Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “risks”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2007

Assessment of Cumulative Trauma Disorder (CTD) Risk for 3 Different Tasks Constructing and Repairing Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI) Blankets, Preparing the Dough for a Pizza, and Operating the Becton-Dickinson FACSAria Flow Cytometer

The Cumulative Trauma Disorder (CTD) risks for three different tasks using McCauley-Bell and Badiru's (1993) formula based on task, personal, and organizational factors were examined. For the Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI) blanket task, the results showed that the task, personal, and organizational risks were at about the same level. The personal risk factors for this task were evaluated using a hypothetical female employee age 52. For the pizza dough task, it was shown that the organizational risk was particularly high, with task related factors also at quite dangerous levels. On the other hand, there was a very low level of personal risk factors, based on a female age 17. The flow cytometer task was assessed with three different participants, a11 of whom had quite disparate levels of personal risk, which slightly affected the overall CTD risk. This reveals how individual difference variables certainly need to be considered. The task and organizational risks for this task were rated at about the same moderate level. The overall CTD risk averaged across the three participants was .335, indicating some risk. Compruing across the tasks revealed that the pizza dough task created the greatest overall CTD risk by far (.568), with the MLI (.325) and flow cytometer task (.335) having some risk associated with them. Future research should look into different tasks for more of a comparison

Gentzler, Marc↗
NASA NTRS2011

DCS: A Case Study of Identification of Knowledge and Disposition Gaps Using Principles of Continuous Risk Management

The Human Research Program (HRP) is formulated around the program architecture of Evidence-Risk-Gap-Task-Deliverable. Review of accumulated evidence forms the basis for identification of high priority risks to human health and performance in space exploration. Gaps in knowledge or disposition are identified for each risk, and a portfolio of research tasks is developed to fill them. Deliverables from the tasks inform the evidence base with the ultimate goal of defining the level of risk and reducing it to an acceptable level. A comprehensive framework for gap identification, focus, and metrics has been developed based on principles of continuous risk management and clinical care. Research towards knowledge gaps improves understanding of the likelihood, consequence or timeframe of the risk. Disposition gaps include development of standards or requirements for risk acceptance, development of countermeasures or technology to mitigate the risk, and yearly technology assessment related to watching developments related to the risk. Standard concepts from clinical care: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, rehabilitation, and surveillance, can be used to focus gaps dealing with risk mitigation. The research plan for the new HRP Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS) used the framework to identify one disposition gap related to establishment of a DCS standard for acceptable risk, two knowledge gaps related to DCS phenomenon and mission attributes, and three mitigation gaps focused on prediction, prevention, and new technology watch. These gaps were organized in this manner primarily based on target for closure and ease of organizing interim metrics so that gap status could be quantified. Additional considerations for the knowledge gaps were that one was highly design reference mission specific and the other gap was focused on DCS phenomenon.

Norcross, Jason↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Historical Overview of International Space Station Extravehicular Activity Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

Nearly 300 spacewalks have been conducted over the last 25 years to help build and maintain the International Space Station (ISS). During the nearly 2,000 hours of extra-vehicular activity (EVA), crew members wear extra-vehicular mobility unit (EMU) “spacesuits” to mitigate hazards of the space environment including impacts from meteoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particles. NASA includes detailed EMU MMOD risk analyses as part of the ISS EVA review and approval process. This paper provides a general historical overview of the ISS EVA MMOD risks and the associated risk assessment process. The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) Team produces the ISS EVA MMOD risk analyses using the Bumper3 MMOD risk analysis code in conjunction with detailed information about the EVA including crew-member EVA work sites, crew translation paths, suit orientation, and duration. Detailed physical models of the EMU spacesuits and the ISS are included and tailored for each EVA analysis. Two types of MMOD risk are included: (1) Penetration, and (2) Catastrophic. Penetration risk is for any size leak in the EMU suit. Catastrophic risk is a subset of Penetration Risk and only includes penetrations that cause a 4mm diameter hole (or larger) in the inner “bladder” layer of the EMU suit. This size hole will exceed the ability of the EMU suit to compensate. The MMOD risk analyses also utilize the latest orbital debris environment and meteoroid environment models including additional transient factors to account for recent satellite break-ups and annual meteor storms. These additional factors and the associated increase in EVA MMOD risk are considered when scheduling an EVA to reduce EMU MMOD risk.

