stephenson 2012 human rating mars missions - final presentation

Human Rating Requirements for Mars Missions

Gary V Stephenson, Linquest Corporation

For Presentation to the Mars Society

2012 Annual Meeting

August 4th, 2012

Human Rating Mars Missions - Outline

� The NASA approach to human rating for the Constellation Program

� How the NASA approach may be adapted to the human rating of Mars missions. A four step process is suggested:

� Step 1: Flowing the human rating process guidance into the mission

equipment requirements set

� Step 2: Development and application of reference mission guidance

� Step 3: Applying the design guidance of NASA Std 3000 & other design � Step 3: Applying the design guidance of NASA Std 3000 & other design

guidance into the mission equipment design

� Step 4: Collecting all the inputs for the Human Rating Certification Package

(HRCP)

� Recommended future tasks:

� Development and vetting of Mars reference missions

� Key design trades needed to enable human rating of Mars missions

� Buy off on the needed content for the HRCP

Relationship of NASA Stds to CxP HSIR

Human Rating

(NPR 8705.2B)

Authority

NASA Std 3001

Vol 1, 2

Knowledge

HSIR

(CxP 70024)

Benchmark of capabilities for human-rated space systems

Defines levels of acceptable

crew health and performance

risks resulting from spaceflight.

• Human-Systems Integration Requirements – HSIR (CxP 70024 Rev C), Ref. [5]– Defines parameters of a habitable environment, capabilities and limitations of the flight and

ground crew that drive the design of the CxP Architecture systems to achieve mission objectives

– Provides the parameters that protect the health and safety of the crew and allows them to perform their functions in an efficient and effective manner

– Focuses on proper integration of human-to-system interfaces for all mission phases through applicable requirements.

(CxP 70024)

Constellation

Requirements

From Ref [6], Berdich 2009, “Human Rating Requirements for NASA’s Constellation Program”

Relationship of NASA Stds to M2M HSIR

Human Rating

(NPR 8705.2B)

Authority(Process Guidance)

NASA Std 3001

Vol 1, 2

Technical Knowledge(Design Guidance)

M2M Mission Objectives

and Reference Missions(Mission Guidance)

M2M HSIR

Mission Eqt

Requirements

M2M HSIR

Mission Eqt

Requirements

M2M HSIR

Mission Eqt

Requirements

M2M HSIR

Human System

Requirements

• Proven Human-Systems Integration Requirements Process– Same methodology as was used for the development of HSIR (CxP 70024 Rev C)

- Mission to Mars (M2M) Unique requirements applied to applicable mission equipment

Probable Mix of Human Habitats on a Mars Mission

� Standard Mission Equipment Elements allowing for human habitation:� Launch vehicle / LEO ops / Earth rendezvous vehicle (ERV)

� Interplanetary (IP) transportable habitat (Transhab, or T-HAB)

� Mars Orbital Ops / surface landing & return Mars excursion vehicle (MEV)

� Mars Surface Habitat (Surfhab, or S-HAB)

ERVMEV

� This is most the general case. But there could be special cases: � MEV = ERV, THAB = SHAB, MEV down = MEV up, etc./

ERV

T-HAB

enroute

T-HAB

storage

orbit

T-HAB

rendezvous

orbit

S-HAB

Human Rating Steps:

Flow HSIR Guidance

Human Rating

Process Guidance

Human Rating

Design Guidance

M2M Mission Objectives

(& Reference Missions)

Mission Guidance

Mission

Requirements

Flowdown

STEP 1

STEP 2

STEP 3

Mars Mission Unique requirements parsed to mission systems

Martian Surface Ops

Human System

Int Reqts (HSIR)

Process Guidance

(NPR 8705.2B)

Design Guidance

(NASA Std 3001)

Martian Orbital Ops

Human System

Int Reqts (HSIR)

IP Transhab

Human System

Int Reqts (HSIR)

LV / LEO ops

Human System

Int Reqts (HSIR)

Process

Compliance

Package

STEP 4

Step 1: Process Requirements

� Step 1a. Use Approved Process and Standards ([1], 2.2)

� Step 1b. Use Process Requirements to Design the System ([1], 2.3)

� Document Reference Missions

� Identifying System Capabilities for Crew Survival

� Documenting the Design Philosophy for Utilization of the Crew

� Incorporating Survival Capabilities into the System Design

� Implementing the Technical Requirements

� Allocation of Safety Goals and Thresholds� Allocation of Safety Goals and Thresholds

� Integration of Design and Safety Analyses

� Form a Human-System Integration Team

� Evaluating Crew Workload

� Human-in-the-Loop Integration Evaluation

� Human Error Analysis for all mission phases

� Step 1c. Validate System Capabilities and Performance ([1], 2.4)

