ALBERT

Description: Introduction: A pair of small pressurized rovers (Space Exploration Vehicles, or SEVs) is at the center of the Global Point-of-Departure architecture for future human planetary exploration. Simultaneous operation of multiple crewed surface assets should maximize productive crew time, minimize overhead, and preserve contingency return paths. Methods: A 14-day mission simulation was conducted in the Arizona desert as part of NASA?s 2010 Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS). The simulation involved two SEV concept vehicles performing geological exploration under varied operational modes affecting both the extent to which the SEVs must maintain real-time communications with mission control ("Continuous" vs. "Twice-a-Day") and their proximity to each other ("Lead-and-Follow" vs. "Divide-and-Conquer"). As part of a minimalist lunar architecture, no communications relay satellites were assumed. Two-person crews consisting of an astronaut and a field geologist operated each SEV, day and night, throughout the entire 14-day mission, only leaving via the suit ports to perform simulated extravehicular activities. Standard metrics enabled quantification of the habitability and usability of all aspects of the SEV concept vehicles throughout the mission, as well as comparison of the extent to which the operating modes affected crew productivity and performance. Practically significant differences in the relevant metrics were prospectively defined for the testing of all hypotheses. Results and Discussion: Data showed a significant 14% increase in available science time (AST) during Lead-and-Follow mode compared with Divide-and-Conquer, primarily because of the minimal overhead required to maintain communications during Lead-and-Follow. In Lead-and-Follow mode, there was a non-significant 2% increase in AST during Twice-a-Day vs. Continuous communications. Situational awareness of the other vehicle?s location, activities, and contingency return constraints were enhanced during Lead-and-Follow and Twice-a-Day communications modes due to line-of-sight and direct SEV-to-SEV communication. Preliminary analysis of Scientific Data Quality and Observation Quality metrics showed no significant differences between modes.

Description: The ultimate success of future human space exploration missions is dependent on the ability to perform extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks effectively, efficiently, and safely, whether those tasks represent a nominal mode of operation or a contingency capability. To optimize EVA systems for the best human performance, it is critical to study the effects of varying key factors such as suit center of gravity (CG), suit mass, and gravity level. During the 2-week NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) 14 mission, four crewmembers performed a series of EVA tasks under different simulated EVA suit configurations and used full-scale mockups of a Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV) rover and lander. NEEMO is an underwater spaceflight analog that allows a true mission-like operational environment and uses buoyancy effects and added weight to simulate different gravity levels. Quantitative and qualitative data collected during NEEMO 14, as well as from spacesuit tests in parabolic flight and with overhead suspension, are being used to directly inform ongoing hardware and operations concept development of the SEV, exploration EVA systems, and future EVA suits. OBJECTIVE: To compare human performance across different weight and CG configurations. METHODS: Four subjects were weighed out to simulate reduced gravity and wore either a specially designed rig to allow adjustment of CG or a PLSS mockup. Subjects completed tasks including level ambulation, incline/decline ambulation, standing from the kneeling and prone position, picking up objects, shoveling, ladder climbing, incapacitated crewmember handling, and small and large payload transfer. Subjective compensation, exertion, task acceptability, and duration data as well as photo and video were collected. RESULTS: There appear to be interactions between CG, weight, and task. CGs nearest the subject s natural CG are the most predictable in terms of acceptable performance across tasks. Future research should focus on understanding the interactions between CG, mass, and subject differences.

Description: This study developed, analyzed, and compared mission architectures for human exploration of Mars' Moons within the context of an Evolvable Mars Campaign. METHODS: All trades assumed conjunction class missions to Phobos (approximately 500 days in Mars system) as it was considered the driving case for the transportation architecture. All architectures assumed that the Mars Transit Habitat would remain in a High Mars Orbit with crewmembers transferring between HMO and Phobos in a small crew taxi vehicle. A reference science / exploration program was developed including performance of a standard set of tasks at 55 locations on the Phobos surface. Detailed EVA timelines were developed using realistic flight rules to accomplish the reference science tasks using exploration systems ranging from jetpacks to multi-person pressurized excursion vehicles combined with Phobos surface and orbital (L1, L4/L5, 20km Distant Retrograde Orbit) habitat options. Detailed models of propellant mass, crew time, science productivity, radiation exposure, systems and consumables masses, and other figures of merit were integrated to enable quantitative comparison of different architectural options. Options for pre-staging assets using solar electric propulsion (SEP) vs. delivering all systems with the crew were also evaluated. Seven discrete mission architectures were evaluated. RESULTS: The driving consideration for habitat location (Phobos surface vs. orbital) was radiation exposure, with an estimated reduction in cumulative mission radiation exposure of up to 34% (vs. Mars orbital mission) when the habitat is located on the Phobos surface, compared with only 3-6% reduction for a habitat in a 20km DRO. The exploration utility of lightweight unpressurized excursion vehicles was limited by the need to remain within 20 minutes of Solar Particle Event radiation protection combined with complex GN&C systems required by the non-intuitive and highly-variable gravitational environment. Two-person pressurized excursion vehicles as well as mobile surface habitats offer significant exploration capability and operational benefits compared with unpressurized EVA mobility systems at the cost of increased system and propellant mass. Mechanical surface translation modes (i.e. hopping) were modeled and offer potentially significant propellant savings and the possibility of extended exploration operations between crewed missions. Options for extending the utilization of the crew taxi vehicle were examined, including use as an exploration asset for Phobos surface exploration (when combined with an alternate mobility system) and as an EVA platform, both on Phobos and for contingency EVA on the Mars Transit Habitat. CONCLUSIONS: Human exploration of Phobos offers a scientifically meaningful first step towards human Mars surface missions that develops and validates transportation, habitation, and exploration systems and operations in advance of the Mars landing systems.

