Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Readiness Levels”

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 19 records

Technology Readiness Level as the Foundation of Human Readiness Level

Communication of the maturity of technology through the program/product life cycles helps enhance risk management from the beginning and support decision-making strategies for research, development, and allocation of resources. Currently, many organizations use the technology readiness level (TRL) as a simple metric to indicate the maturity of the technology. This article will discuss the TRL history, define the TRL levels, show how the TRL relates to the technology life cycle, and how the TRL framework contributes to the human readiness level (HRL) structure. Through the TRL advantages and disadvantages, this article will show how the TRL falls short in numerous areas of engineering, including the integration readiness of system/subsystem components and assessment of the readiness of the technology to operate within the human capabilities and limitations. Yet the article also shows how the TRL serves as the foundation for HRL.

George Salazar↗

Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as the foundation of Human Readiness Level (HRL)

As space programs became more complex, it became evident to NASA that a means of defining a methodological way to evaluate the maturity of technologies for spacecraft design was needed for risk assessment that could affect technical, cost and schedule. NASA first saw that infusing technology intoNASA programs required some means to assess technology maturity like flight readiness for a mission. Hence, a seven-point technology readiness level scale was developed in the mid-70s by a NASA researcher and later formally defined in 1989 (Sadin et al., 1989) that comprised of seven levels (See Table 1). These levels provided a definitive meaning of what complexity a research and technology development program should be followed. NASA recognized the approach as a useful way of an effective assessment of,and communication regarding the maturity of new technologies, using a simplistic figure of merit, the state of maturity of a technology-particularly, critical technology necessary to meet a mission/application objective

George Salazar↗

Space Trusted Autonomy Readiness Levels

Technology Readiness Levels are a mainstay for organizations that fund, develop, test, acquire, or use technologies. Technology Readiness Levels provide a standardized assessment of a technology’s maturity and enable consistent comparison among technologies. They inform decisions throughout a technology’s development life cycle, from concept, through development, to use. A variety of alternative Readiness Levels have been developed, including Algorithm Readiness Levels, manufacturing Readiness Levels, Human Readiness Levels, Commercialization Readiness Levels, Machine Learning Readiness Levels, and Technology Commitment Levels. However, while Technology Readiness Levels have been increasingly applied to emerging disciplines, there are unique challenges to assessing the rapidly developing capabilities of autonomy. This paper adopts the moniker of Space Trusted Autonomy Readiness Levels to identify a two-dimensional scale of readiness and trust appropriate for the special challenges of assessing autonomy technologies that seek space use. It draws inspiration from other readiness levels’ definitions, and from the rich field of trust and trustworthiness. The Space Trusted Autonomy Readiness Levels were developed by a collaborative Space Trusted Autonomy subgroup, which was created from The Space Science and Technology Partnership Forum between the United States Space Force, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Reconnaissance Office.

Kerianne L Hobbs↗

Applying NASA’s Human Systems Integration Methodology in Implementing Voice-Control of Future Spacecraft Systems

Through the NASA Artemis program, a new era of space exploration will serve to lead humanity towards sustained lunar exploration in preparation for the next giant leap-human exploration of Mars. These crewed spacecraft and habitats will require more automation and autonomy to support these complex missions. Crew size will be small and therefore a more efficient command and control input method is desired. Speech recognition along with visual or auditory feedback is an alternative, providing an extra pair of hands and eyes for the crew. Yet, speech recognition demands a highly integrated development approach to ensure a successful system implementation. To ensure the voice control application is developed correctly will require a Human Systems Integration (HSI) approach. This paper provides an insight into the development of a speech/voice control application for a spacecraft system that encompasses automation and autonomy through an HSI approach. Results of the voice control experiment of the Space Shuttle camera system are provided as lessons learned about using voice control on a spacecraft. Limitations and challenges of the technology are addressed as well as how HSI along with Human Readiness Level can help successfully develop voice control command and control systems.

Systems Engineering↗

Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) Monitoring System

What is Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM)? The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) is an expandable habitat technology demonstration on ISS; increase human-rated inflatable structure Technology Readiness Level (TRL) to level 9. NASA managed ISS payload project in partnership with Bigelow Aerospace. Launched to ISS on Space X 8 (April 8th, 2016). Fully expanded on May 28th, 2016. Jeff Williams/Exp. 48 Commander first entered BEAM on June 5th, 2016.

