Results for “Space life support”

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A New Vision and A More Rational Process Will Advance Space Life Support Through Better Projects

Many space life support assumptions are obviously mistaken but they are generally accepted because they mutually support each other and because they advance a mistaken futuristic vision of closed human ecosystems in space. Many projects have been mistakenly selected to increase life support system closure or reduce launch mass in order to implement this impractical vision. Project members rarely challenge their project’s assumptions and guiding vision. Systems engineering including cost, reliability, risk, and system trade-offs has been very strongly discouraged to prevent rational criticism of these dubious assumptions, the projects, and the ecosystem vision. A more realistic vision can define better near term life support goals and future aspirations that will improve mission support and increase public interest. Given more realistic goals, it will be possible to develop effective technical alternatives, use open rational project selection methods, conduct professional project management, and make swifter progress in the inevitable human advance into space. The current unworkable human space settlement scenario involves moon visits and permanent bases, zero gravity trips to Mars, Mars visits and bases, all leading to extensive human settlements on the moon and Mars. This is unrealistic because the moon and Mars have less than Earth normal gravity and high radiation that can seriously damage human health. A better alternative would use rotating space colonies that produce Earth gravity and are radiation shielded. The attractive fantasy of reproducing terrestrial ecology in space should be replaced by the idea of building a closed system based on advancing technology such as artificial photosynthesis. Past mistaken projects include growing plants for food to replicate terrestrial food sources, recovering small amounts of water from difficult to process waste to achieve high system closure, and using newly designed, lighter, but unreliable hardware to reduce launch mass. The political process supporting the false assumptions, projects, and vision has deliberately prevented the usual systems engineering and cost-benefit analysis. We are going to do much better.

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Metrics in Space Life Support Technology Selection

Engineering metrics are useful in space life support technology selection, but they must be carefully used. Metrics are only part of a complete system trade-off. Metrics do harm if they cause neglect of other important technical, organizational, or intuitive decision factors. Two metrics have damaged space life support, closure and Equivalent Systems Mass (ESM). Closure measures the fraction of the required system inputs that are produced by recycling system outputs. Increasing closure produces diminishing returns and becomes increasingly expensive. Increasing closure does not directly contribute to providing better life support. ESM measures the total launch mass required to provide life support. ESM includes the mass of the system hardware and of its power, cooling, pressurized volume, spares, and logistics. ESM predicts launch costs, but recently launch costs have been reduced by a factor of 20 or more. System development cost for space hardware is often much greater than launch cost. The past nearly exclusive use of ESM has led to the neglect of Life Cycle Cost (LCC), reliability, cost, and the other engineering factors. Closure and ESM have misguided space life support technology selection for more than twenty years and have adversely affected the expenditure of 100’s of millions of dollars. Metrics can be effectively used three ways in space life support technology selection: 1. A small set of key engineering metrics for preliminary screening. 2. A full set of engineering to guide technical selection. 3. Combining engineering metrics with organizational, political, and intuitive decision factors to understand technology selection. The past emphasis on closure and ESM served to support recycling life support over resupply and built on the intuitive appeal of a human ecosystem in space.

Harry W Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Effective Use of Metrics in Space Life Support System Trade-Offs

Engineering metrics are useful in space life support technology selection, but they must be carefully used. Metrics are only part of a complete system trade-off. Metrics do harm if they cause neglect of other important technical, organizational, or intuitive decision factors. Two metrics have damaged space life support, closure and Equivalent Systems Mass (ESM). Closure measures the fraction of the required system inputs that are produced by recycling system outputs. Increasing closure produces diminishing returns and becomes increasingly expensive. Increasing closure does not directly contribute to providing better life support. ESM measures the total launch mass required to provide life support. ESM includes the mass of the system hardware and of its power, cooling, pressurized volume, spares, and logistics. ESM predicts launch costs, but recently launch costs have been reduced by a factor of 20 or more. System development cost for space hardware is often much greater than launch cost. The past nearly exclusive use of ESM has led to the neglect of Life Cycle Cost (LCC), reliability, cost, and the other engineering factors. Closure and ESM have misguided space life support technology selection for more than twenty years and have adversely affected the expenditure of 100’s of millions of dollars. Metrics can be effectively used three ways in space life support technology selection: 1. A small set of key engineering metrics for preliminary screening. 2. A full set of engineering to guide technical selection. 3. Combining engineering metrics with organizational, political, and intuitive decision factors to understand technology selection. The past emphasis on closure and ESM served to support recycling life support over resupply and built on the intuitive appeal of a human ecosystem in space.

