Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “commonality”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1985

Commonality analysis for the NASA Space Station Common Module

The concept of commonality to enhance cost savings, as applied to NASA's Space Station Common Module (CM), is explored. The equipment to be included in the CM is organized by subsystems of structure, power, thermal, command and data handling, environmental control and life support, and crew station. The weight, volume, and quantity of each instrument item will be subsequently added to support a cost model. The CM concept, its reference configuration, power distribution and management, and cost sensitivity options are discussed in detail. Some computer programs are outlined, stressing the importance of the existing capabilities of the STS and the optimum commonality case.

Powell, L. E.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Advanced space system concepts and their orbital support needs (1980 - 2000). Volume 4: Detailed data. Part 2: Program plans and common support needs (a study of the commonality of space vehicle applications to future national needs

The methodology of alternate world future scenarios is utilized for selecting a plausible, though not advocated, set of future scenarios each of which results in a program plan appropriate for the respective environment. Each such program plan gives rise to different building block and technology requirements, which are analyzed for common need between the NASA and the DoD for each of the alternate world scenarios. An essentially invariant set of system, building block, and technology development plans is presented at the conclusion, intended to allow protection of most of the options for system concepts regardless of what the actual future world environment turns out to be. Thus, building block and technology needs are derived which support: (1) each specific world scenario; (2) all the world scenarios identified in this study; or (3) generalized scenarios applicable to almost any future environment. The output included in this volume consists of the building blocks, i.e.: transportation vehicles, orbital support vehicles, and orbital support facilities; the technology required to support the program plans; identification of their features which could support the DoD and NASA in common; and a complete discussion of the planning methodology.

Bekey, I.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Mathematical Models of the Common-Source and Common-Gate Amplifiers using a Metal-Ferroelectric-Semiconductor Field effect Transistor

Mathematical models of the common-source and common-gate amplifiers using metal-ferroelectric- semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) are developed in this paper. The models are compared against data collected with MOSFETs of varying channel lengths and widths, and circuit parameters such as biasing conditions are varied as well. Considerations are made for the capacitance formed by the ferroelectric layer present between the gate and substrate of the transistors. Comparisons between the modeled and measured data are presented in depth as well as differences and advantages as compared to the performance of each circuit using a MOSFET.

Hunt, Mitchell↗
NASA NTRS2013

Extended Characterization of the Common-Source and Common-Gate Amplifiers using a Metal-Ferroelectric-Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor

Collected data for both common-source and common-gate amplifiers is presented in this paper. Characterizations of the two amplifier circuits using metal-ferroelectric-semiconductor field effect transistors (MFSFETs) are developed with wider input frequency ranges and varying device sizes compared to earlier characterizations. The effects of the ferroelectric layer's capacitance and variation load, quiescent point, or input signal on each circuit are discussed. Comparisons between the MFSFET and MOSFET circuit operation and performance are discussed at length as well as applications and advantages for the MFSFETs.

Hunt, Mitchell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Options for Offloading a 90-Ton Common Habitat from its Lander on the Surface of Mars

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15.6 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. There are obvious challenges associated with the delivery of such a large habitat, which may mass as much as 90-tons when initially deployed. The Mars destination in particular imposes extreme challenges due to Martian gravity. This paper identifies initial options for the offloading of a 90-ton Common Habitat from a lander spacecraft on the surface of Mars. On Mars, the Common Habitat is part of a surface outpost where a Habitation Zone includes the Common Habitat docked to a two-chamber airlock node, up to two logistics modules, and up to two pressurized rovers. It is connected by underground conduit to a radiator farm and communications tower assembly. These elements and other surface infrastructure, including robotic systems for surface preparation, are landed prior to the Common Habitat. In the baseline Common Habitat Architecture, the Common Habitat is delivered on the third heavy cargo flight. The Habitation Zone configuration dictates that the Common Habitat needs to be offloaded from the lander. All of the docked elements require direct access to the surface and the Common Habitat must actually be placed in a trench to lower its docking ports to be level with those of the mated elements. Additionally, the habitat must be emplaced in a horizontal configuration, while for any conceivable Earth launch system it must be launched in a vertical configuration. It is true that the Common Habitat must be offloaded from its lander on both the Moon and Mars and a common offloading system must therefore work in both destinations. Mars, however, is considered the driving case for offloading in most, but not all, aspects. A four-day internal study in 2021 recommended that a modified Starship be used to land the Common Habitat on Mars and considered multiple approaches to offload the Common Habitat from the payload section and lower it to the surface. The topic was presented at a public hackathon organized by the Johnson Space Center’s Emerge Employee Resource Group. One team took on the challenge and proposed a concept in some ways similar to the previously considered jib crane. Despite the excellent innovation in the team’s work, a number of study refinements are necessary to truly establish feasibility. These and other future work needed to mature the concept are discussed in this work.

