5 research outputs found
Mars Earth Return Vehicle (MERV) Propulsion Options
The COMPASS Team was tasked with the design of a Mars Sample Return Vehicle. The current Mars sample return mission is a joint National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and European Space Agency (ESA) mission, with ESA contributing the launch vehicle for the Mars Sample Return Vehicle. The COMPASS Team ran a series of design trades for this Mars sample return vehicle. Four design options were investigated: Chemical Return /solar electric propulsion (SEP) stage outbound, all-SEP, all chemical and chemical with aerobraking. The all-SEP and Chemical with aerobraking were deemed the best choices for comparison. SEP can eliminate both the Earth flyby and the aerobraking maneuver (both considered high risk by the Mars Sample Return Project) required by the chemical propulsion option but also require long low thrust spiral times. However this is offset somewhat by the chemical/aerobrake missions use of an Earth flyby and aerobraking which also take many months. Cost and risk analyses are used to further differentiate the all-SEP and Chemical/Aerobrake options
Human Exploration Using Real-Time Robotic Operations (HERRO)- Crew Telerobotic Control Vehicle (CTCV) Design
The HERRO concept allows real time investigation of planets and small bodies by sending astronauts to orbit these targets and telerobotically explore them using robotic systems. Several targets have been put forward by past studies including Mars, Venus, and near Earth asteroids. A conceptual design study was funded by the NASA Innovation Fund to explore what the HERRO concept and it's vehicles would look like and what technological challenges need to be met. This design study chose Mars as the target destination. In this way the HERRO studies can define the endpoint design concepts for an all-up telerobotic exploration of the number one target of interest Mars. This endpoint design will serve to help planners define combined precursor telerobotics science missions and technology development flights. A suggested set of these technologies and demonstrator missions is shown in Appendix B. The HERRO concept includes a crewed telerobotics orbit vehicle as well three Truck rovers, each supporting two teleoperated geologist robots Rockhounds (each truck/Rockhounds set is landed using a commercially launched aeroshell landing system.) Options include a sample ascent system teamed with an orbital telerobotic sample rendezvous and return spacecraft (S/C) (yet to be designed). Each truck rover would be landed in a science location with the ability to traverse a 100 km diameter area, carrying the Rockhounds to 100 m diameter science areas for several week science activities. The truck is not only responsible for transporting the Rockhounds to science areas, but also for relaying telecontrol and high-res communications to/from the Rockhound and powering/heating the Rockhound during the non-science times (including night-time). The Rockhounds take the place of human geologists by providing an agile robotic platform with real-time telerobotics control to the Rockhound from the crew telerobotics orbiter. The designs of the Truck rovers and Rockhounds will be described in other publications. This document focuses on the CTCV design
Advanced Lithium Ion Venus Explorer (ALIVE)
The COncurrent Multidisciplinary Preliminary Assessment of Space Systems (COMPASS) Team partnered with the Applied Research Laboratory to perform a NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Program study to evaluate chemical based power systems for keeping a Venus lander alive (power and cooling) and functional for a period of days. The mission class targeted was either a Discovery (750M to 760M which puts it into the New Frontiers class.The ALIVE landed duration is only limited by the amount of Li which can be carried by the lander. Further studies are needed to investigate how additional mass can be carried, perhaps by a larger launcher and larger aeroshell
Higher Fluid Balance Increases the Risk of Death from Sepsis: Results from a Large International Audit∗
Objectives: Excessive fluid therapy in patients with sepsis may be associated with risks that outweigh any benefit. We investigated the possible influence of early fluid balance on outcome in a large international database of ICU patients with sepsis. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Seven hundred and thirty ICUs in 84 countries. Patients: All adult patients admitted between May 8 and May 18, 2012, except admissions for routine postoperative surveillance. For this analysis, we included only the 1,808 patients with an admission diagnosis of sepsis. Patients were stratified according to quartiles of cumulative fluid balance 24 hours and 3 days after ICU admission. Measurements and Main Results: ICU and hospital mortality rates were 27.6% and 37.3%, respectively. The cumulative fluid balance increased from 1,217 mL (-90 to 2,783 mL) in the first 24 hours after ICU admission to 1,794 mL (-951 to 5,108 mL) on day 3 and decreased thereafter. The cumulative fluid intake was similar in survivors and nonsurvivors, but fluid balance was less positive in survivors because of higher fluid output in these patients. Fluid balances became negative after the third ICU day in survivors but remained positive in nonsurvivors. After adjustment for possible confounders in multivariable analysis, the 24-hour cumulative fluid balance was not associated with an increased hazard of 28-day in-hospital death. However, there was a stepwise increase in the hazard of death with higher quartiles of 3-day cumulative fluid balance in the whole population and after stratification according to the presence of septic shock. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with sepsis, higher cumulative fluid balance at day 3 but not in the first 24 hours after ICU admission was independently associated with an increase in the hazard of death
Correction to collaborators in acknowledgments in: Decision-making on withholding or withdrawing life support in the ICU: A worldwide perspective
The authors have reported to CHEST that the collaborators from the ICON Investigators were omitted from the Acknowledgments in “Decision-Making on Withholding or Withdrawing Life Support in the ICU: A Worldwide Perspective” (Chest. 2017;152(2):321-329). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.17