SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This discussion provides an overview of the human research program (HRP), the Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element (HFBP), and outlines currently documented research using AR/VR or Hybrid Reality to maintain or improve human behavior for long duration exploration mission environments. Different analog environments are also discussed in this presentation (ISS and HERA).
This discussion provides an overview of the Human Research Program (HRP), the Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element (HFBP), and outlines currently documented research using AR/VR or Hybrid Reality to maintain or improve human behavior for long duration exploration mission environments. Different analog environments are also discussed in this presentation (ISS and HERA).
The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) was favorably impressed by the operational risk management approach taken by the Human Research Program (HRP) Integrated Research Plan (IRP) to address the stated life sciences issues. The life sciences community at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) seems to be focused on operational risk management. This approach is more likely to provide risk managers with the information they need at the time they need it. Concerning the information provided to the SRP by the EVA Physiology, Systems, and Performance Project (EPSP), it is obvious that a great deal of productive activity is under way. Evaluation of this information was hampered by the fact that it often was not organized in a fashion that reflects the "Gaps and Tasks" approach of the overall Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) effort, and that a substantial proportion of the briefing concerned subjects that, while interesting, are not part of the HHC Element (e.g., the pressurized rover presentation). Additionally, no information was provided on several of the tasks or how they related to work underway or already accomplished. This situation left the SRP having to guess at the efforts and relationship to other elements, and made it hard to easily map the EVA Project efforts currently underway, and the data collected thus far, to the gaps and tasks in the IRP. It seems that integration of the EPSP project into the HHC Element could be improved. Along these lines, we were concerned that our SRP was split off from the other participating SRPs at an early stage in the overall agenda for the meeting. In reality, the concerns of EPSP and other projects share much common ground. For example, the commonality of the concerns of the EVA and exercise physiology groups is obvious, both in terms of what reduced exercise capacity can do to EVA capability, and how the exercise performed during an EVA could contribute to an overall exercise countermeasure prescription.
The Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) met at the NASA Johnson Space Center on October 4-6, 2009 to discuss the areas of future research targeted by the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP). Using evidence-based knowledge as a background for risks, NASA had identified gaps in knowledge to address those risks. Ongoing and proposed tasks were presented to address the gaps. The charge to the Sensorimotor Risk SRP was to review the gaps, evaluate whether the tasks addressed these gaps and to make recommendations to NASA s HRP Science Management Office regarding the SRP's review. The SRP was requested to evaluate the practicality of the proposed efforts in light of the realistic demands placed on the HRP. In short, all tasks presented in the Integrated Research Plan (IRP) should address specific risks related to the challenges faced by the astronauts as a result of prolonged exposure to microgravity. All tasks proposed to fill the gaps in knowledge should provide applied, translational data necessary to address the specific risks. Several presentations were made to the SRP during the site visit and the SRP spent sufficient time to address the panel charge, either as a group or in separate sessions. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist. Taking the evidence and the risk as givens, the SRP reached the following conclusions: 1) the panel is very supportive of and endorses the present activities of the Sensorimotor Risk; and the panel is likewise supportive of the gaps and associated tasks in the IRP; 2) overall, the tasks addressed the gaps in the IRP; 3) there were some gaps and tasks that merit further enhancement and some new gaps/tasks that the SRP recommends.