Dana M. Lear↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Review of International Space Station Extravehicular Activity Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

Nearly 300 spacewalks have been conducted over the last 25 years to support the construction and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS). During the nearly 2,000 hours of extra-vehicular activity (EVA), crew wore extra-vehicular mobility unit (EMU) “spacesuits” to help mitigate hazards of the space environment including impacts from micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particles. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducts detailed EMU MMOD risk analyses as part of the ISS EVA review and approval process. This paper provides a general historical overview of the ISS EVA MMOD risks and the associated risk assessment process. The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) Team produces the ISS EVA MMOD risk analyses using the Bumper MMOD risk analysis code in conjunction with detailed information about the EVA including crew member EVA work sites, crew translation paths, suit orientation, and durations. Detailed physical models of the EMU spacesuit and the ISS are included and tailored for each EVA analysis. Two types of MMOD risk are included: (1) Penetration, and (2) Catastrophic. Penetration risk is for any size leak in the EMU suit. Catastrophic risk is a subset of Penetration Risk and only includes penetrations that cause a 4mm diameter hole (or larger) in the pressure-maintaining “bladder” layer of the EMU suit. This size hole will exceed the ability of the EMU suit to compensate. The MMOD risk analyses also utilize the latest orbital debris environment and meteoroid environment models including additional transient factors to account for recent satellite break-ups and annual meteor storms. These additional factors and the associated increase in EVA MMOD risk are considered when scheduling EVAs to reduce EMU MMOD risk.

Dana M. Lear↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Review of International Space Station Extravehicular Activity Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

Nearly 300 spacewalks have been conducted over the last 25 years to support the construction and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS). During the nearly 2,000 hours of extra-vehicular activity (EVA), crew wore extra-vehicular mobility unit (EMU) “spacesuits” to help mitigate hazards of the space environment including impacts from micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particles. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducts detailed EMU MMOD risk analyses as part of the ISS EVA review and approval process. This paper provides a general historical overview of the ISS EVA MMOD risks and the associated risk assessment process. The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) Team produces the ISS EVA MMOD risk analyses using the Bumper MMOD risk analysis code in conjunction with detailed information about the EVA including crew member EVA work sites, crew translation paths, suit orientation, and durations. Detailed physical models of the EMU spacesuit and the ISS are included and tailored for each EVA analysis. Two types of MMOD risk are included: (1) Penetration, and (2) Catastrophic. Penetration risk is for any size leak in the EMU suit. Catastrophic risk is a subset of Penetration Risk and only includes penetrations that cause a 4mm diameter hole (or larger) in the pressure-maintaining “bladder” layer of the EMU suit. This size hole will exceed the ability of the EMU suit to compensate. The MMOD risk analyses also utilize the latest orbital debris environment and meteoroid environment models including additional transient factors to account for recent satellite break-ups and annual meteor storms. These additional factors and the associated increase in EVA MMOD risk are considered when scheduling EVAs to reduce EMU MMOD risk.

