Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Mars
Mars
CEV
ISS
Robotic
Precursors
Lunar
CEV
Moon
Earth
Analogs
&
Test Beds
Earth
An Approach to Risk
Reduction and Management
for Human Space Flight in
the Exploration Era
Bioastronautics Science
Management Team (BSMT)
• Frank Sulzman
(facilitator)
• Lauren Leveton
• John Charles
• Kiley Wren
• Charlie Barnes
• Nitza Cintron
• Doug Hamilton
• Bruce Hather
• Mark Jernigan
• Jitendra Joshi
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kathy Johnson
Pat McGinnis
Bill Paloski
Dane Russo
Chuck Sawin
Vic Schneider
Ed Smylie
Jeff Sutton
David Tomko
Peggy Whitson
BCPR History
• Initiated by the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Space
and Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) in 1997
• Expanded to include National Space Biomedical
Research Institute (NSBRI) representing extramural
community in 1998
• Iterative approach of review, analysis and
deliberations among discipline experts to identify
and assess the most critical risks confronting
extended human space flight missions
• Based on most challenging “worst-case” scenario:
human interplanetary expedition to Mars
• 55 risks and 250 critical questions baselined by
Bioastronautics Critical Path Control Panel in 2000
Goals of Current BCPR Revisions
• Update, refine and streamline the current BCPR
– Incorporate new knowledge
– Eliminate redundancies
– Re-structure from discipline to integrated, cross-cutting
areas.
• Refine, improve the risk assessment criteria
– Include both in-flight and post-mission health and
performance measures
– Incorporate system performance and efficiency measures.
• Re-align the BCPR with the New Space Plan (2004)
• Reassess risks, enabling questions for extended human
expeditions to the moon (2015), Mars.
• Prepare for independent joint review by the Institute of
Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering.
Rev 2 BCPR Changes
• Design Reference Mission Set Expanded
• Greater Participation of Headquarters, Field Centers
• Greater Representation of AHST, Flight Surgeons &
Astronauts
• Revised Processes
– BSMT
– CPCP
• New Implementation Paradigm Using Integrated Projects
– 5 Cross Cutting Themes
– Notional Schedules and Critical Path Roadmap
• Risk Management Leading to Risk Retirement (Under
Development)
–
–
–
–
–
–
Revised Risk Data Sheets
Many more Enabling Questions
Refined Risk Assessment Criteria
Risk Rating System (Red, Yellow, Green) (Unfinished)
Operating Bands – Acceptable Levels of Risk
Metrics
Characteristics of BCPR Reference Missions
DRM
1 Year ISS
Lunar
Mars
Crew Size
2+
4-6
6
Launch Date
2005?
NET 2015, NLT
2020
NET 2025-2030
Mission Duration
12 Months
10-44 Days
30 Months
Outbound Transit
2 Days
3-7 Days
4-6 Months
On-Site Duration
12 Months
4-30 Days
18 Months
Return Transit
2 Days
3-7 Days
4-6 Months
Communication lag
time
0+
1.3 Seconds+
3-20 Minutes+
G-Transitions
2
4
4
Hypogravity
0g
1/6g for up to 30
Days
1/3 g for up to 18
mos.
Internal Environment
~ 14.7 psi
TBD
TBD
EVA
0-4 per mission
2-3/week;
4-15/person
2-3/week;
180/person
(assumes no Artificial
Gravity)
BCPR Disciplines & Cross-Cutting Areas
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bone loss
Muscle alterations & atrophy
Neurovestibular adaptation
Cardiovascular alterations
Immunology, infection & hematology
Environmental effects
•
Radiation effects
•
•
•
•
Psychosocial adaptation
Sleep & circadian
Neuropsychological
Space human factors – cognitive capabilities
•
•
•
•
•
Advanced life support
Advanced environmental monitoring
Advanced EVA
Space human factors – physical capabilities
Advanced Integration Matrix
•
Clinical Capabilities
Human Adaptation
Countermeasures
Radiation
Behavioral Health
& Performance
Advanced Human
Support Technologies
Medical Care
BCPR Risks and Enabling Questions
• Identification and assessment by 16 teams of
discipline-area experts
→Risks and questions derived from deliberations by
discipline experts and from advisory committee
reports
• 51 risks identified and assessed
→Risks assessed by criteria including likelihood,
consequence and readiness
• Questions prioritized by importance for resolving
or addressing the risk
→Up to 458 enabling questions defined and
prioritized
Sample Risk Data Sheet
Risk Title: Carcinogenesis
Primary Risk Area
Risk Number
Risk Description
Context/Risk Factors
Specific current
countermeasure(s) or
mitigation(s)
Specific projected
countermeasure(s) or
mitigation(s)
Design Reference Mission
RYG Risk Assessment
Justification/Rationale for
Risk
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
C.6
C.7
C.8
Radiation
47
Unacceptable levels of increased cancer morbidity or mortality risk in astronauts caused by occupational radiation exposure or the combined
effects of radiation and other spaceflight factors. These risks would be expressed following the mission (late).
Radiation (space, medical diagnostic, atmospheric, experimental, and nuclear sources including propulsion systems), and synergistic effects of
radiation with other spaceflight factors including stress, physiological changes, and microgravity.