Wells, Nathan↗

Kilopower: Small and Affordable Fission Power Systems for Space

The Nuclear Systems Kilopower Project was initiated by NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate Game Changing Development Program in fiscal year 2015 to demonstrate subsystem-level technology readiness of small space fission power in a relevant environment (Technology Readiness Level 5) for space science and human exploration power needs. The Nuclear Systems Kilopower Project centerpiece is the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology (KRUSTY) test, which consists of the development and testing of a fission ground technology demonstrator of a 1 kWe-class fission power system. The technologies to be developed and validated by KRUSTY are extensible to space fission power systems from 1 to 10 kWe, which can enable higher power future potential deep space science missions, as well as modular surface fission power systems for exploration. The Kilopower Project is cofounded by NASA and the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).KRUSTY include the reactor core, heat pipes to transfer the heat from the core to the power conversion system, and the power conversion system. Los Alamos National Laboratory leads the design of the reactor, and the Y-12 National Security Complex is fabricating it. NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) has designed, built, and demonstrated the balance of plant heat transfer and power conversion portions of the KRUSTY experiment. NASA MSFC developed an electrical reactor simulator for non-nuclear testing, and the design of the reflector and shielding for nuclear testing. In 2016, an electrically heated non-fissionable Depleted Uranium (DU) core was tested at GRC in a configuration identical to the planned nuclear test. Once the reactor core has been fabricated and shipped to the Device Assembly Facility at the NNSAs Nevada National Security Site, the KRUSTY nuclear experiment will be assembled and tested. Completion of the KRUSTY experiment will validate the readiness of 1 to 10 kWe space fission technology for NASAs future requirements for sunlight-independent space power. An early opportunity for demonstration of In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) capability on the surface of Mars is currently being considered for 2026 launch. Since a space fission system is the leading option for power generation for the first Mars human outpost, a smaller version of a planetary surface fission power system could be built to power the ISRU demonstration and ensure its end-to-end validity. Planning is underway to start the hardware development of this subscale flight demonstrator in 2018.

Space nuclear power↗

Radiation Beamline Testbeds for the Simulation of Planetary and Spacecraft Environments for Human and Robotic Mission Risk Assessment

The Center for Radiation Engineering and Science for Space Exploration (CRESSE) at Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, Texas, USA, is establishing an integrated, multi-disciplinary research program on the scientific and engineering challenges faced by NASA and the international space community caused by space radiation. CRESSE focuses on space radiation research directly applicable to astronaut health and safety during future long term, deep space missions, including Martian, lunar, and other planetary body missions beyond low earth orbit. The research approach will consist of experimental and theoretical radiation modeling studies utilizing particle accelerator facilities including: 1. NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) at Brookhaven National Laboratory; 2. Proton Synchrotron at Loma Linda University Medical Center; and 3. Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Specifically, CRESSE investigators are designing, developing, and building experimental test beds that simulate the lunar and Martian radiation environments for experiments focused on risk assessment for astronauts and instrumentation. The testbeds have been designated the Bioastronautics Experimental Research Testbeds for Environmental Radiation Nostrum Investigations and Education (BERT and ERNIE). The designs of BERT and ERNIE will allow for a high degree of flexibility and adaptability to modify experimental configurations to simulate planetary surface environments, planetary habitats, and spacecraft interiors. In the nominal configuration, BERT and ERIE will consist of a set of experimental zones that will simulate the planetary atmosphere (Solid CO2 in the case of the Martian surface.), the planetary surface, and sub-surface regions. These experimental zones can be used for dosimetry, shielding, biological, and electronic effects radiation studies in support of space exploration missions. BERT and ERNIE are designed to be compatible with the experimental areas associated with the above facilities. CRESSE has broad expertise in space radiation in the areas of space radiation environment modeling, Monte-Carlo radiation transport modeling, space radiation instrumentation and dosimetry, radiation effects on electronics, and multi-functional composite shielding materials. The BERT and ERNIE testbeds will be utilized in individual and collaborative research incorporating this expertise. The research goal is to maximize the technical readiness level (TRL) of radiation instrumentation for human and robotic missions, optimizing the return value of CRESSE for NASA exploration and international co-operative missions. Outcomes and knowledge from research utilizing BERT and ERNIE will be applied to a variety of scientific and engineering disciplines vital for safe and reliable execution of future space exploration missions, which can be negatively impacted by the space radiation environment. The testbeds will be central to a variety of university educational activities and educational goals of NASA. Specifically, BERT and ERNIE will enhance educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines for engineering and science students at PVAMU, a historically black college/university. Preliminary data on prototype testbed configurations, including simulated lunar regolith (JSC-1A stimulant based on Apollo 11 samples), regolith/polyethylene composites, and dry ice, will be presented to demonstrate the usefulness of BERT and ERNIE in radiation beam line experiments.

