NASA's vision for space exploration (February 2004) calls for development of a new crew exploration vehicle, sustained lunar operations, and human exploration of Mars. To meet the challenges of planned sustained operations as well as the...
moreNASA's vision for space exploration (February 2004) calls for development of a new crew exploration vehicle, sustained lunar operations, and human exploration of Mars. To meet the challenges of planned sustained operations as well as the limited communications between Earth and the crew (e.g., Mars exploration), many systems will require crews to operate in an autonomous environment. It has been estimated that once every 2.4 years a major medical issue will occur while in space. NASA's future travels, especially to Mars, will begin to push this timeframe. Therefore, now is the time for investigating technologies and systems that will support crews in these environments. Therefore, this summer two studies were conducted to evaluate the technology and systems that may be used by crews in future missions. The first study evaluated three commercial Indoor Positioning Systems (IPS) (Versus, Ekahau, and Radianse) that can track equipment and people within a facility. While similar to Global Positioning Systems (GPS), the specific technology used is different. Several conclusions can be drawn from the evaluation conducted, but in summary it is clear that none of the systems provides a complete solution in meeting the tracking and technology integration requirements of NASA. From a functional performance (e.g., system meets user needs) evaluation perspective, Versus performed fairly well on all performance measures as compared to Ekahau and Radianse. However, the system only provides tracking at the room level. Thus, Versus does not provide the level of fidelity required for tracking assets or people for NASA requirements. From an engineering implementation perspective, Ekahau is far simpler to implement that the other two systems because of its wi-fi design (e.g., no required runs of cable). By looking at these two perspectives, one finds there was no clear system that met NASA requirements. Thus it would be premature to suggest that any of these systems are ready for implementation and further study is required. The second study evaluated current medical packs, used on-board the International Space Station (ISS), in the execution of an emergency medical procedure as compared to a modified design. An experiment using 13 participants found no difference in performance time between the two packs; however, it did find a marginally significant difference (p = 0.08) in the number of errors with the modified design resulting in less errors. Using the experimental data collected, a computer model was developed that allowed for running larger sample sizes. Results from this model found a statistically significant differences for time and errors (p<0.05). Further modeling evaluated the effect of errors on performance time. Results once again found a statistically significant difference for time and found that the current pack design's performance in time was 4 times greater when errors were considered as compared to the design when errors were ignored. However, the modified pack only saw a 2 times increase when errors were considered. Given that NASA typically is dealing with small samples and limited resources to test participants, modeling should be considered to evaluate designs prior to experimentation. Future work will investigate the value in developing a desktop application for modeling medical procedures independent of experimentation. This modeling does not preclude experimental efforts, but it does provide guidance in conducting experiments. Both studies highlight issues that require further investigation. These studies are just one step needed to prepare systems and technologies for future planned human exploration.