The Bone and Muscle Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) met at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) on October 4-6, 2009 to discuss the areas of current and future research targeted by the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP). Using evidence-based knowledge as a background for identified risks to astronaut health and performance, NASA had identified gaps in knowledge to address those risks. Ongoing and proposed tasks were presented to address the gaps. The charge to the Bone and Muscle Risk SRP was to review the gaps, evaluate whether the tasks addressed these gaps and to make recommendations to NASA s HRP Science Management Office regarding the Panel's review. The Bone and Muscle Risk SRP consisted of scientists who are experts in muscle, bone, or both and could evaluate the existing evidence with sufficient knowledge of the potential effects of long duration exposure to microgravity. More important, although expertise in basic science is important, the SRP was requested to evaluate the practicality of the proposed efforts in light of the realistic demands placed on the HRP. In short, all tasks presented in the Integrated Research Plan (IRP) should address specific questions related to the challenges faced by the astronauts as a result of prolonged exposure to microgravity. All tasks proposed to fill the gaps in knowledge should provide applied, translational data necessary to answer the specific questions. Several presentations were made to the SRP during the site visit and the SRP spent sufficient time to address the panel charge, either as a group or in separate sessions for the Bone and Muscle Risk subgroups. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist, Dr. John B. Charles, on October 6, 2009. Taking the evidence and identified risks as givens, the SRP concluded that 1) integration of information should lead to a more comprehensive approach to identifying the gaps, 2) not all tasks addressed the gaps as stated in the IRP, 3) better access should be given to the SRP to existing data to include in its review, and 4) there were some missing gaps and tasks. As a result the SRP recommended 1) combining certain gaps, which in some cases were addressed with identical tasks, 2) additional gaps and tasks to address some of the gaps, 3) deleting some gaps and tasks to better focus the efforts of NASA s HRP in prioritizing their efforts, and 4) prioritizing gaps to address significant issues needing resolution in the short term while maintaining an awareness of long-term goals. The SRP commended the efforts by the HHC Element to integrate knowledge gaps and design tasks to address the higher order questions. This integration did not apply to the Bone and Muscle Risk alone, but the musculoskeletal system as its functions integrate with issues in
The Nutrition Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) reviewed and discussed the specific gaps and tasks for the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element related to nutrition identified in the Human Research Program (HRP) Integrated Research Plan. There was general consensus that the described gaps and proposed tasks were critical to future NASA mission success. The SRP acknowledged the high scientific quality of the work currently being undertaken by the Nutritional Biochemistry group under the direction of Dr. Scott Smith. In review of the entire HRP, four new gaps were identified that complement the Element's existing research activities. Given the limitations of ground-based analogs for many of the unique physiological and metabolic alterations in space, future studies are needed to quantify nutritional factors that change during actual space flight. In addition, future tasks should seek to better evaluate the time course of physiological and metabolic alterations during flight to better predict alterations during longer duration missions. Finally, given the recent data suggesting a potential role for increased inflammatory responses during space flight, the role of inflammation needs to be explored in detail, including the development of potential countermeasures and new ground based analogs, if this possibility is confirmed.
This document defines, documents, and allocates the Human Research Program (HRP) requirements to the HRP Program Elements. It also establishes the flow of requirements from the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) and the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) down to the various HRP Program Elements to ensure that human research and technology countermeasure investments support the delivery of countermeasures and technologies that satisfy HEOMD's and OCHMO's exploration mission requirements.
The Cardiovascular Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) evaluated several cardiovascular risks associated with space flight along with the ongoing and emerging plans to study these issues and potentially propose and/or develop countermeasures. The areas of focus included: 1) The risk of cardiac rhythm problems during prolonged space flight, and 2) Issues related to the risk of orthostatic intolerance during re-exposure to gravity. An emerging area of concern is radiation associated vascular injury. The risk of cardiac rhythm disturbances has emerged based on case reports only. No systematic study of this risk has been published. However, concerns about this risk are heightened by the age range of astronauts, the structural changes in the heart that occur during space flight, and the potential shifts in fluids and electrolytes. The current plan is to use prolonged Holter monitor EKG records made as part of the "Integrated Cardiovascular SMO" in space to determine more about the frequency and magnitude of this problem and to link this data to complementary data from the nutrition group on electrolytes. The SRP was supportive of this approach. The SRP also felt that any data related to cardiovascular risk in space should be better coordinated with the medical screening data that all astronauts undergo at regular intervals. Additionally, while there are potential privacy issues related to this suggestion, many of the current barriers to better coordination of experimental and clinical data appear to reflect longstanding cultural traditions at NASA that need rethinking. The risk of orthostatic intolerance during re-exposure to gravity was seen by the SRP as an area supported by a wealth of published physiological evidence. The SRP also felt that moving forward with the planned approach to countermeasures was reasonable and that extensive additional hypothesis testing on the physiology of orthostatic intolerance was not needed at this time. There was support for developing ground based models of limited (e.g. 1/6 th) G environments on Earth that generated a number of ideas for consideration by NASA investigators.
