Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “PREFLIGHT OPERATION”

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 163 records · Page 9

Lessons Learned in Space Life Support System Testing

The earlier problems can be found and corrected, the easier and cheaper it is to fix them. Doing less testing saves cost and time but doing too little testing increases the risk of operational failures causing large costs and delays. Integrated test is necessary to determine if the subsystems work together and the overall architecture performs as intended. This report reviews the testing lessons learned from the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, a National Research Council report, and five reviews of International Space Station (ISS) lessons learned. The five reviews all mention two important points. First, that testing should be performed on the final integrated system, one as close as possible to the intended flight system. Second, “test as you fly,” while operating as planned in an environment as close as possible to the expected flight environment. Other lessons are the need for extensive preflight ground testing, the need to establish and defend an adequate budget, the problems using protoflight hardware on ISS, and the benefit of having ISS as a zero gravity test bed. The major ISS life support systems, carbon dioxide, water recycling, and oxygen recovery, were protoflight systems with little testing before launch to ISS. The failure rates these systems have been much greater than predicted and this has caused dissatisfaction with the protoflight approach. The more costly traditional approach is building qualification and test units in addition to flight units. The test units are used to test, analyze, and fix failure modes. Other work shows that there is an optimum cost-effective intuitive appeal of a human ecosystem in space.

Life support↗

Lessons Learned in Space Life Support System Testing

The earlier problems can be found and corrected, the easier and cheaper it is to fix them. Doing less testing saves cost and time but doing too little testing increases the risk of operational failures causing large costs and delays. Integrated test is necessary to determine if the subsystems work together and the overall architecture performs as intended. This report reviews the testing lessons learned from the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, a National Research Council report, and five reviews of International Space Station (ISS) lessons learned. The five reviews all mention two important points. First, that testing should be performed on the final integrated system, one as close as possible to the intended flight system. Second, “test as you fly,” while operating as planned in an environment as close as possible to the expected flight environment. Other lessons are the need for extensive preflight ground testing, the need to establish and defend an adequate budget, the problems using protoflight hardware on ISS, and the benefit of having ISS as a zero gravity test bed. The major ISS life support systems, carbon dioxide removal, water recycling, and oxygen recovery, were protoflight systems with little testing before launch to ISS. The failure rates of these systems have been much greater than predicted and this has caused dissatisfaction with the protoflight approach. The more costly traditional approach builds qualification and test units in addition to flight units. The test units are used to find, analyze, and fix failure modes. Other work shows that there is an optimum cost-effective amount of testing when redundant systems must have a specified reliability and confidence.

Harry W. Jones↗

Radio astronomy Explorer-B in-flight mission control system development effort

A description is given of the development for the Mission Analysis Evaluation and Space Trajectory Operations (MAESTRO) program to be used for the in-flight decision making process during the translunar and lunar orbit adjustment phases of the flight of the Radio Astronomy Explorer-B. THe program serves two functions: performance and evaluation of preflight mission analysis, and in-flight support for the midcourse and lunar insertion command decisions that must be made by the flight director. The topics discussed include: analysis of program and midcourse guidance capabilities; methods for on-line control; printed displays of the MAESTRO program; and in-flight operational logistics and testing.

Lutsky, D. A.↗

Development of payload subsystem-primate mission-Biosatellite program

Design and operation of the primate life support subsystem for the Biosatellite Program as used during the flight of Biosatellite 3 are discussed. Included are preflight changes necessitated by the primate's (a Macaca nemistrina monkey) influence on the initial equipment design.

Hall, J. F., Jr.↗

Spacelab Life Sciences 1, development towards successive life sciences flights

A general review is presented of flight data and related hardware developments for Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS) 1 with an eye toward applying this knowledge to projected flight planning. Specific attention is given to the Research Animal Holding Facility (RAHF), the General Purpose Work Station (GPWS), the Small Mass Measuring Instrument (SMMI), and the Animal Enclosure Module (AEM). Preflight and in-flight testing methods are detailed including biocompatibility tests, parametric engineering sensitivity analyses, measurements of environmental parameters, and studies of operational interfaces. Particulate containment is demonstrated for some of the equipment, and successful use of the GPWS, RAHF, AEM, and SMMI are reported. The in-flight data are useful for developing more advanced hardware such as the AEM for SLS flight 2 and the modified RAHF for SLS flight 3.