Wilkins, Richard↗

Nuclear Systems Kilopower Overview

The Nuclear Systems Kilopower Project was initiated by NASAs Space Technology Mission Directorate Game Changing Development Program in fiscal year 2015 to demonstrate subsystem-level technology readiness of small space fission power in a relevant environment (Technology Readiness Level 5) for space science and human exploration power needs. The Nuclear Systems Kilopower Project consists of two elements. The primary element is the Kilopower Prototype Test, also called the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology(KRUSTY) Test. This element consists of the development and testing of a fission ground technology demonstrator of a 1 kWe fission power system. A 1 kWe system matches requirements for some robotic precursor exploration systems and future potential deep space science missions, and also allows a nuclear ground technology demonstration in existing nuclear test facilities at low cost. The second element, the Mars Kilopower Scalability Study, consists of the analysis and design of a scaled-up version of the 1 kWe reference concept to 10 kWe for Mars surface power projected requirements, and validation of the applicability of the KRUSTY experiment to key technology challenges for a 10 kWe system. If successful, these two elements will lead to initiation of planning for a technology demonstration of a 10 kWe fission power capability for Mars surface outpost power.

Space Nuclear Power↗

Comparison of Exploration Oxygen Recovery Technology Options Using ESM and LSMAC

In preparation for long duration manned space flight, numerous technology development efforts are ongoing in the area of environmental control and life support (ECLS). In cooperation with international, industry, and academic partners, NASA seeks to leverage the International Space Station as a testbed for technologies targeted for Exploration-class missions. In recent years, Equivalent Systems Mass (ESM) analyses have been conducted to evaluate the relative breakeven points and to compare technologies as part of ECLS architectural trades. While these studies have provided important data pertaining to key engineering metrics, additional considerations are important to more fully understand the potential impacts and costs associated with selecting a specific architecture. A tool, called the Life Support Multi-Dimensional Assessment Criteria (LSMAC), was recently proposed by Sierra Nevada Corporation in an attempt to incorporate influences of these additional considerations including Maintainability, Risk Analysis, Technology Readiness Level, Radiation Impacts, Manufacturing Costs, Reliability, Human Factors, and Un-Crewed Operations. As a first step toward evaluating and implementing this tool, LSMAC was used to revisit the ISS oxygen recovery trade from the 1990’s wherein Sabatier was selected over Bosch technology. Second, the tool was used to compare oxygen recovery developmental technologies currently in work. The results of these studies as well as a comparison with standalone ESM analyses are reported. Further, a discussion of the potential application of the tool across the ECLS portfolio and its potential use in future technology selection for ISS flight demonstrations is provided.

Morgan B Abney↗

Kilopower Project: The KRUSTY Fission Power Experiment and Potential Missions

The Kilopower Project was initiated by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate/Game Changing Development Program in fiscal year 2015 to demonstrate subsystem-level technology readiness of small space fission power in a relevant environment (Technology Readiness Level 5) for space science and human exploration power needs. The Kilopower Project centerpiece is the Kilowatt Reactor Using Stirling TechnologY (KRUSTY) test, which consists of the development and testing of a ground technology demonstrator of a 1-kW(electric)–class fission power system (FPS). The technologies to be developed and validated by KRUSTY are extensible to space FPSs from 1 to 10 kW(electric), which can enable modular surface FPSs for human exploration as well as higher-power future potential deep space science missions. The KRUSTY demonstration is cofunded by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration. The KRUSTY demonstration in the National Critical Experiment Research Center’s Device Assembly Facility was completed in the first quarter of 2018.