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRS2012

Design and Analysis of a Flexible, Reliable Deep Space Life Support System

This report describes a flexible, reliable, deep space life support system design approach that uses either storage or recycling or both together. The design goal is to provide the needed life support performance with the required ultra reliability for the minimum Equivalent System Mass (ESM). Recycling life support systems used with multiple redundancy can have sufficient reliability for deep space missions but they usually do not save mass compared to mixed storage and recycling systems. The best deep space life support system design uses water recycling with sufficient water storage to prevent loss of crew if recycling fails. Since the amount of water needed for crew survival is a small part of the total water requirement, the required amount of stored water is significantly less than the total to be consumed. Water recycling with water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide removal material storage can achieve the high reliability of full storage systems with only half the mass of full storage and with less mass than the highly redundant recycling systems needed to achieve acceptable reliability. Improved recycling systems with lower mass and higher reliability could perform better than systems using storage.

reliability↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Oversimplification of Systems Engineering Goals, Processes, and Criteria in NASA Space Life Support

This paper investigates the oversimplification of the inherently complex systems engineering process in space life support. The standard systems engineering process steps are described. The International Space Station (ISS) life support system is explained with its goals and performance criteria. Although it is not usually emphasized, the essential function of developing a hierarchy of systems and subsystems is to simplify the design process. The System Complexity Metric (SCM) shows how this di-vide-and-conquer approach also reduces the system complexity. The complete systems engineering process has many detailed steps. It is often simplified because of the effort required and the human limitations on working memory and decision span. Systems analysis demands slow, logical, and fo-cused thinking but is often bypassed in favor of quick, intuitive, subconscious “gut feel.” A study of 100 system designs found examples of 12 specific mental mistakes, such as ignoring stakeholder needs, and these mistakes are essentially oversimplifications of the systems engineering process. An analysis of space life support goals, options, criteria, and processes found 11 examples of oversimplifications in systems engineering, such as neglecting safety and cost. All these 11 oversimplifications could be traced to one or more of the 12 previously identified mental mistakes or other well-known ones, such as ig-noring sunk costs. Oversimplification of the systems engineering process is rarely noticed but is a common and harmful problem. A study of failures in 50 different space systems found that problems in systems engineering caused failures and often led to errors in design, development, and test that further contributed to failure. It seems that more diligent systems engineering could prevent many project problems and failures, but projects seem to be more guided by “gut feel” based on tradition, authority, and consensus than on the logical, rational systems engineering approach.

Simplified systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2019

Cost-Effective High Reliability for Space Life Support Requires Using Storage

Cost-effective high reliability can be achieved in future space life support systems through careful systems analysis and design. This paper outlines a comprehensive approach. Potential future human space missions are described. The mission parameter impacts on life support system design and reliability requirements are discussed. Not all human space missions require high reliability life support. The potential reliability and cost of storage and of recycling life support systems are investigated. Simple storage systems can provide cost-effective high reliability life support where it is needed. More complex recycling systems with lower reliability and higher cost can be used when suitable.

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRS2001

Power Management for Space Advanced Life Support

Space power systems include the power source, storage, and management subsystems. In current crewed spacecraft, solar cells are the power source, batteries provide storage, and the crew performs any required load scheduling. For future crewed planetary surface systems using Advanced Life Support, we assume that plants will be grown to produce much of the crew's food and that nuclear power will be employed. Battery storage is much more costly than nuclear power capacity and so is not likely to be used. We investigate the scheduling of power demands by the crew or automatic control, to reduce the peak power load and the required generating capacity. The peak to average power ratio is a good measure of power use efficiency. We can easily schedule power demands to reduce the peak power from its maximum, but simple scheduling approaches may not find the lowest possible peak to average power ratio. An initial power scheduling example was simple enough for a human to solve, but a more complex example with many intermittent load demands required automatic scheduling. Excess power is a free resource and can be used even for minor benefits.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2018

Improving Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) in Space Life Support

This paper considers how to improve the reliability and maintainability (R&M) of future NASA space life support systems. If these systems are procured under an industry contract, defining the R&M requirements would take precedence over providing technical guidance on designing the system. Imposing a specific R&M design could be over constraining. However, the mission may define the overall R&M approach, as the International Space Station (ISS) did by requiring Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs). Before defining the R&M requirements for the next mission, the life support research program should understand and plan the R&M approach. The recent NASA technical standard on R&M has moved away from requiring specific R&M activities during each of the traditional project phases to instead developing and planning to implement the R&M requirements to meet the top level project R&M objectives. The emphasis is on providing the evidence to show that the R&M requirements are met, rather than on conducting specific prescribed R&M activities. The technical standard on R&M defines a comprehensive hierarchy of specific R&M objectives and identifies particular strategies to implement them at each level. That is, the top level R&M objective is defined and then one or more design strategies to implement it are developed immediately, before the next lower objectives are defined and the strategies to achieve those are designed. This step-by-step, top-down approach is similar to the axiomatic design method. The objectives are the R&M requirements, and the strategies are the hardware designs or operations plans developed to meet these requirements. The new R&M process is aligned with the systems design process and helps ensure that the methods to meet the R&M requirements are built into the design.