Dana M. Lear↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Artemis 2 and Artemis 5 Model Outcomes Using the Impact Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND The Artemis campaign is a Moon exploration program with a series of six planned missions, five of which will be crewed. These five crewed missions will contain a single mission segment (space flight), or multiple mission segments involving space flight (Orion), lunar landing (LTV) and/or space habitat (Gateway). Each crewed segment faces the risk of unique medical conditions, necessitating medical sets/kits tailored to those specificities. To support and enable a data-driven and evidence-based decision-making process through out a mission’s life cycle, a software tool called IMPACT was developed. Using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodologies, IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a novel tool built for analyzing the possibility of encountering complex medical risks during space flight, and for identifying the medical resources and capabilities needed to treat those potential at-risk medical conditions. This presentation will seek to compare IMPACT’s computational results upon potential complex space medical conditions (e.g., sprain/strain back or sleep disturbance) using IMPACT’s risk metrics and the associated optimized medical sets/kits between two Artemis missions: single segment Artemis 2 and multi-segmented Artemis 5. OVERVIEW By identifying potential medical conditions in space using input criteria such as crew quantity and composition, certain crew physical characteristics, mission duration and mission activities, IMPACT can produce analyses on the type of medical resources and capabilities needed to produce an optimized medical set/kit to address those medical conditions. IMPACT achieves this by performing hundreds of thousands of Monte Carlo simulations of missions to build aggregate pictures of medical risk. IMPACT’s risk metrics include loss of crew life (LOCL) – a measure of crew mortality due to medical conditions in space, return to definitive care (RTDC) – the need to perform crew evacuation, and task time lost (TTL) – a measure of the inability to perform activities due to crew disability. These risk metrics are applied to every medical condition identified by IMPACT’s computation analyses for every segment of the mission. Medical sets/kits are optimized to address these medical conditions but must fit within the stated Artemis Design Reference Mission (DRM) request for mass and volume physical size constraints. ANTICIPATED ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Using two Artemis missions, Artemis 2 and Artemis 5, IMPACT will provide the analyses for comparison of medical set/kit contents based upon mass and/or volume requirements and identify the at-risk medical conditions within both missions. This paper serves as an initial exploration of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) medical risk calculations between two crewed Artemis missions and is not intended to be deemed the official medical response for the Artemis campaign.

probabilistic risk assessment↗
NASA NTRS2002

Space Radiation Cancer Risk Projections for Exploration Missions: Uncertainty Reduction and Mitigation

In this paper we discuss expected lifetime excess cancer risks for astronauts returning from exploration class missions. For the first time we make a quantitative assessment of uncertainties in cancer risk projections for space radiation exposures. Late effects from the high charge and energy (HZE) ions present in the galactic cosmic rays including cancer and the poorly understood risks to the central nervous system constitute the major risks. Methods used to project risk in low Earth orbit are seen as highly uncertain for projecting risks on exploration missions because of the limited radiobiology data available for estimating HZE ion risks. Cancer risk projections are described as a product of many biological and physical factors, each of which has a differential range of uncertainty due to lack of data and knowledge. Monte-Carlo sampling from subjective error distributions represents the lack of knowledge in each factor to quantify risk projection overall uncertainty. Cancer risk analysis is applied to several exploration mission scenarios. At solar minimum, the number of days in space where career risk of less than the limiting 3% excess cancer mortality can be assured at a 95% confidence level is found to be only of the order of 100 days.

Cucinotta, Francis↗
NASA NTRS2004

Identifying, Assessing, and Mitigating Risk of Single-Point Inspections on the Space Shuttle Reusable Solid Rocket Motor

In the production of each Space Shuttle Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM), over 100,000 inspections are performed. ATK Thiokol Inc. reviewed these inspections to ensure a robust inspection system is maintained. The principal effort within this endeavor was the systematic identification and evaluation of inspections considered to be single-point. Single-point inspections are those accomplished on components, materials, and tooling by only one person, involving no other check. The purpose was to more accurately characterize risk and ultimately address and/or mitigate risk associated with single-point inspections. After the initial review of all inspections and identification/assessment of single-point inspections, review teams applied risk prioritization methodology similar to that used in a Process Failure Modes Effects Analysis to derive a Risk Prioritization Number for each single-point inspection. After the prioritization of risk, all single-point inspection points determined to have significant risk were provided either with risk-mitigating actions or rationale for acceptance. This effort gave confidence to the RSRM program that the correct inspections are being accomplished, that there is appropriate justification for those that remain as single-point inspections, and that risk mitigation was applied to further reduce risk of higher risk single-point inspections. This paper examines the process, results, and lessons learned in identifying, assessing, and mitigating risk associated with single-point inspections accomplished in the production of the Space Shuttle RSRM.

