space radiation crew protection and operations …...• a. pulkkinen, demonstration of ensemble cme...

Space Radiation Analysis Group | NOAA Space Weather Workshop | Ramona Gaza, Ph.D. | May 1‐5, 2017

National Aeronautics andSpace Administration

SPACE RADIATION CREW PROTECTION AND OPERATIONS FOR EXPLORATION MISSIONS

Ramona Gaza1,2*, Kerry Lee2, Dan Fry2, Janet Barzilla1,2, Steve Johnson1,2, Nicholas Stoffle1,2, John Keller3,2, Robin Elgart4,2, Edward Semones2

1Leidos Exploration & Mission Support, Houston TX 77258, USA2NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058, USA3KBRwyle, Houston TX 77058, USA4University of Houston, Houston TX 77004, USA

*ramona.gaza‐[email protected]


• SRAG’s main capabilities:• Real‐time console operations (24/7)• Crew and ambient monitoring

• IV and EV Radiation Measurements• Pre‐flight planning • Radiation hardware development/testing• Vehicle design evaluations

• Radiation Health Office:• Crew Dose of Record• Crew Risk Estimation• Crew Selection

2

SRAG, 1973 (EST)

SRAG, 2011

Space Radiation Analysis Group (SRAG)


Radiation Mission Support Interfaces

SRAG MPSR

NOAA SWPC

Flight Director• Notification of SEPs for hardware concerns• Training for SRAG Operations and Hardware

Flight Surgeon/BME• Maintain status of mission exposure trends• Evaluate EVAs for Exposures (ALARA)• During Solar Energetic Particle Events (SEPs)

Advise Surgeon on Magnitude of eventsTime intervals of SEP Exposure RiskRecommendations regarding Crew Shelter

• Training for SRAG Operations and Hardware

Alerting

ISS

SRAG Displays

Crew• ASCAN Training• Training for SRAG

Operations and Hardware

InternationalPartners• Data sharing• Alerting• Coordinated contingency

response

NASA Mission ControlISPX Servers

Telemetry

TelemeteredISS Data

ALARA

3


• CPDS – Charged Particle Directional Spectrometer (2001)• Extra‐Vehicular instrument• Stack of Silicon and Cerenkov detectors

• TEPC – Tissue Equivalent Proportional Counter (2007)• Permanently deployed in Service Module• Cylindrical gas filled detector to simulate 2µm diameter tissue

• IV‐TEPC – new TEPC detector (2012)• Stationary in Node 2. Used to relocated every 4‐6 weeks.

• REM – Radiation Environment Monitor (2012)• Active dosimeter with USB interface• Based on Hybrid Pixel Detector technology• ISS Technology Demonstration

• RAD – Radiation Assessment Detector (2016)• Based on the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) RAD instrument• Successfully completed ISS Activation & Checkout; Survey ISS• Charged particles spectrometer (CPD) and neutron detector (FND)

• Passive Radiation Dosimeters for Personal and Area Monitoring• TL/OSL dosimeters worn by crew and deployed at different locations inside ISS

4

ISS Radiation Instrumentation

CPDS

TEPC

RAD

IV‐TEPC

REM

Space Radiation Analysis Group | NOAA Space Weather Workshop | Ramona Gaza, Ph.D. | May 1‐5, 2017 5

ISS Radiation Instrumentation


Exploration Radiation Instrumentation

• Vehicle: Orion Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)

• Flights: • EFT‐1 (2014): Exploration Flight Test 1 – high altitude orbit, Van Allen Belts• EM‐1 (2018): Exploration Mission 1 – uncrewed• EM‐2 (2021): Exploration Mission 2 – crewed

• BIRD – Battery‐operated Independent Radiation Detector• Developed in‐house ‐ based on hybrid pixel detector technology• Flew on EFT‐1 in 2014

• HERA – Hybrid Electronic Radiation Assessor• The designated ambient radiation instrument for Exploration class missions • Developed in‐house ‐ based on hybrid pixel detector technology• Operations: EM‐1; EM‐2; and further