� Step 1d. Flight Test the System ([1], 2.5)

� Step 1e. Certify and Operate the System within limits ([1], 2.6)

Step 2: HSF Mission Requirements

� Step 2a. Anthropometry, Biomechanics, and Strength ([5], 3.1)

� Step 2b. Regulation of Natural and Induced Environments ([5], 3.2)

� Provide atmosphere for the crew

� Provide potable water

� Regulate thermal environment

� Maintain in range acceleration, vibration, acoustics

� Limit ionizing and non-ionizing radiation

� Step 2c. Regulation of equipment design for crew safety ([5], 3.3)� Step 2c. Regulation of equipment design for crew safety ([5], 3.3)

� Step 2d. Regulation of architecture ([5], 3.4)

� Hatches, windows, lighting regulations

� Step 2e. Enabling crew functions ([5], 3.5)

� Food preparation, waste management, exercise, space medicine

� Step 2f. Crew Interfaces for Displays and Control ([5], 3.6)

� Step 2g. Maintenance and Housekeeping ([5], 3.7)

� Step 2h. Information Management ([5], 3.8)

Step 2: HSF Mission Requirements

� Requirements of step 2 result in a list of provisions needed for crew accommodation (Lunar transhab and surfhab examples shown)

Reference HSF Table 18-7 Larson, p601 Number of people: 3

HSF Text Model for Mass & Volume of a Short Term Lunar Transit Vehicle Transit duration: 6

Subsystem Descriptions

Mass

Component Mass Subtotal

Volume

Component

Volume

Subtotal, (m^3)

Galley and Food System

Fixed Mass (Kg) 20 20 0.0435 0.0435

+ Mass per person (Kg/p) 0.5 1.5 0.0014 0.0042

+ Mass per day (Kg/d) 0.25 1.5 0.0018 0.0108

+ Mass pp pd (Kg/p/d) 2.3 41.4 0.008 0.144

Waste Collection System

Fixed Mass (Kg) 45 45 2.18 2.18

+ Mass pp pd (Kg/p/d) 0.28 5.04 0.0021 0.0378

Personal Hygiene

Fixed Mass (Kg) 8 8 0.01 0.01


+ Mass pp pd (Kg/p/d) 0.075 1.35 0.0015 0.027

Clothing

Mass per person (Kg/p) 4.6 13.8 0.032 0.096

HSF Text Model for Mass & Volume of a Short Term Lunar Base Surface duration: 14

Subsystem Descriptions

Mass

Component Mass Subtotal

Volume

Component

Volume

Subtotal, (m 3̂)

Galley and Food System

Fixed Mass (Kg) 175 175 1.0235 1.0235

+ Mass per person (Kg/p) 2 6 0.014 0.042

+ Mass per day (Kg/d) 0.25 3.5 0.0018 0.0252

+ Mass pp pd (Kg/p/d) 2.3 96.6 0.008 0.336

Waste Collection System

Fixed Mass (Kg) 45 45 2.15 2.15

+ Mass pp pd (Kg/p/d) 0.28 11.76 0.0021 0.0882

Personal Hygiene

Fixed Mass (Kg) 83 83 1.42 1.42


+ Mass pp pd (Kg/p/d) 0.075 3.15 0.0015 0.063

Clothing

Mass per person (Kg/p) 48 144 0.157 0.471

For Mars mission examples of crew accommodation resource models see tables 18-3, 18-4, and 18-8 in reference [14] Larson, W.J., and Pranke, L.K., Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill, NY, 2007.

Personal Stowage / Rec Eqt


Housekeeping

Fixed Mass (Kg) 13 13 0.07 0.07

+ Mass pp pd (Kg/p/d) 0.2 3.6 0.002 0.036

Op Supplies & Restraints

Fixed Mass (Kg) 25 25 0.135 0.135


Hab Area Maintenance

Fixed Mass (Kg) 200 200 0.73 0.73

Photography

Fixed Mass (Kg) 120 120 0.5 0.5

Sleep Accomodations


Crew Health Care

Fixed Mass (Kg) 15 15 0.25 0.25

TRANSIT TOTALS 606.6 4.65

HSF TOTAL M&V Model for Mass & Volume of a Short Term Lunar Mission

For crew of 3, with 6 days of transit and 14 days of surface stay:

Mass Volume

TRANSIT TOTALS 606.6 4.65

SURFACE TOTALS 2165.7 14.83

COMBINED TOTALS 2772 Kg 19.5 (m^3)