Lander Offloading↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Common Cause Failures Dominate and Defeat Redundancy

Common cause failures occur when several malfunctions are produced by a single event or process. They are especially damaging when they eliminate an entire set of redundant systems and disable their intended function. Redundancy is used when the individual system failure probability is unacceptably high. Redundancy can improve the overall system failure probability if the failures are independent, but the reliability gain is limited if there are dependent failures having a common cause. No amount of redundancy can reduce the total failure probability below the common cause failure probability. Common cause failures defeat redundancy. Systems with high reliability requirements often use extensive redundancy. These highly redundant systems rarely fail unless all the redundant components providing a particular function fail. Complete failures of such highly redundant systems are then usually common cause failures. Common cause failures are prevalent in highly redundant, high reliability systems. Common cause failures dominate redundancy. Redundant systems may fail due to specification, design, manufacturing, operations, or maintenance problems that disable all the identical redundant systems. Common cause failures typically account for one tenth of all failures. If the failure probability is relatively low and common cause failures are significant, adding more than two or three redundant identical units usually gives little added reliability improvement. Common cause failures can be reduced by using diverse components with different technologies and manufacturers, by separating and shielding subsystems, and by avoiding shared control, power, or location. External events and shared vulnerabilities may still cause common cause failures.

common cause failures↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Common Cause Failures Dominate and Defeat Redundancy

Common cause failures occur when several malfunctions are produced by a single event or process. They are especially damaging when they eliminate an entire set of redundant systems and disable their intended function. Redundancy is used when the individual system failure probability is unacceptably high. Redundancy can improve the overall system failure probability if the failures are independent, but the reliability gain is limited if there are dependent failures having a common cause. No amount of redundancy can reduce the total failure probability below the common cause failure probability. Common cause failures defeat redundancy. Systems with high reliability requirements often use extensive redundancy. These highly redundant systems rarely fail unless all the redundant components providing a particular function fail. Complete failures of such highly redundant systems are then usually common cause failures. Common cause failures are prevalent in highly redundant, high reliability systems. Common cause failures dominate redundancy. Redundant systems may fail due to specification, design, manufacturing, operations, or maintenance problems that disable all the identical redundant systems. Common cause failures typically account for one tenth of all failures. If the failure probability is relatively low and common cause failures are significant, adding more than two or three redundant identical units usually gives little added reliability improvement. Common cause failures can be reduced by using diverse components with different technologies and manufacturers, by separating and shielding subsystems, and by avoiding shared control, power, or location. External events and shared vulnerabilities may still cause common cause failures.

common cause failures↗
NASA NTRS1986

Lunar and Martian hardware commonality

A number of different hardware elements were examined for possible Moon/Mars program commonality. These include manned landers; cargo landers, a trans-Mars injection (TMI) stage, traverse vehicles, unmanned surface rovers, habitation modules, and power supplies. Preliminary analysis indicates that it is possible to build a common two-stage manned lander. A single-stage, reusable lander may be practical for the lunar cast, but much less so for the Martian case, and commonality may therefore exist only at the subsystem level. A modified orbit transfer vehicle was examined as a potential cargo lander. Potential cargoes to various destinations were calculated for a Shuttle external tank sized TMI stage. A nuclear powered, long range traverse vehicle was conceptually designed and commonality is considered feasible. Short range, unmanned rovers can be made common without great effort. A surface habitation module may be difficult to make common due to difficulties in landing certain shapes on the Martian surface with aerobraking landers. Common nuclear power sources appear feasible. High temperature radiators appear easy to make common. Low temperature radiators may be difficult to make common. In most of these cases, Martian requirements determine the design.

