Search Results

Dynamic simulation of the lunar outpost habitat life support was undertaken to investigate the impact of life support failures and to investigate possible responses. Some preparatory static analysis for the Lunar Outpost life support model, an earlier version of the model, and an investigation into the impact of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) were reported previously. (Jones, 2008-01-2184, 2008-01-2017) The earlier model was modified to include possible resupply delays, power failures, recycling system failures, and atmosphere and other material storage failures. Most failures impact the lunar outpost water balance and can be mitigated by reducing water usage. Food solids and nitrogen can be obtained only by resupply from Earth. The most time urgent failure is a loss of carbon dioxide removal capability. Life support failures might be survivable if effective operational solutions are provided in the system design.

This study describes the operational requirements for planetary surface access and compares the performance of a hatch, airlock, suitlock, and suitport. The requirements for mitigating dust, performing EVA (ExtraVehicular Activity) by only part of the crew, and use on Mars as well as the Moon are strong reasons to prefer an airlock over a simple hatch, which would require depressurizing the habitat and sending all the crew on EVA. A requirement for minimum cost would favor the hatch above all. A suitlock provides better dust mitigation than an airlock, but at higher cost and complexity. A suitlock accommodating two crew meets requirements for buddy assistance and ability to help an incapacitated crewmember. Two suitlocks would provide redundant airlocks.

How much integrated system level test should be performed on a spacecraft before it is launched? Although sometimes system test is minimized, experience shows that systems level testing should be thorough and complete. Reducing subsystem testing is a less dangerous way to save cost, since it risks finding problems later in system test, while cutting systems test risks finding them even later on orbit. Human-rated spacecraft test planning is informal, subjective, and inconsistent, and its extent is often determined by the decision maker's risk tolerance, decision-making style, and long-term or short-term view. Decisions on what to test should be guided by an overall mission cost-benefit analysis, similar to the risk analysis used to guide development efforts.

The purpose of NASA's Research and Development (R&D) programs is to provide advanced human support technologies for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). The new technologies must be sufficiently attractive and proven to be selectable for future missions. This requires identifying promising candidate technologies and advancing them in technology readiness until they are likely options for flight. The R&D programs must select an array of technology development projects, manage them, and either terminate or continue them, so as to maximize the delivered number of potentially usable advanced human support technologies. This paper proposes an effective project selection methodology to help manage NASA R&D project portfolios.

NASA requires continuous risk management for all programs and projects. The risk management process identifies risks, analyzes their impact, prioritizes them, develops and carries out plans to mitigate or accept them, tracks risks and mitigation plans, and communicates and documents risk information. Project risk management is driven by the project goal and is performed by the entire team. Risk management begins early in the formulation phase with initial risk identification and development of a risk management plan and continues throughout the project life cycle. This paper describes a risk management approach that is suggested for use in NASA's Human Support Research and Technology (HSRT).

Future space life support systems may use crop plants to grow most of the crew’s food. A harvest failure can reduce the food available for future consumption. If the previously stored food is insufficient to last until the next harvest, the crew may go hungry. This paper considers how the overall food supply system should be designed to cope with food production failures. The food supply system for a mission will use grown food, or stored food, or both. The optimum food supply mix depends on the costs and failure probabilities of stored and grown food. A simple food system model assumes that either we obtain the nominal harvest or a failure occurs and no food is harvested. Given the probability that any particular harvest fails, it is easy to compute the expected number of failures and the total food shortfall over a mission.

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria such as performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and technical and schedule risk are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost would account for much of the cost of a future planetary mission, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select advanced life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated mass of the hardware and of the spacecraft pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass of a system is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in the Advanced Life Support project.

New variable environment Modified Energy Cascade (MEC) crop models were developed for all the Advanced Life Support (ALS) candidate crops and implemented in SIMULINK. The MEC models are based on the Volk, Bugbee, and Wheeler Energy Cascade (EC) model and are derived from more recent Top-Level Energy Cascade (TLEC) models. The MEC models were developed to simulate crop plant responses to day-to-day changes in photosynthetic photon flux, photoperiod, carbon dioxide level, temperature, and relative humidity. The original EC model allowed only changes in light energy and used a less accurate linear approximation. For constant nominal environmental conditions, the simulation outputs of the new MEC models are very similar to those of earlier EC models that use parameters produced by the TLEC models. There are a few differences. The new MEC models allow setting the time for seed emergence, have more realistic exponential canopy growth, and have corrected harvest dates for potato and tomato.

Space power systems include power source, storage, and management subsystems. In current crewed spacecraft designs, 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 provided. We investigate scheduling of power demands to reduce the required peak power generating capacity. The peak to average power ratio is a good measure of power capacity efficiency. We can easily schedule power demands to reduce the peak power below the potential maximum, but simple scheduling rules may not achieve the lowest possible peak to average power ratio.

System failures, dynamics, and nonlinearities can cause unacceptable performance and damaging instability in Advanced Life Support (ALS) systems. Much current ALS modeling assumes that ALS systems are linear, static, and failure-free. But in reality most ALS hardware is subject to failure, real ALS systems are dynamic, and many ALS processors are nonlinear beyond a limited operating range. Modeling and simulation are needed to study the stability and time behavior of nonlinear dynamic ALS systems with failures and to develop appropriate controls. The nonlinear dynamics of ALS systems has many interesting potential consequences. Different equilibrium points may be reached for different initial conditions. The system stability can depend on the exact system inputs and initial conditions. The system may oscillate or even in rare cases behave chaotically. Temporary internal hardware failures or external perturbations can lead to dynamic instability and total ALS system failure.

Industrial process control has been dominated by closed architectures and proprietary protocols for the last three decades. In the late 1990’s, the advent of open fieldbus and middleware standards has greatly changed the process control arena. Fieldbus has pushed control closer and closer to the process itself. Middleware standards have exposed real-time process data to higher level software applications. Control systems can now be designed to minimize the reconfiguration costs associated with design changes. How can Advanced Life Support (ALS) benefit from these technologies? We consider designing the control system for the BIO-Plex and evaluate how complex it will be, the effort it will require, and how much it will it cost. Various fieldbus technologies were compared and Foundation Fieldbus was chosen for detailed evaluation. This new fieldbus was integrated with an existing ALS system.

This paper matches the BIO-Plex crop food production to the crew diet requirements. The expected average calorie requirement for BIO-Plex is 2,975 Calories per crewmember per day, for a randomly selected crew with a typical level of physical activity. The range of 2,550 to 3,400 Calories will cover about two-thirds of all crews. The exact calorie requirement will depend on the gender composition, individual weights, exercise, and work effort of the selected crew. The expected average crewmember calorie requirement can be met by 430 grams of carbohydrate, 100 grams of fat, and 90 grams of protein per crewmember per day, for a total of 620 grams. Some fat can replaced by carbohydrate. Each crewmember requires only 2 grams of vitamins and minerals per day. Only unusually restricted diets may lack essential nutrients. The Advanced Life Support (ALS) consensus is that BIO-Plex should grow wheat, potato, and soybean, and maybe sweet potato or peanut, and maybe lettuce and tomato.