Greenhalgh, Phillip O.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Harnessing the Risk-Related Data Supply Chain: An Information Architecture Approach to Enriching Human System Research and Operations Knowledge

NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) and Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD), not unlike many NASA organizations today, struggle with the inherent inefficiencies caused by dependencies on heterogeneous data systems and silos of data and information spread across decentralized discipline domains. The capture of operational and research-based data/information (both in-flight and ground-based) in disparate IT systems impedes the extent to which that data/information can be efficiently and securely shared, analyzed, and enriched into knowledge that directly and more rapidly supports HRP's research-focused human system risk mitigation efforts and SLSD s operationally oriented risk management efforts. As a result, an integrated effort is underway to more fully understand and document how specific sets of risk-related data/information are generated and used and in what IT systems that data/information currently resides. By mapping the risk-related data flow from raw data to useable information and knowledge (think of it as the data supply chain), HRP and SLSD are building an information architecture plan to leverage their existing, shared IT infrastructure. In addition, it is important to create a centralized structured tool to represent risks including attributes such as likelihood, consequence, contributing factors, and the evidence supporting the information in all these fields. Representing the risks in this way enables reasoning about the risks, e.g. revisiting a risk assessment when a mitigation strategy is unavailable, updating a risk assessment when new information becomes available, etc. Such a system also provides a concise way to communicate the risks both within the organization as well as with collaborators. Understanding and, hence, harnessing the human system risk-related data supply chain enhances both organizations' abilities to securely collect, integrate, and share data assets that improve human system research and operations.

Buquo, Lynn↗
NASA NTRS2002

Risk Management for the International Space Station

The International Space Station (ISS) is an extremely complex system, both technically and programmatically. The Space Station must support a wide range of payloads and missions. It must be launched in numerous launch packages and be safely assembled and operated in the harsh environment of space. It is being designed and manufactured by many organizations, including the prime contractor, Boeing, the NASA institutions, and international partners and their contractors. Finally, the ISS has multiple customers, (e.g., the Administration, Congress, users, public, international partners, etc.) with contrasting needs and constraints. It is the ISS Risk Management Office strategy to proactively and systematically manages risks to help ensure ISS Program success. ISS program follows integrated risk management process (both quantitative and qualitative) and is integrated into ISS project management. The process and tools are simple and seamless and permeate to the lowest levels (at a level where effective management can be realized) and follows the continuous risk management methodology. The risk process assesses continually what could go wrong (risks), determine which risks need to be managed, implement strategies to deal with those risks, and measure effectiveness of the implemented strategies. The process integrates all facets of risk including cost, schedule and technical aspects. Support analysis risk tools like PRA are used to support programatic decisions and assist in analyzing risks.

Sebastian, J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Risk Acceptance Personality Paradigm: How We View What We Don't Know We Don't Know

The purpose of integrated hazard analyses, probabilistic risk assessments, failure modes and effects analyses, fault trees and many other similar tools is to give managers of a program some idea of the risks associated with their program. All risk tools establish a set of undesired events and then try to evaluate the risk to the program by assessing the severity of the undesired event and the likelihood of that event occurring. Some tools provide qualitative results, some provide quantitative results and some do both. However, in the end the program manager and his/her team must decide which risks are acceptable and which are not. Even with a wide array of analysis tools available, risk acceptance is often a controversial and difficult decision making process. And yet, today's space exploration programs are moving toward more risk based design approaches. Thus, risk identification and good risk assessment is becoming even more vital to the engineering development process. This paper explores how known and unknown information influences risk-based decisions by looking at how the various parts of our personalities are affected by what they know and what they don't know. This paper then offers some criteria for consideration when making risk-based decisions.