Davis, Hubert P.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Surface Transportation of the Common Habitat from Lander to Habitation Zone

The Common Habitat Architecture is a feasibility study surrounding the use of an SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as the pressure vessel for a long-duration habitat intended for use in multiple gravity environments. The Common Habitat is used within this study as the primary habitation element in both Moon and Mars surface base camps. The Common Habitat Architecture offloads the Common Habitat from its lander and transports it to a Habitation Zone instead of leaving the habitat integrated with the lander. In this study, the Landing Zone is assumed to be approximately 3.5 kilometers from the Habitation Zone. Given the physical size and estimated 90-ton mass of the Common Habitat, a four-week trade study encompassing Moon and Mars lander identification, offloading, surface transport, and emplacement was conducted in February 2021 to assess whether there are any credible options for landing the Common Habitat on the Moon or Mars and deliver it to its intended point of use. Constrained to use only public data, the study applied subject matter expert opinion to each component of the study. The surface transportation component of the trade study assumes the habitat has been successfully offloaded from its lander and is at a point of handover to the surface transportation system. It is assumed that there are no crew present, and all human operations are performed remotely by Mission Control personnel. Three core cargo handling elements from prior NASA studies were used as the basis from which to derive surface transportation options – the Chariot, the All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer, and the Lightweight Surface Manipulator System. Variations and hybrid combinations of these elements were used to develop transportation options for the Moon and Mars, given different habitat masses. Ultimately, several potentially feasible solutions were identified, and a solution was recommended that is common to both the Moon and Mars, with the potential to use a dissimilar system as a backup during lunar Common Habitat delivery. Next steps for sizing and additional development and analysis of the recommended surface transportation system are included as forward work.

Surface Mobility↗
NASA NTRS2012

Common Cause Failures and Ultra Reliability

A common cause failure occurs when several failures have the same origin. Common cause failures are either common event failures, where the cause is a single external event, or common mode failures, where two systems fail in the same way for the same reason. Common mode failures can occur at different times because of a design defect or a repeated external event. Common event failures reduce the reliability of on-line redundant systems but not of systems using off-line spare parts. Common mode failures reduce the dependability of systems using off-line spare parts and on-line redundancy.

reliability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Science Capabilities of the Common Habitat

The Common Habitat is the primary habitable element in a conceptual architecture feasibility study for long-duration space exploration with an eight-person crew size. On lunar or planetary surfaces, the Common Habitat forms the core of a Surface Base Camp. In microgravity, the Common Habitat is the core of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle (DSEV), an in-space transportation spacecraft. The Common Habitat employs a horizontal orientation that is divided internally into a lower deck, mid deck, and upper deck, roughly separating outfitting into individual, work, and group functions. On a planetary surface, the habitat is incorporated into a base camp, located near the south pole in the case of the Moon. The Mars base camp is currently location agnostic. Each base camp is divided into habitation, landing, resource production, and power zones. In microgravity, the habitat is incorporated into the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle, a vessel capable of transporting the crew within the inner solar system. In addition to crew and teleoperated control of external science assets, the Common Habitat employs a suite of life and physical science laboratory systems to enable it to support science investigations across a variety of destination environments, primarily featuring the Moon and Mars, along with the intervening interplanetary space. Other potential destinations include Near Earth Asteroids and Venus and Earth orbits. Located in the aft starboard section of the Common Habitat mid deck, the life science laboratory supports primarily biology and human research. In its baseline configuration, the laboratory includes horizontal work surfaces, freezers, multiple gloveboxes, sample transfer/exposure capability, large instruments, and reconfigurable ISPR-compatible payload bays. The Medical Care Facility and exercise facility can also support life science research. In the aft port section of the mid deck, the physical science laboratory supports physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, and remote sensing (including astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science, planetary science, and meteorology). It provides a baseline of similar ISPR-compatible payload bays and adds additional freezers, including those for cryogenic sample storage, a remote sensing workstation, more gloveboxes, also with sample transfer/exposure, combustion chambers, fluid mechanics chambers, and a gas chromatograph. It leverages the Command & Control Center for teleoperations of mobile science assets. Both laboratories are highly modular, with the ability to swap out both payloads and instruments on an as-needed basis. The integrated science outfitting of the Common Habitat positions its crew to contribute to all of NASA’s Moon to Mars science objectives and extend human understanding into the inner solar system.