• CPAD – Crew Personal Active Dosimeter• The designated Crew personal radiation dosimeter for Exploration class missions• Small active detector (5.4 cm x 3.3 cm x 1.9 cm) • Modified COTS ‐ based on Mirion Technologies, InstadoseTM (direct‐ion storage)• ISS Tech Demo (2017); EM‐1 Flight Test (2018); EM‐2 Operations (2021)

BIRD

HERA

CPAD


• Dec 5, 2014; Total Duration 4.5 h; Two orbits; Apogee~6000 km

• Engineering Data: Battery voltage; Acceleration; Temperature

• Radiation Data: Altitude/Time Dose profile; Mission Dose / Dose Equivalent; LET Spectra; Trajectory with dosimetry

Orion Multi‐Purpose Vehicle: EFT‐1

7

BIRD Instrument• Based on Silicon hybrid pixel detector technology• Hybrid pixel detector with 256 x 256 independent pixels

w/ 55 µm; active area ~ 2 cm2

• Sensor layer: 300 µm thick Si chip• Energy deposition is measured in the sensor via the

Time‐over‐Threshold (TOT) Method

M. Kroupa et al., Life Science Sp. Res. 6 (2015); A. Bahadori et al., NASA‐TP‐2015‐218575

R. Gaza et al., Radiat. Meas. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2017.03.041.


EFT‐1 Movie


Hybrid Electronic Radiation Assessor(HERA)

HERA System• EM‐1, EM‐2 and forward• Active radiation detector with full vehicle integration (power, communication)• Consists of HERA Processing Unit (HPU) and HERA Sensor Units (HSU)• Sensor:

• Based on Silicon hybrid pixel detector technology• Hybrid pixel detector with 256 x 256 independent pixels w/ 55 µm; active area ~ 2 cm2

• Sensor layer: 500 µm thick Si chip• On board analysis and vehicle displays (dose rate, mission dose)• Alarm capability, connected with the onboard Caution and Warning system (/dose rate threshold).


HPUs

HSU Starboard

HSU Port

HSU in Shelter

HSU Fwd Bulkhead

HERA Vehicle Locations

11


HERA Vehicle Display

• Designed to provide crew with radiation exposure information• Allows for crew to autonomously make informed decisions in case of communication

loss


EM‐2 Mission: Projected Radiation Exposure

• Trajectory: Hybrid Triple

• Shield Point: Crew 1 Chest Location in Orion Seat 1 of EM2 Vehicle

• Trapped: AP8/AE8

• GCR: Badhwar‐O’Neill 2014, August 2010 (expected to be similar to August 2021 which is EM2 schedule launch date)

• Radiation Transport: HZETRN2015

Kerry Lee, Ph.D., NASA/JSC


Crew Position/Scenario Crew #1 Crew #2 Crew #3 Crew #4

Scenario 1 114 117 119 113

Scenario 2 85 102 100 98

Scenario 1: Non‐optimized Stowage Configuration

EM‐2 Mission: SPE Contingency Plan Analysis

14

Scenario 2: Optimized Stowage Configuration

SPE Contingency Effective Dose (mSv)


Space Weather: Current State

Current State: NASA is currently “Now‐casting” based on satellite information• We can’t predict when an event will occur• Limited ability to quantify risk of SEP occurrence, spectral intensity, and subsequent dose as a function of mission duration for exo‐LEO missions

• Mission planning and vehicle design driven by “extreme cases” • No ability to project total event dose• Crew operations beyond LEO are severely constrained

Future State: Need to transition from “Now‐casting” to “Forecasting”• Ability to forecast depends on the available space weather assets and the maturity of the models

• This will provide:• Improved mission planning and design capabilities• Better crew risk assessment capabilities for Exploration Class Missions • Improved real‐time contingency dose projection• Capability of “All‐Clear” forecasting


Current Assets

Observations

Utility

Nowcasting

Environmental Assessment Solar State

Utility

Forecasting

GOES (near‐Earth space)

ACE, DSCOVR(L1)

SOHO(L1)

SDO (GEO)(Sun‐Earth Line)

Ground‐Based Observatories

Current Space Weather Assets

16

Energetic Proton Flux X‐Ray Flux Solar Wind Interplanetary

Magnetic Field Coronagraph Magnetogram White Light / H‐alpha


Forecasting Needs

GOAL: Move items in red boxes into the gray forecast window

Three questions come up repeatedly from Flight Control Teams:1. Is something going to happen? 2. How ‘intense’ will it be?3. How long will it last?