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design for Reliability (DfR) in Space Life Support

The engineering process of Design for Reliability (DfR) is well established in the automotive and aerospace industries. DfR should be useful in the future development of space life support systems. DfR is a sequence of tasks that develop system requirements and plan reliability analysis and testing. First and fundamentally, the reliability requirement is defined. Next the system reliability model is developed, often using a reliability block diagram. The overall system reliability requirement is allocated to the subsystems and an estimate of the attainable reliability is made. This expected reliability can be improved by simplifying the design by removing components or by replacing less reliable components. Improving reliability can require difficult compromises, such as reducing performance requirements, increasing budget, or extending testing. The actual system reliability can be determined only by testing, which should continue long enough to provide the required confidence in the measured value. New systems often have unexpected design errors that cause failures in early testing. The usual reliability improvement process of testing, finding the failure modes, and redesigning to remove them reduces the failure rate and is referred to as “reliability growth.” After redesign has been completed, the system should be further tested to determine the actual achieved reliability more accurately. If the final system failure rate is too high, redundant systems can be used to improve overall operational reliability. Adding redundancy simply to increase the one- or two-fault tolerance metric may sometimes reduce reliability. Reliability can be improved in three ways: redesigning the system to include more reliable subsystems and components, reliability growth testing and failure mode removal, and by using parallel redundant systems. DfR should combine these approaches to achieve the required reliability while managing performance, cost, and schedule.

Reliability↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design for Reliability (DfR) in Space Life Support

The engineering process of Design for Reliability (DfR) is well established in the automotive and aerospace industries. DfR should be useful in the future development of space life support systems. DfR is a sequence of tasks that develop system requirements and plan reliability analysis and testing. First and fundamentally, the reliability requirement is defined. Next the system reliability model is developed, often using a reliability block diagram. The overall system reliability requirement is allocated to the subsystems and an estimate of the attainable reliability is made. This expected reliability can be improved by simplifying the design by removing components or by replacing less reliable components. Improving reliability can require difficult compromises, such as reducing performance requirements, increasing budget, or extending testing. The actual system reliability can be determined only by testing, which should continue long enough to provide the required confidence in the measured value. New systems often have unexpected design errors that cause failures in early testing. The usual reliability improvement process of testing, finding the failure modes, and redesigning to remove them reduces the failure rate and is referred to as “reliability growth.” After redesign has been completed, the system should be further tested to determine the actual achieved reliability more accurately. If the final system failure rate is too high, redundant systems can be used to improve overall operational reliability. Adding redundancy simply to increase the one- or two-fault tolerance metric may sometimes reduce reliability. Reliability can be improved in three ways: redesigning the system to include more reliable subsystems and components, reliability growth testing and failure mode removal, and by using parallel redundant systems. DfR should combine these approaches to achieve the required reliability while managing performance, cost, and schedule.

Reliability↗

NASA NTRS2015

Diverse Redundant Systems for Reliable Space Life Support

Reliable life support systems are required for deep space missions. The probability of a fatal life support failure should be less than one in a thousand in a multi-year mission. It is far too expensive to develop a single system with such high reliability. Using three redundant units would require only that each have a failure probability of one in ten over the mission. Since the system development cost is inverse to the failure probability, this would cut cost by a factor of one hundred. Using replaceable subsystems instead of full systems would further cut cost. Using full sets of replaceable components improves reliability more than using complete systems as spares, since a set of components could repair many different failures instead of just one. Replaceable components would require more tools, space, and planning than full systems or replaceable subsystems. However, identical system redundancy cannot be relied on in practice. Common cause failures can disable all the identical redundant systems. Typical levels of common cause failures will defeat redundancy greater than two. Diverse redundant systems are required for reliable space life support. Three, four, or five diverse redundant systems could be needed for sufficient reliability. One system with lower level repair could be substituted for two diverse systems to save cost.