Lunar Suface↗
NASA NTRS1987

Expert system development for commonality analysis in space programs

This report is a combination of foundational mathematics and software design. A mathematical model of the Commonality Analysis problem was developed and some important properties discovered. The complexity of the problem is described herein and techniques, both deterministic and heuristic, for reducing that complexity are presented. Weaknesses are pointed out in the existing software (System Commonality Analysis Tool) and several improvements are recommended. It is recommended that: (1) an expert system for guiding the design of new databases be developed; (2) a distributed knowledge base be created and maintained for the purpose of encoding the commonality relationships between design items in commonality databases; (3) a software module be produced which automatically generates commonality alternative sets from commonality databases using the knowledge associated with those databases; and (4) a more complete commonality analysis module be written which is capable of generating any type of feasible solution.

Yeager, Dorian P.↗
NASA NTRS1987

A class 2 weight assessment for the implementation of commonality and preliminary structural designs for the family of commuter airplanes

The feasibility of commonality objectives are determined. Commonality is discussed in terms of weight penalties that increase the take-off weight of several members of the family of airplanes. Preliminary designs of fuselage structural members and a discussion of weight penalties due to implementation of common fuselage structure throughout the family is examined. Wing torque box designs are discussed along with structural weight penalties incurred. A landing gear design study is contained along with the weight penalties that a common gear system will impose. Implementation of common power plants throughout the family and the weight penalties that occur are discussed. The weight penalties imposed by commonality on all the airplanes in the family are summarized. Class 2 breakdowns are also presented. The feasibility of commonality based on a percentage of take-off weight increase over the Class 2 baseline weights is then assessed.

Creighton, Tom↗
NASA NTRS1992

Functional implications of component commonality in operational systems

The application of commonality in a system represents an attempt to reduce costs by reducing the number of unique components. Research in this area has primarily addressed a significant benefit of commonality, the reduction of parts inventories in assemble-to-order manufacturing systems. Likewise, in an operational system subject to component failures, spares inventories are reduced through the increased commonality of components. However, commonality tends to degrade system performance parameters, a degradation that can preclude commonality in resource-constrained systems such as spacecraft. The functional impacts of component commonality on a system is addressed in a manner that allows inclusion in a commonality analysis.

Thomas, Lawrence D.↗
NASA NTRS2018

A Common Probe Design for Multiple Planetary Destinations

Atmospheric probes have been successfully flown to planets and moons in the solar system to conduct in situ measurements. They include the Pioneer Venus multi-probes, the Galileo Jupiter probe, and Huygens probe. Probe mission concepts to five destinations, including Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, have all utilized similar-shaped aeroshells and concept of operations, namely a 45-degree sphere cone shape with high density heatshield material and parachute system for extracting the descent vehicle from the aeroshell. Each concept designed its probe to meet specific mission requirements and to optimize mass, volume, and cost. At the 2017 International Planetary Probe Workshop (IPPW), NASA Headquarters postulated that a common aeroshell design could be used successfully for multiple destinations and missions. This "common probe" design could even be assembled with multiple copies, properly stored, and made available for future NASA missions, potentially realizing savings in cost and schedule and reducing the risk of losing technologies and skills difficult to sustain over decades. Thus the NASA Planetary Science Division funded a study to investigate whether a common probe design could meet most, if not all, mission needs to the five planetary destinations with extreme entry environments. The Common Probe study involved four NASA Centers and addressed these issues, including constraints and inefficiencies that occur in specifying a common design. Study methodology: First, a notional payload of instruments for each destination was defined based on priority measurements from the Planetary Science Decadal Survey. Steep and shallow entry flight path angles (EFPA) were defined for each planet based on qualification and operational g-load limits for current, state-of-the-art instruments. Interplanetary trajectories were then identified for a bounding range of EFPA. Next, 3-degrees-of-freedom simulations for entry trajectories were run using the entry state vectors from the interplanetary trajectories. Aeroheating correlations were used to generate stagnation point convective and radiative heat flux profiles for several aeroshell shapes and entry masses. High fidelity thermal response models for various Thermal Protection System (TPS) materials were used to size stagnation-point thicknesses, with margins based on previous studies. Backshell TPS masses were assumed based on scaled heat fluxes from the heatshield and also from previous mission concepts. Presentation: We will present an overview of the study scope, highlights of the trade studies and design driver analyses, and the final recommendations of a common probe design and assembly. We will also indicate limitations that the common probe design may have for the different destinations. Finally, recommended qualification approaches for missions will be presented.