17Dan Fry, Ph.D., NASA/JSC


Beyond Low‐Earth Orbit (LEO)

• Impact to ISS – behind the geomagnetic field

• Top graph shows the magnetic vertical rigidity cutoff

• The geomagnetic field is in essence a ‘filter’ of ionizing particles

• Places where the cutoff is low (high latitudes) ionizing particles can stream into ISS altitudes

• Notice cutoff modulates – ground track passes in and out of high latitudes.

• Operationally, impact modulated by phasing between SEP event and portion of ground track at upper latitudes – ~10 min per 90 min revolution.

Solar State

Missions beyond LEO where crew‐vehicle system spends substantial time in ‘free‐space’ the scenario is very different:

Human‐vehicle will see full extent of storm!

18


Solar State

• EFT‐1• Radiation measurements using hybrid pixel technology completed successfully and data can

be used to validate mission radiation exposure prediction models (i.e., DRM tools)

• EM‐2 & future EM • Development of the HERA instrument designed to monitor the radiation environment and

alert crew on future Exploration Missions has been completed

• SRAG’s Design Reference Mission (DRM) tool is functional and currently undergoing V&V. This tool will enable radiation exposure projections along various exo‐LEO trajectories

• Stowage optimizations analyses for crew protection in case of an intense SPE have been completed and operational procedures have been developed

• Space Weather Needs• Need space weather Forecasting and All‐Clear capabilities for exo‐LEO Missions

• Missions off Sun‐Earth line will require assets at various Lagrangian points to feed the Forecasting/All‐Clear modeling capabilities (L3, L4, L5)

19

Summary


• D. Fry, N. Zapp, D. Biesecker, K. D. Leka, G. Barnes and C. A. de Koning, Proceedings of the First Space Weather All‐Clear Forecasting Workshop, internal communication. Copy available upon request.

• C. Balch, Updated Verification of the Space Weather Prediction Center’s Solar Energetic Particle Prediction Model, Space Weather, 6 (2008).• A. Pulkkinen, Demonstration of Ensemble CME products, 5th Space Weather and NASA Robotic Mission Operations Workshop (2013).• D. A. Falconer, R. L. Moore, N. F. Barghouty, and I. Khazanov, MAG4 Versus Alternative Techniques for Forecasting Active‐Region Flare Productivity, Space

Weather Journal (2014).• J. H. Adams, A Probabilistic Model for Solar Energetic Proton Fluence Spectra, European Space Research and Technology Centre, Noordwijk, Netherlands (2014).• M. L. Meys, Ensemble Modeling of CMEs Using the WSA–ENLIL+Cone Model, Solar Phys. (2015) DOI 10.1007/s11207‐015‐0692‐1.

Probabilistic Environment Characterization• M.A. Xapsos, C. Stauffer, G.B. Gee, J.L. Barth, E.G. Stassinopoulos and R.E. McGuire, Model for Solar Proton Risk Assessment, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 51, No. 6

(2004).• M. A. Xapsos, G. P. Summers and E. A. Burke, Extreme Value Analysis of Solar Energetic Proton Peak Fluxes, Solar Physics, 183, 157‐164 (1998).

All‐Clear Forecasting• D. Falconer, A. F. Barghouty, Igor Khazanov, and R. Moore, A tool for empirical forecasting of major flares, coronal mass ejections, and solar particle events from a

proxy of active‐region free magnetic energy, Space Weather, 9 (2011).

Dose Projection• J. S. Neal, T. F. Nichols and L. W. Townsend, Importance of predicting the dose temporal profile for large solar energetic particle events, Space Weather, 6 (2008).• L. W. Townsend and J. S. Neal, A simple method for solar energetic particle event dose forecasting, Radiation Measurements, 41 (2006).• J. W. Hines, L. W. Townsend and T. F. Nichols, SPE Dose Prediction Using Locally Weighted Regression, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 116 (2005).• J. S. Neal and L. W. Townsend, Prediction of solar particle event proton doses using early dose rate measurements, Acta Astronautica, 56 (2005).