Massie, Michael J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners (Second Edition)

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a comprehensive, structured, and logical analysis method aimed at identifying and assessing risks in complex technological systems for the purpose of cost-effectively improving their safety and performance. NASA's objective is to better understand and effectively manage risk, and thus more effectively ensure mission and programmatic success, and to achieve and maintain high safety standards at NASA. NASA intends to use risk assessment in its programs and projects to support optimal management decision making for the improvement of safety and program performance. In addition to using quantitative/probabilistic risk assessment to improve safety and enhance the safety decision process, NASA has incorporated quantitative risk assessment into its system safety assessment process, which until now has relied primarily on a qualitative representation of risk. Also, NASA has recently adopted the Risk-Informed Decision Making (RIDM) process [1-1] as a valuable addition to supplement existing deterministic and experience-based engineering methods and tools. Over the years, NASA has been a leader in most of the technologies it has employed in its programs. One would think that PRA should be no exception. In fact, it would be natural for NASA to be a leader in PRA because, as a technology pioneer, NASA uses risk assessment and management implicitly or explicitly on a daily basis. NASA has probabilistic safety requirements (thresholds and goals) for crew transportation system missions to the International Space Station (ISS) [1-2]. NASA intends to have probabilistic requirements for any new human spaceflight transportation system acquisition. Methods to perform risk and reliability assessment in the early 1960s originated in U.S. aerospace and missile programs. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is an example. It would have been a reasonable extrapolation to expect that NASA would also become the world leader in the application of PRA. That was, however, not to happen. Early in the Apollo program, estimates of the probability for a successful roundtrip human mission to the moon yielded disappointingly low (and suspect) values and NASA became discouraged from further performing quantitative risk analyses until some two decades later when the methods were more refined, rigorous, and repeatable. Instead, NASA decided to rely primarily on the Hazard Analysis (HA) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) methods for system safety assessment.

Stamatelatos,Michael↗
NASA NTRS2015

Menstrual Cycle Control in Female Astronauts and the Associated Risk of Venous Thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and serious condition affecting approximately 1‐2 per 1000 people in the USA every year. There have been no documented case reports of VTE in female astronauts during spaceflight in the published literature. Some female astronauts use hormonal contraception to control their menstrual cycles and it is currently unknown how this affects their risk of VTE. Current terrestrial risk prediction models do not account for the spaceflight environment and the physiological changes associated with it. We therefore aim to estimate a specific risk score for female astronauts who are taking hormonal contraception for menstrual cycle control, to deduce whether they are at an elevated risk of VTE. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in order to identify and quantify known terrestrial risk factors for VTE. Studies involving analogues for the female astronaut population were also reviewed, for example, military personnel who use the oral contraceptive pill for menstrual suppression. Well known terrestrial risk factors, for example, obesity or smoking would not be applicable to our study population as these candidates would have been excluded during astronaut selection processes. Other risk factors for VTE include hormonal therapy, lower limb paralysis, physical inactivity, hyperhomocysteinemia, low methylfolate levels and minor injuries, all of which potentially apply to crew members LSAH data will be assessed to identify which of these risk factors are applicable to our astronaut population. Using known terrestrial risk data, an overall estimated risk of VTE for female astronauts using menstrual cycle control methods will therefore be calculated. We predict this will be higher than the general population but not significantly higher requiring thromboprophylaxis. This study attempts to delineate what is assumed to be true of our astronaut population, for example, they are known to be a healthy fit cohort of individuals, and combine physiological impacts of spaceflight (cephalic fluid shifts, lower limb inactivity) to understand specific risks associated with hormonal contraception.

Jain, Varsha↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Open-Source Earth Observations to Inform the Toa Baja Municipality’s Flood Risk Mitigation Efforts and Educate the Public