Hwang, H. H.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Configuration and Projected Capabilities of the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. Additional work outside the scope of this paper is developing a vertical translation system, a crew mobility aids system based on wearable gecko-derived grippers, and a crew seating/restraint system. These systems are all assumed for use in conjunction with the Medical Care Facility, which is needed to maintain crew well-being during these missions, where distance from Earth precludes the possibility of evacuation to Earth. This paper describes recent improvements in the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility and associated benefits for crew survivability in long duration missions beyond Earth orbit. These improvements were made with the assistance of a NASA Pathways intern whose experience includes a tour of duty in Afghanistan as an Army combat medic with the 691st GHOST-T, attached to the 1st and 7th US Special Forces Groups as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, where he helped provide far-forward surgical capabilities in austere combat environments. The initial baseline Medical Care Facility was developed working in conjunction with University of Houston Space Architecture graduate students. The facility was placed on the upper deck of the Common Habitat in a location that provided privacy, operational volume, and was close to the vertical translation pathway. The notional outfitting repurposed component CAD models from unrelated studies and notionally indicated a level of care roughly equivalent to that aboard the International Space Station. The CAD modeling provided notional stowage volumes, a deployable surface, some fixed equipment, an ultrasound, and a potentially reconfigurable treatment table. While this facility is clearly a competent arrangement, it was desired to leverage available expertise and upgrade the station given the vast distances from Earth to be experienced by the Common Habitat. Key driving requirements applied to the upgrade included to provide Medical Level of Care V, offer enhanced telemedicine capabilities, provide patient physical accommodation, provide caregiver access to the patient from all sides, include sliding pocket doors for access to hygiene and to the Vertical Translation System, and to add any additional capability possible for the best achievable medical care. The first step in the facility upgrade was to quantify the current medical inventory on the International Space Station and ensure that sufficient stowage volume was present for this purpose. To that end, the ISS medical kits were reviewed, and eight full size mid deck lockers were placed in the facility. A number of additional devices were also added, based on the intern’s combat medic experience. Also, two fixed shelves and one horizontal work surface were added to the Medical Care Facility, with the shelves providing storage space for the additional devices and the work surface providing a location for the caregiver to work or stage equipment. Four display monitors were added to the wall above the horizontal work surface, supporting data display, telemedicine, conferencing, or other needs. The existing treatment table was replaced with a mobile surgical stretcher-chair. Two additional doors were added to the Medical Care Facility. One leads directly to the hygiene compartment, allowing it to support medical operations in addition to providing galley/wardroom support. The other door leads directly into the Vertical Translation System. The wall adjacent to the subsystems bay was moved, adding additional volume to the Medical Care Facility. This improved caregiver access to the patient and allowed for a larger number of caregivers to be present. It also provided options for relocation of support equipment relative to the patient as needed. In the upgraded Medical Care Facility, the Surgical Stretcher-Chair and the Vertical Translation System can work together to provide incapacitated crew member transport from a site of injury on any deck of the Common Habitat to the Medical Care Facility. It can also support patient treatment in a variety of positions including a variety of sitting postures and a supine posture at a variety of pitch angles. The facility can also support caregiver office work for review of examination results, private consultation, inventory and maintenance, and a variety of other purposes. A forward activity will be to conduct evaluations of the Medical Care Facility with different medical scenarios. Additionally, ambient and task lighting selections remain as forward work. The eight mid deck lockers can be augmented to use as portable equipment carts, similar to a manner in which maintenance facility stowage was used as portable carts during the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies in the Constellation Program. Trash accommodation will also need forward work to assess, including provision for wet trash, dry trash, and biological waste. It will be important to assess a redesign of the surgical stretcher-chair. The commercial version used in the upgrade can only enable vertical translation in the seated configuration, requiring the patient to bend both hips and knees. A possible redesign of the chair will allow for vertical translation without requiring any bending at the hip or knees. Also, the commercial version is wheeled, making it mobile in gravity but unanchored in microgravity. Work will be needed to adapt the chair for gravity-independent performance. The hygiene compartment can be redesigned for dual-use medical scrub and galley handwash facility. Pending sufficient volume, it may also be possible to place sanitation equipment in this location to clean medical tools. Finally, most space architectures have never allowed for more than one incapacitated crew member, but several scenarios could potentially injure two or more crew in the same incident. This facility could be assessed to determine its present ability to address two or more injured crew in parallel and determine the potential upper limit for number of treatable crew in a multi-crew injury scenario, or to treat polytrauma of a single patient.

Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Vertical Translation System for the Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. The Common Habitat Vertical Translation System provides a means for transporting crew and cargo between decks in a Common Habitat spacecraft in gravity levels varying from 0g to 1g. A crowdsourcing campaign was conducted through the GrabCAD platform to initially solicit ideas for restraints and mobility aids, including vertical translation. Four of the five top responses repeated ideas that would be incorporated into features of the Vertical Translation System. The first was a safety barrier (to prevent falls into the opening between decks) that could collapse to form a floor surface covering the opening when not in use. The second idea was a folding ladder that could be stowed in the ceiling when not in use. The third idea was an elevator platform that could traverse the ladder. Several key driving requirements were established for the Vertical Translation System: it may not penetrate into or through the lower deck; it must work on the Earth, Moon, Mars, and in microgravity; it must be easy to operate; it must enable translation of any item that can fit through the Common Habitat’s 40” x 60” hatches, inclusive of suited and unsuited crew with any degree of incapacitation and any equipment or cargo item; and it must include three component systems – deploying floor / safety barriers, a deployable ladder, and an elevator platform. Additional requirements were established for each of the component systems. The safety barriers must form a roughly 40-inch tall, complete wall enclosure on all four sides when deployed; it must include an easy to open gate that allows access to/from the ladder when deployed; and when retracted, the safety barrier must form a smooth, load-bearing floor that can be walked on, and wheeled objects can be rolled across in gravity, without being a trip hazard. The deployable ladder must be composed of multiple ladders that work together; it must stow in the ceiling when not in use; and it must not penetrate into the 40” x 60” vertical passage corridor. The elevator platform must work with the deployable ladder system; it must be able to bridge any gap in ladders between decks; it must stop at each deck flush with the deck surface; it must be capable of transporting an incapacitated crew member as a single rescuer operation; it must be capable of transporting a full-size subsystems pallet; it must function as an elevator for a crew member carrying large objects; it must have safety functions to prevent falls from the platform, or crew/cargo collisions with edges of hatch openings, or entanglement with ladder rungs/structure; it must stow when not in use; and it must autonomously both connect itself to the ladder and deploy itself to any deck where needed when called (e.g., a crew member on any deck can call for the platform and it must connect itself to the ladders without assistance and translate to the requestor’s deck). These requirements were developed into a system concept with the assistance of a NASA Pathways Intern who also added the requirement to size the design based on the use of commercial components, using existing motors and other mechanisms to ensure that the resulting system could be inexpensively produced. The Floor and Safety Barrier consists of four panels, two roughly 40 inches long and two roughly 60 inches long that can fold into the floor on top of each other when not in use. The uppermost panel is load bearing and acts as the floor surface. When deployed, they connect with each other to form a rigid barrier surrounding the vertical passageway. One of the panels contains a hinged gate that can be opened when deployed to allow for access to/from the passageway. The Deploying Ladder consists of two ladder segments, one mounted on the ceiling of the lower deck and the other mounted on the ceiling of the mid deck. A rotating mechanism is mounted on the ladder to allow it to rotate into a horizontal position against the ceiling for stowage, or down to a vertical position for use. A second rotating mechanism is built into the ladder, allowing the rungs to rotate. A toothed surface intended to work with the elevator platform covers the front of the ladder rails and the top and bottom of the rails are designed to be flush when aligned with another ladder segment. The elevator platform is essentially a motorized, self-propelled deck. It has a mechanism that holds it in contact with the ladder rails and drives itself against the toothed surface. This mechanism allows the elevator platform to ascend or descend the ladder. In order to stow the platform when not in use, a set of short ladder rails (without rungs) are mounted to the ceiling of the mid deck. When the mid deck ladder is stowed, it is flush with these rails and the platform can drive itself onto those short rails for stowage. An additional mechanism on the platform can pitch its deck surface 90 degrees, such that when the ladder is to be stowed, the platform can fold up against the ceiling. As a consequence of the ladder and elevator platform design, the opening between decks in the Common Habitat was enlarged to ensure that the elevator platform can accept a payload up to 40”x60” in dimension.

Human Centered Design↗