Focus on Human Health & Performance Risks
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Jancy C Mcphee↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Human Health and Performance”
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.
EVA Health and Human Performance Benchmarking Study
Multiple HRP Risks and Gaps require detailed characterization of human health and performance during exploration extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks; however, a rigorous and comprehensive methodology for characterizing and comparing the health and human performance implications of current and future EVA spacesuit designs does not exist. This study will identify and implement functional tasks and metrics, both objective and subjective, that are relevant to health and human performance, such as metabolic expenditure, suit fit, discomfort, suited postural stability, cognitive performance, and potentially biochemical responses for humans working inside different EVA suits doing functional tasks under the appropriate simulated reduced gravity environments. This study will provide health and human performance benchmark data for humans working in current EVA suits (EMU, Mark III, and Z2) as well as shirtsleeves using a standard set of tasks and metrics with quantified reliability. Results and methodologies developed during this test will provide benchmark data against which future EVA suits, and different suit configurations (eg, varied pressure, mass, CG) may be reliably compared in subsequent tests. Results will also inform fitness for duty standards as well as design requirements and operations concepts for future EVA suits and other exploration systems.
Abercromby, A. F.↗
NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC)
The NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC) will provide a collaborative and virtual forum to integrate all disciplines of the human system to address spaceflight, aviation, and terrestrial human health and performance topics and issues. The NHHPC will serve a vital role as integrator, convening members to share information and capture a diverse knowledge base, while allowing the parties to collaborate to address the most important human health and performance topics of interest to members. The Center and its member organizations will address high-priority risk reduction strategies, including research and technology development, improved medical and environmental health diagnostics and therapeutics, and state-of-the art design approaches for human factors and habitability. Once full established in 2011, the NHHPC will focus on a number of collaborative projects focused on human health and performance, including workshops, education and outreach, information sharing and knowledge management, and research and technology development projects, to advance the study of the human system for spaceflight and other national and international priorities.
Davis, J. R.↗
NASA Human Health and Performance Information Architecture Panel
The Human Health and Performance (HH&P) Directorate at NASA's Johnson Space Center has a mission to enable optimization of human health and performance throughout all phases of spaceflight. All HH&P functions are ultimately aimed at achieving this mission. Our activities enable mission success, optimizing human health and productivity in space before, during, and after the actual spaceflight experience of our crews, and include support for ground-based functions. Many of our spaceflight innovations also provide solutions for terrestrial challenges, thereby enhancing life on Earth.
Johnson-Throop, Kathy↗
Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions
Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.
Life Support↗
Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions
Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.
Life Support↗
Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions
Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.
Life Support↗
NASA Human Health and Performance Strategy
In May 2007, what was then the Space Life Sciences Directorate, issued the 2007 Space Life Sciences Strategy for Human Space Exploration. In January 2012, leadership and key directorate personnel were once again brought together to assess the current and expected future environment against its 2007 Strategy and the Agency and Johnson Space Center goals and strategies. The result was a refined vision and mission, and revised goals, objectives, and strategies. One of the first changes implemented was to rename the directorate from Space Life Sciences to Human Health and Performance to better reflect our vision and mission. The most significant change in the directorate from 2007 to the present is the integration of the Human Research Program and Crew Health and Safety activities. Subsequently, the Human Health and Performance Directorate underwent a reorganization to achieve enhanced integration of research and development with operations to better support human spaceflight and International Space Station utilization. These changes also enable a more effective and efficient approach to human system risk mitigation. Since 2007, we have also made significant advances in external collaboration and implementation of new business models within the directorate and the Agency, and through two newly established virtual centers, the NASA Human Health and Performance Center and the Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation. Our 2012 Strategy builds upon these successes to address the Agency s increased emphasis on societal relevance and being a leader in research and development and innovative business and communications practices. The 2012 Human Health and Performance Vision is to lead the world in human health and performance innovations for life in space and on Earth. Our mission is to enable optimization of human health and performance throughout all phases of spaceflight. All HHPD functions are ultimately aimed at achieving this mission. Our activities enable mission success, optimizing human health and productivity in space before, during, and after the actual spaceflight experience of our crews, and include support for ground-based functions. Many of our spaceflight innovations also provide solutions for terrestrial challenges, thereby enhancing life on Earth. Our strategic goals are aimed at leading human exploration and ISS utilization, leading human health and performance internationally, excelling in management and advancement of innovations in health and human system integration, and expanding relevance to life on Earth and creating enduring support and enthusiasm for space exploration.
Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
NASA Human Health and Performance Strategy
In May 2007, what was then the Space Life Sciences Directorate, issued the 2007 Space Life Sciences Strategy for Human Space Exploration. In January 2012, leadership and key directorate personnel were once again brought together to assess the current and expected future environment against its 2007 Strategy and the Agency and Johnson Space Center goals and strategies. The result was a refined vision and mission, and revised goals, objectives, and strategies. One of the first changes implemented was to rename the directorate from Space Life Sciences to Human Health and Performance to better reflect our vision and mission. The most significant change in the directorate from 2007 to the present is the integration of the Human Research Program and Crew Health and Safety activities. Subsequently, the Human Health and Performance Directorate underwent a reorganization to achieve enhanced integration of research and development with operations to better support human spaceflight and International Space Station utilization. These changes also enable a more effective and efficient approach to human system risk mitigation. Since 2007, we have also made significant advances in external collaboration and implementation of new business models within the directorate and the Agency, and through two newly established virtual centers, the NASA Human Health and Performance Center and the Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation. Our 2012 Strategy builds upon these successes to address the Agency's increased emphasis on societal relevance and being a leader in research and development and innovative business and communications practices. The 2012 Human Health and Performance Vision is to lead the world in human health and performance innovations for life in space and on Earth. Our mission is to enable optimization of human health and performance throughout all phases of spaceflight. All HH&P functions are ultimately aimed at achieving this mission. Our activities enable mission success, optimizing human health and productivity in space before, during, and after the actual spaceflight experience of our crews, and include support for ground-‐ based functions. Many of our spaceflight innovations also provide solutions for terrestrial challenges, thereby enhancing life on Earth. Our strategic goals are aimed at leading human exploration and ISS utilization, leading human health and performance internationally, excelling in management and advancement of innovations in health and human system integration, and expanding relevance to life on Earth and creating enduring support and enthusiasm for space exploration.
Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
Future Challenges in Managing Human Health and Performance Risks for Space Flight
The global economy forces many nations to consider their national investments and make difficult decisions regarding their investment in future exploration. To enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration, we must pool global resources to understand and mitigate human health & performance risks prior to embarking on human exploration of deep space destinations. Consensus on the largest risks to humans during exploration is required to develop an integrated approach to mitigating risks. International collaboration in human space flight research will focus research on characterizing the effects of spaceflight on humans and the development of countermeasures or systems. Sharing existing data internationally will facilitate high quality research and sufficient power to make sound recommendations. Efficient utilization of ISS and unique ground-based analog facilities allows greater progress. Finally, a means to share results of human research in time to influence decisions for follow-on research, system design, new countermeasures and medical practices should be developed. Although formidable barriers to overcome, International working groups are working to define the risks, establish international research opportunities, share data among partners, share flight hardware and unique analog facilities, and establish forums for timely exchange of results. Representatives from the ISS partnership research and medical communities developed a list of the top ten human health & performance risks and their impact on exploration missions. They also drafted a multilateral data sharing plan to establish guidelines and principles for sharing human spaceflight data. Other working groups are also developing methods to promote international research solicitations. Collaborative use of analog facilities and shared development of space flight research and medical hardware continues. Establishing a forum for exchange of results between researchers, aerospace physicians and program managers takes careful consideration of researcher concerns and decision maker needs. Active participation by researchers in the development of this forum is essential, and the benefit can be tremendous. The ability to rapidly respond to research results without compromising publication rights and intellectual property will facilitate timely reduction in human health and performance risks in support of international exploration missions.
Corbin, Barbara J.↗
NASA as a Convener: Government, Academic and Industry Collaborations Through the NASA Human Health and Performance Center
On October 18, 2010, the NASA Human Health and Performance center (NHHPC) was opened to enable collaboration among government, academic and industry members. Membership rapidly grew to 60 members (http://nhhpc.nasa.gov ) and members began identifying collaborative projects as detailed below. In addition, a first workshop in open collaboration and innovation was conducted on January 19, 2011 by the NHHPC resulting in additional challenges and projects for further development. This first workshop was a result of the SLSD successes in running open innovation challenges over the past two years. In 2008, the NASA Johnson Space Center, Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) began pilot projects in open innovation (crowd sourcing) to determine if these new internet-based platforms could indeed find solutions to difficult technical problems. From 2008 to 2010, the SLSD issued 34 challenges, 14 externally and 20 internally. The 14 external challenges were conducted through three different vendors: InnoCentive, Yet2.com and TopCoder. The 20 internal challenges were conducted using the InnoCentive platform, customized to NASA use, and promoted as NASA@Work. The results from the 34 challenges involved not only technical solutions that were reported previously at the 61st IAC, but also the formation of new collaborative relationships. For example, the TopCoder pilot was expanded by the NASA Space Operations Mission Directorate to the NASA Tournament Lab in collaboration with Harvard Business School and TopCoder. Building on these initial successes, the NHHPC workshop in January of 2011, and ongoing NHHPC member discussions, several important collaborations are in development: Space Act Agreement between NASA and GE for collaborative projects, NASA and academia for a Visual Impairment / Intracranial Hypertension summit (February 2011), NASA and the DoD through the Defense Venture Catalyst Initiative (DeVenCI) for a technical needs workshop (June 2011), NASA and the San Diego Zoo in Biomimicry, NASA and the FAA Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Flight for collaborative projects, NASA and the FDA concerning automatic external defibrillators, and NASA and Tufts University for an education pilot. These and other collaborations will be detailed in the paper demonstrating that a government-sponsored convening entity (the NHHPC) can facilitate industry, academic, and non-profit collaborations for products of mutual benefit.
Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
Challenges to Health During Deep Space Exploration Missions
Long duration missions outside of low Earth orbit will present unique challenges to the maintenance of human health. Stressors with physiologic and psychological impacts are inherent in exploration missions, including reduced gravity, increased radiation, isolation, limited habitable volume, circadian disruptions, and cabin atmospheric changes. Operational stressors such as mission timeline and extravehicular activities must also be considered, and these varied stressors may act in additive or synergistic fashions. Should changes to physiology or behavior manifest as a health condition, the rendering of care in an exploration environment must also be considered. Factors such as the clinical background of the crew, inability to evacuate to Earth in a timely manner, communication delay, and limitations in available medical resources will have an impact on the assessment and treatment of these conditions. The presentations associated with this panel will address these unique challenges from the perspective of several elements of the NASA Human Research Program, including Behavioral Health and Performance, Human Health Countermeasures, Space Radiation, and Exploration Medical Capability.
Watkins, S.↗
NASA Human Health and Performance Center: Open Innovation Successes and Collaborative Projects
In May 2007, what was then the Space Life Sciences Directorate published the 2007 Space Life Sciences Strategy for Human Space Exploration, which resulted in the development and implementation of new business models and significant advances in external collaboration over the next five years. The strategy was updated on the basis of these accomplishments and reissued as the NASA Human Health and Performance Strategy in 2012, and continues to drive new approaches to innovation for the directorate. This short paper describes the open innovation successes and collaborative projects developed over this timeframe, including the efforts of the NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC), which was established to advance human health and performance innovations for spaceflight and societal benefit via collaboration in new markets.
Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
Human Health and Performance Considerations for Exploration of Near-Earth Asteroids
This presentation will describe the human health and performance issues that are anticipated for the human exploration of near-Earth asteroids (NEA). Humans are considered a system in the design of any such deep-space exploration mission, and exploration of NEA presents unique challenges for the human system. Key factors that define the mission are those that are strongly affected by distance and duration. The most critical of these is deep-space radiation exposure without even the temporary shielding of a nearby large planetary body. The current space radiation permissible exposure limits (PEL) restrict mission duration to 3-10 months depending on age and gender of crewmembers and stage of the solar cycle. Factors that affect mission architecture include medical capability; countermeasures for bone, muscle, and cardiovascular atrophy during continuous weightlessness; restricted food supplies; and limited habitable volume. The design of a habitat that can maintain the physical and psychological health of the crew and support mission operations with limited intervention from Earth will require an integrated research and development effort by NASA s Human Research Program, engineering, and human factors groups. Limited abort and return options for an NEA mission are anticipated to have important effects on crew psychology as well as influence medical supplies and training requirements of the crew. Other important factors are those related to isolation, confinement, communication delays, autonomous operations, task design, small crew size, and even the unchanging view outside the windows for most of the mission. Geological properties of the NEA will influence design of sample handling and containment, and extravehicular activity capabilities including suit ports and tools. A robotic precursor mission that collects basic information on NEA surface properties would reduce uncertainty about these aspects of the mission as well as aid in design of mission architecture and exploration tasks.
Kundrot, Craig↗
Open Innovation at NASA: A New Business Model for Advancing Human Health and Performance Innovations
This paper describes a new business model for advancing NASA human health and performance innovations and demonstrates how open innovation shaped its development. A 45 percent research and technology development budget reduction drove formulation of a strategic plan grounded in collaboration. We describe the strategy execution, including adoption and results of open innovation initiatives, the challenges of cultural change, and the development of virtual centers and a knowledge management tool to educate and engage the workforce and promote cultural change.
Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
Human Research Program Requirements Document (Revision C)
The purpose of this document is to define, document, and allocate the Human Research Program (HRP) requirements to the HRP Program Elements. It establishes the flow-down of requirements from Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) and Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) to the various Program Elements of the HRP to ensure that human research and technology countermeasure investments are made to insure the delivery of countermeasures and technologies that satisfy ESMD's and OCHMO's exploration mission requirements. Requirements driving the HRP work and deliverables are derived from the exploration architecture, as well as Agency standards regarding the maintenance of human health and performance. Agency human health and performance standards will define acceptable risk for each type and duration of exploration mission. It is critical to have the best available scientific and clinical evidence in setting and validating these standards. In addition, it is imperative that the best available evidence on preventing and mitigating human health and performance risks is incorporated into exploration mission and vehicle designs. These elements form the basis of the HRP research and technology development requirements and highlight the importance of HRP investments in enabling NASA's exploration missions. This PRD defines the requirements of the HRP which is comprised of the following major Program Elements: Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP), Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC), Human Health Countermeasures (HHC), ISS Medical Project (ISSMP), Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH), and Space Radiation (SR).
Vargas, Paul R.↗
NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC)
This slide presentation reviews the purpose, potential members and participants of the NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC). Included in the overview is a brief description of the administration and current activities of the NHHPC.
Davis, Jeffery R.↗
Human Health and Performance: Keeping Astronauts Safe & Productive on a Mission to Mars
Addressing the hazards and defining solutions will require a combination of human health and performance and engineering solutions. These solutions will be balanced with acceptable risks imposed on the crew and mission parameters such as duration, vehicle designs, operational considerations, and cost.
Laurie Janene Abadie↗