Dalton, B. P.↗

Results of an International Space Crew Debrief

In order to identify potential multi-cultural and multinational problems for future International Space Station Freedom crew, a crew debrief questionnaire was developed for U.S. astronauts who flew on shuttle missions with one or more crew members from other countries. Methods: From 1981-90, a total of 20 U.S. astronauts flew on international space missions. Debriefs were mailed to all 20 with instructions not to identify themselves or their specific mission. The debrief focused primarily on preflight training and post flight incidents of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and interpersonal friction among crewmembers. Astronauts were also asked to rate the impact of the incident to the mission (low, medium, high). Results: Ten astronauts responded, but only nine responses were able to be scored, for a return rate of 45 percent. 42 incidents were reported, 9 in the preflight period, 26 inflight, and 7 in the postflight period. Most of the incidents were rated at a low or medium impact, but 5 of the inflight incidents were rated at a 'high' mission impact. A number of causes for the problems were listed, and are discussed. Conclusions: The debrief respondents provide useful and timely recommendations on preflight training which might help facilitate the integration of multinational crews and prevent multi-cultural or multinational factors from interfering with mission operations.

Santy, P. A.↗

Operational behavioral health and performance resources for international space station crews and families

The Behavioral Health and Performance Section (BHP) at NASA Johnson Space Center provides direct and indirect psychological services to the International Space Station (ISS) astronauts and their families. Beginning with the NASA-Mir Program, services available to the crews and families have gradually expanded as experience is gained in long-duration flight. Enhancements to the overall BHP program have been shaped by crewmembers' personal preferences, family requests, specific events during the missions, programmatic requirements, and other lessons learned. The BHP program focuses its work on four areas: operational psychology, behavioral medicine, human-to-system interface, and sleep and circadian. Within these areas of focus are psychological and psychiatric screening for astronaut selection as well as many resources that are available to the crewmembers, families, and other groups such as crew surgeon and various levels of management within NASA. Services include: preflight, in flight, and postflight preparation; training and support; resources from a Family Support Office; in-flight monitoring; clinical care for astronauts and their families; and expertise in the workload and work/rest scheduling of crews on the ISS. Each of the four operational areas is summarized, as are future directions for the BHP program.

Space Flight↗

Skylab experimental performance evaluation manual. Appendix D: Experiment M487 habitability/crew quarters (MSFC)

This appendix contains a series of analyses for Experiment M487, Habitability/ Crew Quarters (MSFC), to be used for evaluating the performance of the Skylab corollary experiments under preflight, inflight, and post flight conditions. Experiment contingency plan workaround procedure and malfunction analyses are presented in order to assist in making the experiment operationally successful.

Purushotham, K. S.↗

Spaceflight tracking and data network operational reliability computer output for MTBF and availability. Appendix V to CSC-1-395

Tables of data are provided to show the availability of Skylab data to selected ground stations during the phases of Skylab preflight, Skylab unmanned condition, and Skylab manned condition. The mean time between failure (MTBF) of the same Skylab functions is tabulated for the selected ground stations. All reliability data are based on a 90 percent confidence interval.

Seneca, V. I.↗

Operational and Research Musculoskeletal Summit: Summit Recommendations

The Medical Informatics and Health Care Systems group in the Office of Space Medicine at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) has been tasked by NASA with improving overall medical care on the International Space Station (ISS) and providing insights for medical care for future exploration missions. To accomplish this task, a three day Operational and Research Musculoskeletal Summit was held on August 23-25th, 2005 at Space Center Houston. The purpose of the summit was to review NASA#s a) current strategy for preflight health maintenance and injury screening, b) current treatment methods in-flight, and c) risk mitigation strategy for musculoskeletal injuries or syndromes that could occur or impact the mission. Additionally, summit participants provided a list of research topics NASA should consider to mitigate risks to astronaut health. Prior to the summit, participants participated in a web-based pre-summit forum to review the NASA Space Medical Conditions List (SMCL) of musculoskeletal conditions that may occur on ISS as well as the resources currently available to treat them. Data from the participants were compiled and integrated with the summit proceedings. Summit participants included experts from the extramural physician and researcher communities, and representatives from NASA Headquarters, the astronaut corps, JSC Medical Operations and Human Adaptations and Countermeasures Offices, Glenn Research Center Human Research Office, and the Astronaut Strength, Conditioning, and Reconditioning (ASCR) group. The recommendations in this document are based on a summary of summit discussions and the best possible evidence-based recommendations for musculoskeletal care for astronauts while on the ISS, and include recommendati ons for exploration class missions.