Space nuclear reactor↗

Human Research Program Exploration Medical Capability

NASA s Human Research Program (HRP) conducts and coordinates research projects that provide human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. The Program is divided into 6 major elements, which a) Provide the Program s knowledge and capabilities to conduct research, addressing the human health and performance risks. b) Advance the readiness levels of technology and countermeasures to the point of transfer to the customer programs and organizations. The National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) is a partner with the HRP in developing a successful research program. 3

Barsten, Kristina↗

RESOLVE Projects: Lunar Water Resource Demonstration and Regolith Volatile Characterization

To sustain affordable human and robotic space exploration, the ability to live off the land at the exploration site will be essential. NASA calls this ability in situ resource utilization (ISRU) and is focusing on finding ways to sustain missions first on the Moon and then on Mars. The ISRU project aims to develop capabilities to technology readiness level 6 for the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program and early human missions returning to the Moon. NASA is concentrating on three primary areas of ISRU: (1) excavating, handling, and moving lunar regolith, (2) extracting oxygen from lunar regolith, and (3) finding, characterizing, extracting, separating, and storing volatile lunar resources, especially in the permanently shadowed polar craters. To meet the challenges related to technology development for these three primary focus areas, the Regolith and Environment Science and Oxygen and Lunar Volatile Extraction (RESOLVE) project was initiated in February 2005, through funding by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. RESOLVE's objectives are to develop requirements and conceptual designs and to perform breadboard concept verification testing of each experiment module. The final goal is to deliver a flight prototype unit that has been tested in a relevant lunar polar environment. Here we report progress toward the third primary area creating ways to find, characterize, extract, separate, and store volatile lunar resources. The tasks include studying thermal, chemical, and electrical ways to collect such volatile resources as hydrogen, water, nitrogen, methane, and ammonia. We approached this effort through two subtasks: lunar water resource demonstration (LWRD) and regolith volatile characterization (RVC).

Source record↗

Design of an Excavation Robot: Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR) 2.0

To continue on a sustainable and flexible path, NASA needs to address the challenge of collecting and moving large amounts of regolith at the destination. Acquiring the water resources on Mars will require mining significant quantities of regolith and this is not possible with the state-of-the-art low mass excavation systems. Low gravity environments (Mars = 3/8 G) and launch mass restrictions limit the traction and the resulting reaction force of the vehicle, making current terrestrial techniques impractical. This project addressed this challenge by developing a completely new technology that can mine large quantities of regolith on Mars. Recent measurements by the “Curiosity” rover on Mars have found that the regolith contains ~ 2% water by weight globally, ~4% in Jezero Crater (Human Architecture Team’s reference landing site), and much more at the poles(Leshin et al, 2013). RASSOR 2.0 is a planetary excavator, which has a mass of 66 kg, with a 0.38 kg vehicle mass per kilogram, per hour of excavation rate and power usage of 4 W per kg of regolith excavation rate. A single RASSOR 2.0 can excavate a minimum of 2.7 metric tons of regolith per day.This is accomplished by using counteracting excavation forces on two opposing digging implements called bucket drums and an autonomous mining control system. This work has addressed several major research areas outlined in the NASA Technology Area (TA) 04 Robotics & Autonomous Systems and TA 07 Human Destination Systems roadmaps. This project started at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4 as a low fidelity “proof of concept” prototype which has successfully demonstrated basic regolith simulant excavation functionality in a lab-scale gravity off load test. The foundational technology described here was awarded US patent number: US 9027265 for a “Zero horizontal reaction force excavator” on May 12, 2015.

RASSOR↗

Scientific Merit Review of Directed Research Tasks Within the NASA Human Research Program

The Human Research Program is instrumental in developing and delivering research findings, health countermeasures, and human systems technologies for spacecraft. :HRP is subdivided into 6 research entities, or Elements. Each Element is charged with providing the Program with knowledge and capabilities to conduct research to address the human health and performance risks as well as advance the readiness levels of technology and countermeasures. Project: An Element may be further subdivided into Projects, which are defined as an integrated set of tasks undertaken to deliver a product or set of products