life support↗

NASA NTRS1993

Space Life Support Technology Applications to Terrestrial Environmental Problems

Many of the problems now facing the human race on Earth are, in fact, life support issues. Decline of air Quality as a result of industrial and automotive emissions, pollution of ground water by organic pesticides or solvents, and the disposal of solid wastes are all examples of environmental problems that we must solve to sustain human life. The technologies currently under development to solve the problems of supporting human life for advanced space missions are extraordinarily synergistic with these environmental problems. The development of these technologies (including both physicochemical and bioregenerative types) is increasingly focused on closing the life support loop by removing and recycling contaminants and wastes to produce the materials necessary to sustain human life. By so doing, this technology development effort also focuses automatically on reducing resupply logistics requirements and increasing crew safety through increased self-sufficiency. This paper describes several technologies that have been developed to support human life in space and illustrates the applicability of the technologies to environmental problems including environmental remediation and pollution prevention.

Schwartzkopf, Steven H.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Evaluation of two fiber optic-based solar collection and distribution systems for advanced space life support

Growing plants in an enclosed controlled environment is crucial in developing bioregenerative life-support systems (BLSS) for space applications. The major challenge currently facing a BLSS is the extensive use of highly energy-intensive electric light sources, which leads to substantial energy wastes through heat dissipations by these lamps. An alternative lighting strategy is the use of a solar irradiance collection, transmission, and distribution system (SICTDS). Two types of fiber optic-based SICTDS, a Fresnel-lens Himawari and a parabolic-mirror optical waveguide (OW) lighting system, were evaluated. The overall efficiency for the OW SICTDS of 40.5% exceeded by 75% that for the Himawari of 23.2%. The spectral distributions of the light delivered by the Himawari and the OW SICTDS were almost identical and had practically no difference from that of terrestrial solar radiation. The ratios of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) to total emitted radiation (k) of 0.39 +/- 0.02 for the Himawari and 0.41 +/- 0.04 for the OW SICTDS were statistically indistinguishable, were not significantly different from that of 0.042 +/- 0.01 for terrestrial solar radiation, and were comparable to that of 0.35 for a high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamp. The coefficients of variation (CV) of 0.34 and 0.39 for PPF distributions, both at 50 mm X 50 mm square grid arrays, corresponding to the Himawari and the OW SICTDS, respectively, were comparable with each other but were both significantly greater than the CV of 0.08 corresponding to the HPS lamp. The average fresh weight or dry weight of lettuce grown in the solar chamber with either the Himawari or the OW SICTDS showed no statistical difference from the average fresh weight or dry weight of lettuce grown in the reference chamber with the HPS lamp. The results of this study suggest that an SICTDS could help reduce the electric power demand in a BLSS.

NASA Discipline Life Support Systems↗

NASA NTRS2017

The Impact of Lower Launch Cost on Space Life Support

The development of commercial launch systems has substantially reduced the cost of space launch. NASA's Space Shuttle had a cost of about $1.5 billion to launch 27,500 kg to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), $54,500/kg. SpaceX's Falcon 9 now advertises a cost of $62 million to launch 22,800 kg to LEO, $2,720/kg. Space launch costs were very high for decades, typically about $20,000/kg, and it was understood that this high launch cost made it necessary for long human missions to recycle water and oxygen to reduce logistics mass. Short missions such as Apollo or Shuttle used stored and resupplied life support materials, but for a much longer mission such as the International Space Station (ISS), recycling saves logistics mass and reduces launch cost. The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) will be computed for resupply logistics and for a recycling system similar to that on the ISS. The LCC includes the costs of development, launch, and operations. The new low launch cost makes open loop life support much cheaper than before. Direct logistics resupply would be less costly than recycling for future human missions, such as a long term moon base, a Mars mission, or a future space station in LEO.

life support↗

NASA NTRS2005

Mechanical and Structural Behavior of Granular Material Packed Beds for Space Life Support System Applications

