19 research outputs found
Human Research Program Opportunities
Get PDFThe goal of HRP is to provide human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. The Human Research Program was designed to meet the needs of human space exploration, and understand and reduce the risk to crew health and performance in exploration missions
Human System Drivers for Exploration Missions
Get PDFEvaluation of DRM4 in terms of the human system includes the ability to meet NASA standards, the inclusion of the human system in the design trade space, preparation for future missions and consideration of a robotic precursor mission. Ensuring both the safety and the performance capability of the human system depends upon satisfying NASA Space Flight Human System Standards.1 These standards in turn drive the development of program-specific requirements for Near-earth Object (NEO) missions. In evaluating DRM4 in terms of these human system standards, the currently existing risk models, technologies and biological countermeasures were used. A summary of this evaluation is provided below in a structure that supports a mission architecture planning activities. 1. Unacceptable Level of Risk The duration of the DRM4 mission leads to an unacceptable level of risk for two aspects of human system health: A. The permissible exposure limit for space flight radiation exposure (a human system standard) would be exceeded by DRM4. B. The risk of visual alterations and abnormally high intracranial pressure would be too high.
Determining the Relative Criticality of Diverse Exploration Risks in NASA's Human Research Program
Get PDFThe mission of NASA s Human Research Program (HRP) is to understand and reduce the risk to crew health and performance in exploration missions. The HRP addresses 27 specific risks, primarily in the context of Continuous Risk Management. Each risk is evaluated in terms of two missions (a six month stay on the Moon and a thirty month round trip to Mars) and three types of consequences (in-mission crew health, post-mission crew health, and in-mission performance). The lack of a common metric between the three consequence scales, such as financial costs or quality adjusted life years lost, makes it difficult to compare the relative criticality of the risks. We are, therefore, exploring the use of a ternary scale of criticality based on the common metric of influencing an operational decision. The three levels correspond to the level of concern the risk generates for a "go/no-go" decision to launch a mission: 1) no-go; 2) go with significant reservations; 3) go. The criticality of each of the 27 risks is scored for the three types of consequence in both types of mission. The scores are combined to produce an overall criticality rating for each risk. The overall criticality rating can then be used to guide the prioritization of resources to affect the greatest amount of risk reduction
Six-Degree Head-Down Tilt Bed Rest: Forty Years of Development as a Physiological Analog for Weightlessness
Get PDFEarly on, bed rest was recognized as a method for inducing many of the physiological changes experienced by spaceflight. Head-down tilt (HDT) bed rest was first introduced as an analog for spaceflight by a Soviet team led by Genin and Kakurin. Their study was performed in 1970 (at -4 degrees) and lasted for 30 days; results were reported in the Russian Journal of Space Biology (Kosmicheskaya Biol. 1972; 6(4): 26-28 & 45-109). The goal was to test physiological countermeasures for cosmonauts who would soon begin month-long missions to the Salyut space station. HDT was chosen to produce a similar sensation of blood flow to the head reported by Soyuz cosmonauts. Over the next decade, other tilt angles were studied and comparisons with spaceflight were made, showing that HDT greater than 4 degrees was superior to horizontal bed rest for modeling acute physiological changes observed in space; but, at higher angles, subjects experienced greater discomfort without clearly improving the physiological comparison to spaceflight. A joint study performed by US and Soviet investigators, in 1979, set the goal of standardization of baseline conditions and chose 6-degrees HDT. This effectively established 6-degree HDT bed rest as the internationally-preferred analog for weightlessness and, since 1990, nearly all further studies have been conducted at 6-degrees HDT. A thorough literature review (1970-2010) revealed 534 primary scientific journal articles which reported results from using HDT as a physiological analog for spaceflight. These studies have ranged from as little as 10 minutes to the longest duration of 370 days. Long-term studies lasting four weeks or more have resulted in over 170 primary research articles. Today, the 6-degree HDT model provides a consistent, thoroughly-tested, ground-based analog for spaceflight and allows the proper scientific controls for rigorous testing of physiological countermeasures; however, all models have their strengths and limits. The 6-degrees HDT model must continue to be scrutinized, re-examined, validated and compared to other analog environments whenever possible. Only by understanding the strengths and limits of this model, will it continue to serve as a critical physiological analog to spaceflight for many more years to come
Why Should Humans Explore a Near Earth Asteroid and What Factors Drive the Medical Risks?
Get PDFThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently considering plans for the human exploration of a Near Earth Asteroid (NEA). Reasons for undertaking the human exploration of a NEA include increasing the scientific understanding of the origins of our solar system, and developing technology for the exploration of more distant destinations such as Mars. Most mission scenarios have a duration on the order of several months or a year, most of which is spent in transit to and from the NEA. The choice of a particular NEA destination determines the mission duration and guides the types of exploration activities that can be performed on and near the NEA. NASA s Human Research Program (HRP) has identified short and long-term health risks associated with such missions and begun characterizing the level of risk. Some risk drivers are well known from missions to low Earth orbit and the Moon (e.g., the limited mass, volume, and power available for the medical care system). Other factors emerge as major drivers for NEA missions. Some are fundamental characteristics of the mission parameters (e.g., mission duration, distance) and others are strongly dependent on the specifics of how the mission is implemented (e.g., isolation and confinement). Careful consideration of these factors will be required for safe and effective missions to NEAs