Scheuring, Richard A.↗

Skylab experiment performance evaluation manual. Appendix P: Experiment T003 inflight aerosol analysis (DOT/MSFC)

A series of analyses is presented for experiment T003, inflight aerosol analysis, to be used for evaluating the performance of the Skylab corollary experiments under preflight, inflight, and post-flight conditions. Experiment contingency plan workaround procedure and malfunction analyses are presented in order to assist in making the experiment operationally successful.

Purushotham, K. S.↗

Skylab experiment performance evaluation manual. Appendix N: Experiment S183 ultraviolet panorama (MSFC), revision 1

A series is presented of analyses for Experiment S183, Ultraviolet Panorama (MSFC), to be used for evaluating the performance of the Skylab corollary experiments under preflight, inflight, and post-flight conditions. Experiment contingency plan workaround procedure and malfunction analyses are presented in order to assist in making the experiment operationally successful.

Purushotham, K. S.↗

Artemis I Orion IMU Flight Performance

The Orion flight software’s parity algorithm runs onboard to verify all three OIMUs (Orion Inertial Measurement Units) are sensing relatively uniform rate and acceleration and to quickly identify any unit which is in significant disagreement with the other two units. During the Artemis-I Wet Dress Rehearsal tests and Launch Countdowns, one of the three OIMUs regularly reported an anomalous parity signature for a brief period of time during sensor warm up. This paper will review this anomalous performance on the pad and review flight data with the intent to supplement the findings of the initial root cause investigation. Outside of this start up behavior, initial investigation into Artemis I flight data did not reveal any behavior of the OIMUs outside of preflight expectations. Flight data from any significant parity events and relevant IMU calibrations will be presented. A brief discussion of impacts to future Artemis mission operations strategy will be provided.

Robert Earl↗

An operational approach to long-duration mission behavioral health and performance factors

NASA's participation in nearly 10 yr of long-duration mission (LDM) training and flight confirms that these missions remain a difficult challenge for astronauts and their medical care providers. The role of the astronaut's crew surgeon is to maximize the astronaut's health throughout all phases of the LDM: preflight, in flight, and postflight. In support of the crew surgeon, the NASA-Johnson Space Center Behavioral Health and Performance Group (JSC-BHPG) has focused on four key factors that can reduce the astronaut's behavioral health and performance. These factors are defined as: sleep and circadian factors; behavioral health factors; psychological adaptation factors; and human-to-system interface (the interface between the astronaut and the mission workplace) factors. Both the crew surgeon and the JSC-BHPG must earn the crewmember's trust preflight to encourage problem identification and problem solving in these four areas. Once on orbit, the crew medical officer becomes a valuable extension of the crew surgeon and BHPG on the ground due to the crew medical officer's constant interaction with crewmembers and preflight training in these four factors. However, the crew surgeon, BHPG, and the crew medical officer need tools that will help predict, prevent, monitor, and respond to developing problems. Objective data become essential when difficult mission termination decisions must be made. The need for behavioral health and performance tool development creates an environment rich for collaboration between operational healthcare providers and researchers. These tools are also a necessary step to safely complete future, more autonomous exploration-class space missions.

Review↗

Skylab experiment performance evaluation manual. Appendix R: Experiment T020 foot controlled maneuvering unit (MSFC)

A series of analyses for experiment T020, foot controlled maneuvering unit (MSFC), to be used for evaluating the performance of the Skylab corollary experiments under preflight, inflight and post-flight conditions is reported. Experiment contingency plan procedure and malfunction analyses are presented in order to assist in making the experiment operationally successful.

Tonetti, B. B.↗

Apollo Soyuz Test Project photographic processing control plan

The laboratory controls to be used within the photographic technology division (PTD) for processing original space flight films exposed on the Apollo Soyuz Test Project mission are specified. The sensitometric exposures to be used by PTD for certifying processes, for exposing Houston Controls, and for preflight and postflight exposures on original films as well as procedures for film certification are described. Processing conditions used to achieve each control and processing machine operating parameters are included.

Lockwood, H. E.↗