineering has been a critical design function at NASA since the early Apollo days. However, after the Challenger accident, quantitative reliability analysis and reliability predictions were given more scrutiny because of their importance in understanding failure mechanism and quantifying the probability of failure, which are key elements in resolving technical issues, performing design trades, and implementing design improvements. Although PRA and reliability are both probabilistic in nature and, in some cases, use the same tools, they are two different activities. Specifically, reliability engineering is a broad design discipline that deals with loss of function and helps understand failure mechanism and improve component and system design. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment process intended to assess the risk scenarios that could lead to a major/top undesirable system event, and to identify those scenarios that are high-risk drivers. PRA output is critical to support risk informed decisions concerning system design. This paper describes the PRA process and the reliability engineering discipline in detail. It discusses their differences and similarities and how they work together as complementary analyses to support the design and risk assessment processes. Lessons learned, applications, and case studies in both areas are also discussed in the paper to demonstrate and explain these differences and similarities.

Safie, Fayssal↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (ORION)

NASA uses two HRA assessment methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is still expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a PRA model that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more problematic. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. To determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators, and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules, and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Behavioral Assessment of Spaceflight Effects on Neurocognitive Performance: Extent and Longevity

Exposure to the microgravity environment during spaceflight missions impacts crewmembers' sensorimotor function. Bock et al. [1] studied the cognitive demands of human sensorimotor performance and dual tasking during long duration missions and concluded that both stress and scarcity of cognitive resources required for sensorimotor adaptation may be responsible for these deficits during spaceflight. Therefore, in consideration of the health and performance of crewmembers in- and post-flight, we are conducting this study to investigate the effects of spaceflight on the extent, longevity and neural bases of sensorimotor, cognitive, and neural changes. The data presented will focus on the behavioral measures that were collected pre-, in- and post-flight including spatial cognition, processing speed, bimanual coordination, functional mobility, computerized dynamic posturography (CDP), and vibrotactile induced vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP). To date, data were collected over the course of two pre-flight sessions and four post-flight sessions on five crewmembers (n=13) using the protocol described in Koppelmans et al. [2]. Balance control was assessed using CDP, with eyes closed and a sway-referenced base of support (Sensory Organization Test 5), with and without head movements in the pitch plane. Spatial working memory was assessed using Thurston's Card Rotation Test and a Mental Rotation Test. The Rod and Frame Test was performed to test visual dependence. The Digit Symbol Substitution Test was performed to evaluate processing speed, and the Purdue Pegboard Task was performed to test bimanual coordination. Vestibular function was assessed by eliciting ocular VEMP via a hand held striker on the side of the head as subjects lay supine on a gurney. Subjects also performed the Functional Mobility Test of walking through an obstacle course to assess rate of early motor learning. Data were also collected on the same crewmembers during three in-flight sessions on the International Space Station (ISS). In-flight, spatial working memory was assessed using the Mental Rotation Test, adaptation to visuo-motor transformation in manual control was assessed using the Sensorimotor Adaptation Test, and multi-tasking ability was assessed using the Dual Task Test. These three tests were performed in a strapped-in configuration mimicking a seated position - waist bungees pulled the crewmember toward the "floor" with feet secured in foot loops. The Mental Rotation Test was also performed in a free-floating configuration while the crewmember floated while holding on to the gamepad controller used to provide input that was secured to the equipment rack on the ISS. Preliminary findings from data collected to date, will be included in the presentation. Eventual comparison to results from supporting bed rest and longitudinal studies will enable the parsing out of the multiple mechanisms contributing to any observed spaceflight-induced sensorimotor and cognitive behavioral changes.

De Dios, Y. E.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Assessing Alternatives in the Systems Engineering Process: Case Study of an Earth Observing Satellite Concept

Defining design alternatives constitutes one of the critical initial steps of the systems engineering process. Once these design alternatives have been identified, assessing which alternatives best satisfy the project’s objectives can prove to be challenging when dealing with complex decision frameworks. Complex systems often involve the participation of different interest groups, who have different value systems and are focused on distinct aspects of the project. For example, design alternatives might be assessed predominantly for their technical merit by one group of stakeholders, while a different group might be more inclined to assess the design alternatives primarily based on programmatic values. MESCAL (Monitoring the Evolving State of Clouds and Aerosol Layers) is an ongoing NASA / CNES (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) joint study for an active remote sensing Earth observing satellite. Several design alternatives have been identified and the assessment of these alternatives requires consideration of a variety of factors. This paper presents the approach that was used to support a global assessment of the MESCAL design alternatives. A mapping of the interactions between mission, instrument, and science requirements was modeled to support the assessment of the trade space. In addition, a set of metrics was developed to structure the assessment that was conducted. Finally, this paper also discusses the general applicability of these metrics to other science mission concepts in the formulation phase.

Ivanco, Marie L.↗