Description: The Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS) is identified by the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) as a recognized risk to human health and performance in space, as defined in the HRP Program Requirements Document (PRD). This Evidence Report provides a summary of the evidence that has been used to identify and characterize this risk. Given that tissue inert gas partial pressure is often greater than ambient pressure during phases of a mission, primarily during extravehicular activity (EVA), there is a possibility that decompression sickness may occur.

Description: Multiple organizations within NASA and outside of NASA fund and participate in research related to extravehicular activity (EVA). In October 2015, representatives of the EVA Office, the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD), and the Human Research Program (HRP) at NASA Johnson Space Center agreed on a formal framework to improve multi-year coordination and collaboration in EVA research. At the core of the framework is an Integrated EVA Research Plan and a process by which it will be annually reviewed and updated. The over-arching objective of the collaborative framework is to conduct multi-disciplinary cost-effective research that will enable humans to perform EVAs safely, effectively, comfortably, and efficiently, as needed to enable and enhance human space exploration missions. Research activities must be defined, prioritized, planned and executed to comprehensively address the right questions, avoid duplication, leverage other complementary activities where possible, and ultimately provide actionable evidence-based results in time to inform subsequent tests, developments and/or research activities. Representation of all appropriate stakeholders in the definition, prioritization, planning and execution of research activities is essential to accomplishing the over-arching objective. A formal review of the Integrated EVA Research Plan will be conducted annually. External peer review of all HRP EVA research activities including compilation and review of published literature in the EVA Evidence Book is already performed annually. Coordination with stakeholders outside of the EVA Office, CTSD, and HRP is already in effect on a study-by-study basis; closer coordination on multi-year planning with other EVA stakeholders including academia is being actively pursued. Details of the current Integrated EVA Research Plan are presented including description of ongoing and planned research activities in the areas of: Benchmarking; Anthropometry and Suit Fit; Sensors; Human-Suit Modeling; Suit Trauma Monitoring and Countermeasures; EVA Workload and Duration Effects; Decompression Sickness Risk Mitigation; Deconditioned EVA Performance; and Exploration EVA Concept of Operations.

Description: The Biologic Analog Science Associated with Lava Terrains (BASALT) project is a 4-year program dedicated to iteratively designing, implementing, and evaluating concepts of operations (ConOps) and supporting capabilities to enable and enhance scientific exploration for future human Mars missions. BASALT incorporates three field deployments during which real (non-simulated) biological and geochemical field science is conducted at two high-fidelity Mars analog locations under simulated Mars mission conditions, including communication de-lays and data transmission limitations. BASALTs primary science objective is to investigate how the redox conditions of altered basaltic environments affect the development of microbial communities in these Mars-relevant settings. Field sites include the active East Rift Zone on the Big Island of Hawaii, reminiscent of early Mars when basaltic volcanism and interaction with water were widespread, and the dormant eastern Snake River Plain in Idaho, similar to present-day Mars where basaltic volcanism is rare and most evidence for volcano-driven hydrothermal activity is relict. BASALTs primary science operations objective is to investigate exploration ConOps and capabilities that facilitate scientific return during human-robotic exploration under Mars mission constraints. Each field deployment consists of ten extravehicular activities (EVAs) on the volcanic flows in which two extravehicular and two intravehicular (IV) crew-members conduct the science while communicating across time delay and under bandwidth constraints with an Earth-based Mission Support Center (MSC) comprised of expert scientists and operators. Communication latencies of 5 and 15-minute one-way light time and low (0.512 Mb/s uplink, 1.54 Mb/s down-link) and high (5.0 Mb/s uplink, 10.0 Mb/s downlink) bandwidth conditions are being evaluated. EVA crewmembers communicate with the MSC via voice and text messaging and provide scientific instrument data, still imagery, video streams, and GPS tracking information. The MSC reviews this data across delay and provides recommendations for presampling and sampling tasks. The scientists used dynamic leaderboards (priority rank-ing lists), to track and rank candidate samples relative to one another and against the science objectives for the current EVA and the overall mission. Updates to the dynamic leaderboards are relayed regularly to the IV crewmembers to provide scientific feedback from Earth and to help minimize crew idle time (time spent waiting for Earth input during which no productive tasks are performed). EVA timelines are strategically designed to enable continuous (delayed) feedback from an Earth-based science team while simultaneously minimizing crew idle time. Such timelines are operationally advantageous, reducing transport costs by eliminating the need for crews to return to the same locations on multiple EVAs while still providing opportunities for recommendations from science experts on Earth, and scientifically advantageous by minimizing the potential for cross-contamination across sites. This paper will highlight the space-to-ground interaction results from the three BASALT field deployments, including planned versus actual EVA time-line data, ground assimilation times (the amount of time available to the MSC to provide input to the crew), and idle time. Furthermore, we describe how these results vary under the different communication latency and bandwidth conditions. Together, these data will provide a basis for guiding and prioritizing capability development for future human exploration missions.

Description: No abstract available

Description: The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3.