Global climate changes contribute to more intense and frequent tropical storms, subjecting places like Toa Baja, Puerto Rico to critical damage. Known as “the underwater city” due to its propensity to flood, residents of Toa Baja face constant flood risk. During extreme tropical storm events, such as Hurricane Maria in 2017, residents experienced up to 20 feet of inundation. The NASA DEVELOP National Program collaborated with the Municipio Autónomo de Toa Baja, ResilientSEE-PR, and the MIT Urban Risk Lab to supplement 2018 FEMA HEC-RAS flood maps that designate 63% of Toa Baja as a flood plain. This analysis provides a high-resolution interpretation of flood risk through two lenses; susceptibility and vulnerability. For this analysis, susceptibility consists of nine weighted layers: NDVI, landcover, slope, elevation, topographic wetness index, height above nearest drainage, saturated hydraulic conductivity, distance to water, and storm surge. These factors are consistently used to evaluate susceptibility to flood, but their weights vary by analysis. Vulnerability consists of population, informal settlements, and building density, which were given equal weight. Susceptibility and vulnerability were combined to map flood risk. This analysis used a bivariate legend to understand the different levels of risk along a spectrum from low susceptibility and low vulnerability (low risk) to high susceptibility and high vulnerability (high risk). Data processed in Google Earth Engine, which identified historical inundation on various occasions, were used to validate the flood susceptibility layers. Results showed 89% of areas designated as high susceptibility are located within the floodway designated by the FEMA HEC-RAS maps. The eastern region of Toa Baja is most at risk for flooding due to high susceptibility to flooding along with a high density of population, buildings, and informal settlements. The resulting map also reveals the presence of smaller high-risk areas all around the municipality. This analysis provides scientific evidence for flood risk mitigation in Toa Baja by highlighting areas that might be impacted by strong floods in the future. Additionally, these results are communicated in an Esri ArcGIS StoryMap, an accessible platform that can easily inform the public about the flood risk in their neighborhood.

Adriana Le Compte↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

HUMAN FACTORS AND BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE EXPLORATION MEASURES: ASSESSING ASTRONAUT RISK

INTRODUCTION: The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA) risks. This presentation will provide an overview of the HFBP-EM program, describe its implementation across spaceflight analogs and the international space station (ISS), and discuss its applicability to audience members. TOPIC: HFBP-EM is a research program designed to develop a standard set of measures that can be used in space and space-analog research to characterize BMed, Team, Sleep, and HSIA risks. It is an ongoing research project that is used examine the validity and reliability of HFBP measures, as well as their shorter forms. It also serves as a test bed for HFBP measures being considered for the spaceflight standard measures. The suite of measures is used to test the efficacy of countermeasures. To date, HFBP-EM has been collected in Human Exploration Research Analogs campaigns 4 and 5, and the SIRIUS 19 mission in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part of HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Data was collected from a total of 55 multinational astronaut and astronaut-like crewmembers (mean age: 39.5, SD = 7.6; 31% female; 91% with advanced degrees). Three broad categories of HFBP-EM measures and their relevance to HRP risks will be discussed: 1) surveys that assess team functioning (Teams risk) as well as mood and affect (Bmed risk), 2) performance-based tasks of cognitive functioning and operationally relevant performance (Bmed risk), and 3) physiological biomarkers of sleep (sleep risk) and heart rate (Bmed risk). We will provide an overview of the background of the HFBP-EM program, what the suite currently includes, and next steps in its future development. We will also discuss the application to aerospace practitioners and researchers. APPLICATION: Astronaut teams selected for future space exploration missions will face several challenges that pose significant yet still unknown risks to the behavioral health and performance of astronauts. The HFBP-EM suite provides a comprehensive assessment of behavioral health and performance in space analog and spaceflight settings. This suite can be applied to both operational and research settings to advance risk reduction research for long duration space exploration missions.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Applications and Performance of a Lightning Risk Assessment using Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) Data

Lightning is a hazard globally, particularly in lesser-developed countries. Cloud-to-ground lightning strikes are a threat to human safety, motivating a desire to monitor location-based lightning risk to mitigate harm. A lightning risk assessment for human safety was created that uses a combination of probabilistic risk calculation and spatial lightning mapping data to produce a risk magnitude. This risk magnitude evolves with time and changing conditions and is compared to tolerability thresholds in order to evaluate safety. The risk assessment using lightning mapping array (LMA) flash extent density (FED) data was found to perform comparatively (with respect to issuing lightning warnings) to a more standard method of monitoring lightning safety where National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) flashes were monitored within a 5 nautical mile radius of a location of interest. This research investigates the replacement of LMA FED with FED from the Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) within the risk assessment framework. Using GLM FED would allow for risk to be calculated outside of LMA domains and anywhere within the GLM field of view, including areas outside of the United States (US). A few applications of the risk method with GLM FED are shown and discussed for locations both in and outside of the US. Additionally, the performance of the risk method is compared based on the type of lightning input source (LMA vs GLM). The end goal of this work is to provide forecasters and end users with a tool to help monitor lightning risk in decision support scenarios.