Personal Stowage / Rec Eqt


Housekeeping

Fixed Mass (Kg) 163 163 0.37 0.37

+ Mass pp pd (Kg/p/d) 0.65 27.3 0.005 0.21

Op Supplies & Restraints

Fixed Mass (Kg) 50 50 0.27 0.27

+ Mass per person (Kg/p) 20 60 0.002 0.006

Hab Area Maintenance

Fixed Mass (Kg) 550 550 4.56 4.56

Photography

Fixed Mass (Kg) 120 120 0.5 0.5

Sleep Accomodations


Crew Health Care

Fixed Mass (Kg) 520 520 1.84 1.84

SURFACE TOTALS 2165.7 14.83

Step 3: Design Requirements

� Step 3a. System Safety ([1], 3.2)

� Step 3b. Crew / Human Control of the System-General ([1], 3.3)

� Step 3c. System Control Requirements - Human-Rated S/C ([1], 3.4)

� Step 3d. System Control Requirements - Proximity Operations with Human-Rated Spacecraft ([1], 3.5)

� Step 3e. Crew Survival / Abort Requirements ([1], 3.6)

� Step 3g. General (process requirements, i.e. step1) - from [3]� Step 3g. General (process requirements, i.e. step1) - from [3]

� Step 3h. Safety and Reliability Requirements [3]

� Step 3i. Human-in-the-loop Requirements [3]

� Step 3j. Level of Care Five, ([4], 1.1.1.6, 1.1.1.7, D.8)

� Step 3k. Maintaining Crew Health Standards ([4], 4.2) � Step 3k1. Fitness for Duty (FFD) - Functional capacity measured

� Step 3k2. Space Permissible Exposure Limits (SPEL) - Physical / chemical agents measured

� Step 3k3. Permissible Outcome Limits (POL) – Biological / clinical parameters measured

Step 4: Building the Human Rating

Certification Package (HRCP)

Mars Surface

Ops HSIR

Mars Orbital Ops

HSIR

IP Transhab

HSIR

LV / LEO ops

HSIR

Mars Surface

Design

IP Transhab

Design

LV/LEO ops

Design

Mars Orbital Ops

Design

Ref Mission

Def; Process

Compliance

Design &

Analysis

Compliance

Package

HRCP

• Mission equipment is certified as human rated when the HRCP checklist is completed and the package is approved

• Step 4 Continued: Maintaining a human rating will require approved configuration management and maintenance processes

Mars Surface

Production

IP Transhab

Production

LV / LEO ops

Production

Mars Surface

Int & Test

IP Transhab

Int & Test

LV/LEO ops

Int & Test

Mars Orbital Ops

Production

Mars Orbital Ops

Int & Test

Inspection

Compliance

Package

Integration,

V&V, Test

Compliance

Package

Completed

HRCP

Checklist

Step 4: HRCP Checklist

� Step 4a. Defining of reference missions for certification.

� Step 4b. Incorporating system capabilities to implement crew survival strategies for each phase of the reference missions.

� Step 4c. Implementation of capabilities from the applicable technical requirements (from Step 3).

� Step 4d. Utilization of safety analyses to influence system development and design.

� Step 4e. Integration of the human into the system (human system integration) and human error management.

� Step 4f. Verification, validation, and testing of critical system performance.

� Step 4g. Performance of a flight test program and documentation of successfully completed test objectives.

� Step 4h. Documented proof of system configuration managementover the life of the program and related plans to maintain Human-Rating Certification.

HRR Challenges Ahead:M2M Unique Key Design Trades Needed to

Meet Human System Integration Reqts (HSIR)

• Radiation Abatement Trades: driven by step 3k2 radiation SPEL– Energy versus matter shielding trades (Example: EM coil versus H2O shielding)

- Needed for Interplanetary (IP) Transhab, Mars Orbital Ops, and Mars Surface Ops

• Artificial Gravity Trades: driven by step 3k3 bone loss POL– Ship contained rotation vs tethered systems (Example: “2001” vs. “2010” style)

- Needed for IP Transhab

• Operations Control Trades: driven by steps 3b, 3c, 3d• Operations Control Trades: driven by steps 3b, 3c, 3d– Remote operations versus autonomous operations (manual or automated)

- Needed for IP Transhab, Mars Orbital Ops, and Mars Surface Ops

• Contingency Operations Trades: driven by step 3e– Escape pods versus lifeboats versus “in situ” survivability options

- Needed for all phases of the reference mission (answers may be different for different phases)

- Specifically called out and required for the HRCP

Radiation Impacts

� Radiation exposure drives the risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis

Table 1 —Example Career Effective Dose Limits in Units of Sievert (mSv),

For 1-year Missions and Average Life-loss for an Exposure-induced

Death for Radiation Carcinogenesis (1 mSv= 0.1 rem), ([4], F.8)

Radiation Abatement Trades

� Shielding shelters versus portable magnetosphere, or both:

Coil generatedEarth generated

Generate a magnetic field with a coil:

Water shielded shelter enroute

Portable magnetosphere in flight

Coil generatedEarth generated

Soil shielded shelter on Mars

Low Gravity Impacts

� Microgravity environments can result in bone loss over time:� POL [4] 4.2.9.3: “The post-flight (end of mission) bone mass DEXA T score shall not exceed -2.0

(-2.0 SD below the mean Bone Mineral Density)”

Figure 4 —Risk of Hip Fracture in Males Using Standardized Total Hip BMD ([4], F.7)

Artificial Gravity Trades

� Hamster wheel versus rotating tether:

Hamster wheel from “2001” Tether on 1996 TiPS Experiment

Conclusions & Recommended Way Forward

� Conclusion: a four step process outlined for a path to certification� Step 1: first you need a proven set of processes

� Step 2: then you need a reference mission

� Step 3: then you need a design that will work

� Step 4: then you need to prove it (with an HRCP)

� Way Forward:� Need to agree on a process (recommend this one) – done Example ISS derived M2M (Boeing)� Need to agree on a process (recommend this one) – done

� Need to agree on a reference mission set – or reference mission envelope

� Need a technical design that works for the agreed to mission envelope� Then need to drive down risk by exploring trade space for low TRL areas new to Mars

mission:� Radiation Abatement Trades, Artificial Gravity Trades,

� Operations Control Trades, Contingency Operations Trades

� Consider testing artificial gravity design in proximity to ISS (for easy assembly & escape)

� Consider testing radiation abatement, ops control, and contingency ops using lunar ops� The Moon is much, much closer and more quickly and easily evacuated if something goes wrong

� Once everything is tested and the HRCP is bought off, then don’t forget to…

� GO TO MARS!

References

� Core human rating references:

[1] NASA Procedural Requirement NPR8705.2B, “Human-Rating Requirements for Space

Systems, dated 11/10/2011, at http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/, accessed 5/20/2012.

[2] NASA Exploration Team Human Subsystem Working Group (HSSWG), “Guidelines and

Capabilities for Designing Human Missions,” March 2002.

[3] Van Laak, J., et al., NASA JSC 28354, “Human-Rating Requirements,” June 1998.

[4] NASA Technical Standard NASA-STD-3001, “NASA Space Flight Human Systems,”

Volume 1 “Crew Health,” 3/5/2007, and Volume 2 “Man-Systems Integration Standards,” Volume 1 “Crew Health,” 3/5/2007, and Volume 2 “Man-Systems Integration Standards,”

Rev. B, July 1995.

[5] NASA CxP 70024, “Constellation Program Human-Systems Integration Requirements,”

12/15/2006.

[6] Berdich, D., “Human Rating Requirements for NASA’s Constellation Program,” 80th

Annual Scientific Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA), 05 May2009,

Los Angeles, California,

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/ppt/499169main_HSI_KB3_3_NASA_HSI_Rqmts_

DBerdich.ppt, accessed 6/11/2012.

More References

� Space flight worthiness and safety documents and guidance:[7] USAF Space and Missile Systems Center, SMCI 63-1202, “Space Flight Worthiness,”

10/1/2002.

[8] USAF Eastern and Western Range EWR 127-1, “Range Safety Requirements,” 8/21/1995.

[9] USAF Instruction AFI 91-202, “Safety,” revised 3/20/2012.

[10] Department of Defense MIL-STD-882D, “Standard Practice for System Safety,” revised 2/10/2000.

[11] USAF Space and Missile Systems Center, SMCI 63-1205, “Space System Safety Policy, [11] USAF Space and Missile Systems Center, SMCI 63-1205, “Space System Safety Policy, Process, and Techniques,” 8/20/2007.

� Human factors and engineering references:[12] FAA HF-STD-01, Human Factors Design Standard (HFDS), 5/3/2012,

http://hf.tc.faa.gov/hfds/download.htm, accessed 7/28/12.

[13] Department of Defense MIL-STD-1472F, “Human Engineering,” 8/23/1999.

[14] Larson, W.J., and Pranke, L.K., Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill, NY, 2007.

[15] NASA TM-2009-215767, Cooper-Harper Experience Report for Spacecraft Handling Qualities Applications, 6/1/2009

stephenson 2012 human rating mars missions - final presentation

Documents