Charles, John B.↗

Decision Gate Process for Assessment of a NASA Technology Development Portfolio

The NASA Dust Management Project (DMP) was established to provide technologies (to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6) required to address adverse effects of lunar dust to humans and to exploration systems and equipment, to reduce life cycle cost and risk, and to increase the probability of sustainable and successful lunar missions. The technology portfolio of DMP consisted of different categories of technologies whose final product was either a technology solution in itself, or one that contributes toward a dust mitigation strategy for a particular application. A Decision Gate Process (DGP) was developed to assess and validate the achievement and priority of the dust mitigation technologies as the technologies progress through the development cycle. The DGP was part of continuous technology assessment and was a critical element of DMP risk management. At the core of the process were technology-specific criteria developed to measure the success of each DMP technology in attaining the technology readiness levels assigned to each decision gate. The DGP accounts for both categories of technologies and qualifies the technology progression from technology development tasks to application areas. The process provided opportunities to validate performance, as well as to identify non-performance in time to adjust resources and direction. This paper describes the overall philosophy of the DGP and the methodology for implementation for DMP, and describes the method for defining the technology evaluation criteria. The process is illustrated by example of an application to a specific DMP technology.

Kohli, Rajiv↗

SCRL-Model for Human Space Flight Operations Enterprise Supply Chain

This paper will present a Supply Chain Readiness Level (SCRL) model that can be used to evaluate and configure adaptable and sustainable program and mission supply chains at an enterprise level. It will also show that using SCRL in conjunction with Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) and National Aeronautics Space Administrations (NASA s) Project Lifecycle Process will provide a more complete means of developing and evaluating a robust sustainable supply chain that encompasses the entire product, system and mission lifecycle. In addition, it will be shown that by implementing the SCRL model, NASA can additionally define supplier requirements to enable effective supply chain management (SCM). Developing and evaluating overall supply chain readiness for any product, system and mission lifecycle is critical for mission success. Readiness levels are presently being used to evaluate the maturity of technology and manufacturing capability during development and deployment phases of products and systems. For example, TRLs are used to support the assessment of the maturity of a particular technology and compare maturity of different types of technologies. MRLs are designed to assess the maturity and risk of a given technology from a manufacturing perspective. In addition, when these measurement systems are used collectively they can offer a more comprehensive view of the maturity of the system. While some aspects of the supply chain and supply chain planning are considered in these familiar metric systems, certain characteristics of an effective supply chain, when evaluated in more detail, will provide an improved insight into the readiness and risk throughout the supply chain. Therefore, a system that concentrates particularly on supply chain attributes is required to better assess enterprise supply chain readiness.

Tucker, Brian↗

NASA's UAS NAS Access Project

The vision of the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project is "A global transportation system which allows routine access for all classes of UAS." The goal of the UAS Integration in the NAS Project is to "contribute capabilities that reduce technical barriers related to the safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS." This goal will be accomplished through a two-phased approach based on development of system-level integration of key concepts, technologies and/or procedures, and demonstrations of integrated capabilities in an operationally relevant environment. Phase 1 will take place the first two years of the Project and Phase 2 will take place the following three years. The Phase 1 and 2 technical objectives are: Phase 1: Developing a gap analysis between current state of the art and the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) UAS Concept of Operations . Validating the key technical areas identified by this Project . Conducting initial modeling, simulation, and flight testing activities . Completing Sub-project Phase 1 deliverables (spectrum requirements, comparative analysis of certification methodologies, etc.) and continue Phase 2 preparation (infrastructure, tools, etc.) Phase 2: Providing regulators with a methodology for developing airworthiness requirements for UAS, and data to support development of certifications standards and regulatory guidance . Providing systems-level, integrated testing of concepts and/or capabilities that address barriers to routine access to the NAS. Through simulation and flight testing, address issues including separation assurance, communications requirements, and human systems integration in operationally relevant environments. The UAS in the NAS Project will demonstrate solutions in specific technology areas, which will address operational/safety issues related to UAS access to the NAS. Since the resource allocation for this Project is limited ($150M over the five years), the focus is on reducing the technical barriers where NASA has unique capabilities. As a result, technical areas, such as Sense and Avoid (SAA) and beyond line of sight command and control will not be addressed. While these are critical barriers to UAS access, currently, there is a great deal of global effort being exercised to address these challenge areas. Instead, specific technology development in areas where there is certainty that NASA can advance the research to high technology readiness levels will be the Project's focus. Specific sub-projects include Separation Assurance, Human Systems Integration, Communications, Certification, and Integrated Test and Evaluation. Each sub-project will transfer technologies to relevant key stakeholders and decision makers through research transition teams, technology forums, or through other analogous means.

Johnson, Charles W.↗