No abstract available
The most serious risks of long-duration flight involve radiation, behavioral stresses, and physiological deconditioning. Artificial gravity (AG), by substituting for the missing gravitational cues and loading in space, has the potential to mitigate the last of these risks by preventing the adaptive responses from occurring. The rotation of a Mars-bound spacecraft or an embarked human centrifuge offers significant promise as an effective, efficient multi-system countermeasure against the physiological deconditioning associated with prolonged weightlessness. Virtually all of the identified risks associated with bone loss, muscle weakening, cardiovascular deconditioning, and sensorimotor disturbances might be alleviated by the appropriate application of AG. However, experience with AG in space has been limited and a human-rated centrifuge is currently not available on board the ISS. A complete R&D program aimed at determining the requirements for gravity level, gravity gradient, rotation rate, frequency, and duration of AG exposure is warranted before making a decision for implementing AG in a human spacecraft.
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
The Usability project addresses the need for research in the area of metrics and methodologies used in hardware and software usability testing in order to define quantifiable and verifiable usability requirements. A usability test is a human-in-the-loop evaluation where a participant works through a realistic set of representative tasks using the hardware/software under investigation. The purpose of this research is to define metrics and methodologies for measuring and verifying usability in the aerospace domain in accordance with FY09 focus on errors, consistency, and mobility/maneuverability. Usability metrics must be predictive of success with the interfaces, must be easy to obtain and/or calculate, and must meet the intent of current Human Systems Integration Requirements (HSIR). Methodologies must work within the constraints of the aerospace domain, be cost and time efficient, and be able to be applied without extensive specialized training.
The goal of the Information Presentation Directed Research Project (DRP) is to address design questions related to the presentation of information to the crew. The major areas of work, or subtasks, within this DRP are: 1) Displays, 2) Controls, 3) Electronic Procedures and Fault Management, and 4) Human Performance Modeling. This DRP is a collaborative effort between researchers atJohnson Space Center and Ames Research Center. T
NASA s Human Research Program (HRP) is an applied research and technology program within the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) that addresses human health and performance risk mitigation strategies in support of exploration missions. The HRP research and technology development is focused on the highest priority risks to crew health and safety with the goal of ensuring mission success and maintaining long-term crew health. Crew health and performance standards, defined by the NASA Chief Health and Medical Officer (CHMO), set the acceptable risk level for exploration missions. The HRP conducts research to inform these standards as well as provide deliverables, such as countermeasures, that ensure standards can be met to maximize human performance and mission success. The Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element was formed as part of the HRP to develop a scientifically-based, integrated approach to understanding and mitigating the health risks associated with human spaceflight. These health risks have been organized into four research portfolios that group similar or related risks. A fifth portfolio exists for managing technology developments and infrastructure projects. The HHC Element portfolios consist of: a) Vision and Cardiovascular; b) Exercise and Performance; c) Multisystem; d) Bone; and e) Technology and Infrastructure. The HHC identifies gaps associated with the health risks and plans human physiology research that will result in knowledge required to more fully understand risks and will result in validated countermeasures to mitigate risks.
The Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (SRP) evaluated 22 gaps and 39 tasks in the three risk areas assigned to the SHFE Project. The area where tasks were best designed to close the gaps and the fewest gaps were left out was the Risk of Reduced Safety and Efficiency dire to Inadequate Design of Vehicle, Environment, Tools or Equipment. The areas where there were more issues with gaps and tasks, including poor or inadequate fit of tasks to gaps and missing gaps, were Risk of Errors due to Poor Task Design and Risk of Error due to Inadequate Information. One risk, the Risk of Errors due to Inappropriate Levels of Trust in Automation, should be added. If astronauts trust automation too much in areas where it should not be trusted, but rather tempered with human judgment and decision making, they will incur errors. Conversely, if they do not trust automation when it should be trusted, as in cases where it can sense aspects of the environment such as radiation levels or distances in space, they will also incur errors. This will be a larger risk when astronauts are less able to rely on human mission control experts and are out of touch, far away, and on their own. The SRP also identified 11 new gaps and five new tasks. Although the SRP had an extremely large quantity of reading material prior to and during the meeting, we still did not feel we had an overview of the activities and tasks the astronauts would be performing in exploration missions. Without a detailed task analysis and taxonomy of activities the humans would be engaged in, we felt it was impossible to know whether the gaps and tasks were really sufficient to insure human safety, performance, and comfort in the exploration missions. The SRP had difficulty evaluating many of the gaps and tasks that were not as quantitative as those related to concrete physical danger such as excessive noise and vibration. Often the research tasks for cognitive risks that accompany poor task or information design addressed only part, but not all, of the gaps they were programmed to fill. In fact the tasks outlined will not close the gap but only scratch the surface in many cases. In other cases, the gap was written too broadly, and really should be restated in a more constrained way that can be addressed by a well-organized and complementary set of tasks. In many cases, the research results should be turned into guidelines for design. However, it was not clear whether the researchers or another group would construct and deliver these guidelines.
The three project areas of the Space Human Factors and Habitability Element work together to achieve a working and living environment that will keep crews healthy, safe, and productive throughout all missions -- from Earth orbit to Mars expeditions. The Advanced Environmental Health (AEH) Project develops and evaluates advanced habitability systems and establishes requirements and health standards for exploration missions. The Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Project s goal is to ensure a safe and productive environment for humans in space. With missions using new technologies at an ever-increasing rate, it is imperative that these advances enhance crew performance without increasing stress or risk. The ultimate goal of Advanced Food Technology (AFT) Project is to develop and deliver technologies for human centered spacecraft that will support crews on missions to the moon, Mars, and beyond.
The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. This Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes the program s research activities that are intended to address the needs of human space exploration and serve HRP customers. The timescale of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illustrates the program s research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of extended duration. The document serves several purposes for the Human Research Program: The IRP provides a means to assure that the most significant risks to human space explorers are being adequately mitigated and/or addressed, The IRP shows the relationship of research activities to expected outcomes and need dates, The IRP shows the interrelationships among research activities that may interact to produce products that are integrative or cross defined research disciplines, The IRP illustrates the non-deterministic nature of research and technology activities by showing expected decision points and potential follow-on activities, The IRP shows the assignments of responsibility within the program organization and, as practical, the intended solicitation approach, The IRP shows the intended use of research platforms such as the International Space Station, NASA Space Radiation Laboratory, and various space flight analogs. The IRP does not show all budgeted activities of the Human research program, as some of these are enabling functions, such as management, facilities and infrastructure
The Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes the portfolio of Human Research Program (HRP) research and technology tasks. The IRP is the HRP strategic and tactical plan for research necessary to meet HRP requirements. The need to produce an IRP is established in HRP-47052, Human Research Program - Program Plan, and is under configuration management control of the Human Research Program Control Board (HRPCB). Crew health and performance is critical to successful human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The Human Research Program (HRP) is essential to enabling extended periods of space exploration because it provides knowledge and tools to mitigate risks to human health and performance. Risks include physiological and behavioral effects from radiation and hypogravity environments, as well as unique challenges in medical support, human factors, and behavioral or psychological factors. The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. Without HRP results, NASA will face unknown and unacceptable risks for mission success and post-mission crew health. This Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes HRP s approach and research activities that are intended to address the needs of human space exploration and serve HRP customers and how they are integrated to provide a risk mitigation tool. The scope of the IRP is limited to the activities that can be conducted with the resources available to the HRP; it does not contain activities that would be performed if additional resources were available. The timescale of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illustrates the program s research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of extended duration.