Long-term human mission to space, such as living in International Space Station (ISS), Lunar, and Martian bases, and travel to Mars, must m ake use of Advanced Life Support Systems (ALSS) to generate and recycle critical life supporting elements like oxygen and water. Oxygen Gen eration Assembly (OGA) and Water Processor Assembly (WPA), critical c omponents of ALSS, make use of series of granular material packed beds for generation and recycling of oxygen and water. Several granular m aterials can be used for generation, recycling, processing and recovery of oxygen and water. For example, they may include soft bed media, e.g. ion exchange resins for oxygen generation assembly and hard bed media such as, activated alumina, magchem (Magnesium oxide) and activa ted carbon to remove organic species like ethanol, methanol, and urea from wastewater in Water recovery/processing assembly. These beds are generally packed using a plate-spring mechanism to provide sufficien t compaction to the bed media throughout the course of operation. This paper presents results from an experimental study of a full-scale, 3 8.1 cm (15 inches) long and 3.7 cm (1.44 inches) diameter. activated alumina bed enclosed in a cylinder determining its force-displacement behavior, friction mobilizing force, and axial normal stress distribu tion under various axially applied loads and at different levels of packing. It is observed that force-displacement behavior is non-linear for low compaction level and becomes linear with increase in compaction of the bed media. Axial normal stress distribution along the length of the bed media decreased non-linearly with increase in depth from the loading end of the granular media. This paper also presents experimental results on the amount of particulates generated corresponding to various compaction levels. Particulates generated from each of the tests were measured using standard US sieves. It was found that the p articulates and the overall displacement of the bed media increased with decrease in initial compaction of the bed media. This effect could be attributed to the greater tendency for inter-particle sliding/rub bing due to smaller internal friction angles, as seen from the shear tests, at lesser initial compacted levels. Upon unloading, it was obse rved that there was no change in displacement (especially rebounding) in the bed media. This effect could be attributed to the fact that th e porous activated alumina particles fracture/break upon increase in applied load (during loading phase) and occupy void spaces in between the material grains; thereby leading to settling of the media. The lo ad-displacement curve becomes more linear with increase in initial compaction of the bed media. It is concluded that compaction considerabl y affects the load-displacement behavior of the bed media. A series of tests were also conducted on the packed bed media to determine the f orce required to mobilize the friction between the bed media and the housing cylinder. The results from these tests showed the existence of significant friction between the bed media and the encasing stainles s steel cylinder. Further, it was found that friction effects were more pronounced for media with higher initial compaction. Internal frict ion of the granular media was measured using direct shear apparatus. It was observed that the internal friction increased with increase in initial compaction of the bed media. In this study, a computational m odel (CM) is also developed using finite element software ANSYS to verify experimental results obtained for the distribution of the axial n ormal stress and axial displacement along the length of the full-scal e activated alumina bed media. In the computational model, the granular material is considered to have appropriate failure and frictional c ontact exists between the wall and the granular media. It is observed that the model predicts results closely with the experimental method. The compational results show that the axial normal stress distribution along the length of the activated alumina media decreases non-linea rly from the loading end and is negligible beyond a certain depth. Th is can be attributed to the existence of friction between the walls and the media and that the friction takes up most of the applied load.

Malla, Ramesh B.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Axiomatic Design of Space Life Support Systems

Systems engineering is an organized way to design and develop systems, but the initial system design concepts are usually seen as the products of unexplained but highly creative intuition. Axiomatic design is a mathematical approach to produce and compare system architectures. The two axioms are:- Maintain the independence of the functional requirements.- Minimize the information content (or complexity) of the design. The first axiom generates good system design structures and the second axiom ranks them. The closed system human life support architecture now implemented in the International Space Station has been essentially unchanged for fifty years. In contrast, brief missions such as Apollo and Shuttle have used open loop life support. As mission length increases, greater system closure and increased recycling become more cost-effective.Closure can be gradually increased, first recycling humidity condensate, then hygiene wastewater, urine, carbon dioxide, and water recovery brine. A long term space station or planetary base could implement nearly full closure, including food production. Dynamic systems theory supports the axioms by showing that fewer requirements, fewer subsystems, and fewer interconnections all increase system stability. If systems are too complex and interconnected, reliability is reduced and operations and maintenance become more difficult. Using axiomatic design shows how the mission duration and other requirements determine the best life support system design including the degree of closure.

Axiomatic design↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Bioregenerative Life Support Space and Terrestrial Demonstrators

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Plant↗

NASA NTRS2017

Need for Cost Optimization of Space Life Support Systems

As the nation plans manned missions that go far beyond Earth orbit to Mars, there is an urgent need for a robust, disciplined systems engineering methodology that can identify an optimized Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) architecture for long duration deep space missions. But unlike the previously used Equivalent System Mass (ESM), the method must be inclusive of all driving parameters and emphasize the economic analysis of life support system design. The key parameter for this analysis is Life Cycle Cost (LCC). LCC takes into account the cost for development and qualification of the system, launch costs, operational costs, maintenance costs and all other relevant and associated costs. Additionally, an effective methodology must consider system technical performance, safety, reliability, maintainability, crew time, and other factors that could affect the overall merit of the life support system.

Costs↗