Kelley Murphy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantifying Medical Risk on a Long Duration Lunar Mission: A Demonstration of NASA’s IMPACT Tradespace Analysis Tool

Background NASA’s human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in-mission medical care. The distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and constraints on the medical evacuation of astronauts. Mass, volume, power, and data will be limited while higher demands will be placed on the crew to manage medical care. NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration strategy lays out increasingly complex Artemis missions both in terms of duration and operations. In these more challenging deep space missions, it is important to quantitatively estimate the human medical risk to inform a traditional heuristic approach to medical risk. Prior tools have been developed for missions in low Earth orbit, but a new tool is required to plan for future exploration missions. Methods IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a risk assessment tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design by quantitatively estimating mission medical risk. IMPACT v1.0 includes a novel evidence library baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; the addition of medical resources; and the ability for rapid and iterative analysis. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life, consideration of the need for return to definitive care (medical evacuation), and an estimate of crew time affected due to medical conditions. A notional long duration lunar orbit and lunar surface design reference mission (DRM) was chosen with a 4-astronaut crew to represent a sustained exploration Artemis mission. Results/Discussion Overall, IMPACT successfully quantified medical risk and derived an optimized medical system to support crew on a long duration lunar mission. In this DRM, the calculated loss of crew life from a medical event was 0.008 events per mission, risk of potential need for evacuation was 0.30 events per mission, and cumulative crew time affected by medical conditions was 103 days. The medical conditions that most contributed to overall medical risk were decompression sickness, trauma conditions, and respiratory failure. The conditions that had the largest effects on crew performance included musculoskeletal injuries and lunar dust exposure. The IMPACT-generated medical system included resources that target the most common and highest risk conditions. This systematic analysis demonstrates the value of the IMPACT tool in medical system design for human exploration spaceflight missions.

Missions to Mars↗
NASA NTRS2024

Quantifying Medical Risk on a Long Duration Lunar Mission: A Demonstration of NASA’s IMPACT Tradespace Analysis Tool

Background NASA’s human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in-mission medical care. The distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and constraints on the medical evacuation of astronauts. Mass, volume, power, and data will be limited while higher demands will be placed on the crew to manage medical care. NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration strategy lays out increasingly complex Artemis missions both in terms of duration and operations. In these more challenging deep space missions, it is important to quantitatively estimate the human medical risk to inform a traditional heuristic approach to medical risk. Prior tools have been developed for missions in low Earth orbit, but a new tool is required to plan for future exploration missions. Methods IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a risk assessment tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design by quantitatively estimating mission medical risk. IMPACT v1.0 includes a novel evidence library baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; the addition of medical resources; and the ability for rapid and iterative analysis. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life, consideration of the need for return to definitive care (medical evacuation), and an estimate of crew time affected due to medical conditions. A notional long duration lunar orbit and lunar surface design reference mission (DRM) was chosen with a 4-astronaut crew to represent a sustained exploration Artemis mission. Results/Discussion Overall, IMPACT successfully quantified medical risk and derived an optimized medical system to support crew on a long duration lunar mission. In this DRM, the calculated loss of crew life from a medical event was 0.008 events per mission, risk of potential need for evacuation was 0.30 events per mission, and cumulative crew time affected by medical conditions was 103 days. The medical conditions that most contributed to overall medical risk were decompression sickness, trauma conditions, and respiratory failure. The conditions that had the largest effects on crew performance included musculoskeletal injuries and lunar dust exposure. The IMPACT-generated medical system included resources that target the most common and highest risk conditions. This systematic analysis demonstrates the value of the IMPACT tool in medical system design for human exploration spaceflight missions.

Missions to Mars↗