Radiation Instruments• A. Bahadori, E. Semones, R. Gaza, M. Kroupa, N. Stoffle, et al., 2015. Battery‐operated Independent Radiation detector data report from Exploration flight Test 1.

NASA Technical Publication, NASA/TP‐2015‐218575.• M. Kroupa, A. Bahadori, T. Campbell‐Ricketts, A. Empl, S. Hoang, et al., 2015. A semiconductor radiation imaging pixel detector for space radiation dosimetry Life

Sc. Sp. Res. 6, 69‐78.• N. Stoffle, L. Pinsky, M. Kroupa, S. Hoang, J. Idarraga, C. Amberboy, R. Rios, J. Hauss, J. Keller, A. Bahadori, E. Semones, D. Turecek, J. Jakubek, Z. Vykydal, S.

Pospisil, 2015. Timepix‐based radiation environment monitor measurements aboard the International Space Station. Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A 782, 143‐148.• R. Gaza, M. Kroupa, R. Rios, N. Stoffle, E. Benton, E. Semones, 2017. Comparison of novel active semiconductor pixel detector with passive radiation detectors

during the NASA Orion Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT‐1). Radiat. Meas., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2017.03.041.

Solar State

20

References


Solar State

21

Backup


Integrated Solar Energetic Proton (ISEP) Organization

NASA JSC

NASA JSC

NASA MSFCUA HuntsvilleNASA MSFCUA Huntsville

U TennesseeU Tennessee

NASA LaRCNASA LaRC

NASA GSFCNASA GSFC

Principal Investigator: Denise Podolski (GCDP)Project Manager: Dave Moore ‐ LaRCTechnology Lead: Dan Fry ‐ JSC

22


ARP/ ISEP Technical Origins

First All‐Clear Workshop (2009)•Focus on bringing operations and research community together•Funded by Living With a Star program•Brought together NASA, NOAA, DoD and United Airlines•Goal:

• Get operations and research community on same page – understand model maturity and understand operational needs

• Rack‐and‐stack models based on “quantified”maturity (skill score), complexity (run time, number of input data streams, post‐processing, etc)

• Determine overlap in operational needs between NASA, NOAA, DoD and Airlines• Agree on set of metrics for future testing of models

24 Hour Forecast6‐12 Hour Forecast

4 Hour Forecast

SRAG

DoD

NOAA

Airlines

ISEP• Leveraged assessment of model maturity, operational

need to select starting point.• Leveraged identification of metrics to formulate V&V

approach.• In addition, leveraged past work on probabilistic

modeling (Xapsos/Adams), work funded by SRAG on dose projection (Townsend/Utenn)

23


From Observations To Predictions

Observations

Solar S

tate

Models Predictions

ACEAll-Clear Forecast

Peak-Int Correlation

CME/Shock Arrival Time Forecast

Prediction of Cumulative Dose

Magnetic Connectivity

Mission Maximum Flux / Dose

SoHO

STEREO

GONG

Mag4

Probabilistic Environment

Characterization

WSA-ENLIL

Neural Network

SEP Impact

SDO

Environmental StatusGOES

IMP

Historical Data / R

eal‐T

ime

particle Flux / S

olar W

ind

24


All‐Clear SEP Forecasting (UAH, JSC, GSFC)• State‐of‐the‐Art prior to ISEP: SS=0.4, FAR=50% over 1‐hour window.• Currently developed capability: SS=0.35, FAR = 50% over 24‐hour to 4‐day window.

Ensemble CME Forecasting and Magnetic Connectivity (GSFC/CCMC)• First ensemble architecture assembled and tested.• Dual‐model product for SEP occurrence and impact assessment.

Dose Projection (JSC/Univ. Tenn.)• State‐of‐the‐Art prior to ISEP: zero capability• Currently developed capability: projection of cumulative SEP dose (point dose behind 10

g/cm2 Al) for events between 1 and 100 cGy with no more than 15% error within first 4 hours of event.

25

ARP/ ISEP Technology Firsts

space radiation crew protection and operations …...• a. pulkkinen, demonstration of ensemble cme...

Documents