Polyethylene shielding
Hydrogenous shielding (TRL-5), anti-oxidants (CRL-1), pharmaceuticals (CRL-1)
Gene therapy (CRL-1)
ISS
Lunar
Mars
Yellow
Red
Red
Crew Health and Performance Post-Mission
Crew Health and Performance Post-Mission Crew Health and Performance Post-Mission
(4)
(4)
(5)
Enabling Questions [Priority on scale of 1(high) to 5 (low)]
What are the probabilities for increased carcinogenesis from space radiation as a function of NASA’s operational parameters (age at exposure,
age, latency, gender, tissue, mission, radiation quality, dose-rate, and exposure protraction)?
(1)
How can tissue specific probabilities for increased carcinogenesis risk from space radiation be best evaluated and what molecular, genetic,
epigenetic, and abscopal (effect that irradiation of a tissue has on remote nonirradiated tissue) or other factors contribute to the tissue specificity
of carcinogenic risk?
(1)
How can the individual’s sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis be estimated?
“”
(2)
(1)
How can effective biomarkers of carcinogenic risk from space radiation be developed and
“”
validated?
(2)
(3)
“”
What are the most effective biomedical or dietary countermeasures to mitigate cancer risks? By
(1)
what mechanisms are the countermeasures expected to work and do they have the same
efficiency for low- and high-LET radiation?
(3)
How can animal models (including transgenics) of carcinogenesis be developed to improve
“”
estimates of cancers from space radiation and what longitudinal studies are needed?
(1)
(2)
“”
What improvements can be made to quantitative procedures or theoretical models in order to
(2)
extrapolate molecular, cellular, or animal results to determine the risks of specific cancers in
astronauts? How can human epidemiology data best support these procedures or models?
(3)
“”
Are there significant combined effects from other spaceflight factors (microgravity, stress,
altered circadian rhythms, changes in immune responses, etc.) that modify the carcinogenic risk (3)
from space radiation?
(5)
Sample Risk Data Sheet (continued)
C.9
C.10
C.11
C.12
C.13
“”
What are the probabilities that space radiation will produce damage at specific sites on DNA
(2)
including clustered DNA damage?
(3)
“”
What mechanisms modulate radiation damage at the molecular level (e.g., repair, errors in
repair, signal transduction, gene amplification, bystander effects, tissue microenvironment, etc.) (1)
that significantly impact the risk of cancers, and how can the understanding of mechanisms be
used to predict carcinogenic risks from space radiation?
(2)
What space validation experiments could improve estimates of carcinogenic risks for long-term “”
deep space missions?
(3)
(5)
What are the most effective shielding approaches to mitigate cancer risks?
(1)
What new materials or active shielding methods can be used for reducing space radiation cancer risks?
(1)
Related Risks (by Risk
Number)
Important References
1. Boice, J.D., et al., Radiation Dose and Leukemia Risk in Patients Treated for Cancer of the Cervix. J. National Cancer Institute 79, 1295-1311,
1994.
2. Thompson, D.E., Cancer Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors. Part II: Solid tumors, 1958-1987. Radiation Research S17-S67, 1994.
3. Weiss, H.A., Leukemia Mortality after X-ray Treatment for Ankylosing Spondylitis. Radiation Research 142, 1-11, 1995.
4. Preston, D.L., et al., Studies of Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors Report 13: Solid Cancer and Non-cancer disease mortality: 1950-1997.
Radiation Research 160, 381-407, 2003.
5. Berrington, A., et al., 100 Years of observation of British radiologists: mortality from cancer and other causes 1897-1997, 2001.
6. Wing, S., et al., Mortality Among Workers of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories- Evidence of Radiation Effects in Follow Up Through
1984. Journal of the American Medical Association 265, 1397-1402, 1991.
7. Preston, D.L., et al., Radiation Effects on Breast Cancer Risk: A Pooled Analysis of Eight Cohorts. Radiation Research 138, 209-235, 2002.
8. National Academy of Sciences Space Science Board, Report of the Task Group on the Biological Effects of Space Radiation. Radiation
Hazards to Crews on Interplanetary Mission National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1997.
9. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Recommendations of Dose Limits for Low Earth Orbit. NCRP Report 132,
Bethesda MD, 2000.
10. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Uncertainties in Fatal Cancer Risk Estimates used in Radiation Protection,
NCRP Report 126, Bethesda MD, 1997.
11. Cucinotta, F.A., Schimmerling, W; Wilson, J.W.; Peterson, L.E., Saganti, P.; Badhwar, G.D.; and Dicello, J.F., Space Radiation Cancer
Risks And Uncertainties For Mars Missions. Radiation Research 156, 682-688, 2001.
12. Alpen, E.L., Powers-Risius, P, Curtis, S.B., and DeGuzman, R., Tumorigenic potential of high-Z, high-LET charged particle radiations.
Radiation Research 88, 132-143, 1993.
Rating Bioastronautics Risks
• Stoplight format adopted
• Current ratings tentative (BSMT Placeholders)
• Plan to have astronauts and flight surgeons rate the risks
AHST Risk Ranking Criteria for System Performance Risks
Rank ing
R
Y
G
Considerable potential for improvement in efficiency in many areas, or proposed missions may be infeasible without improvements.
Considerable potential for improvement in efficiency in a few areas
Minimum or limited potential for improvement in efficiency.
BR&C Risk Ranking Criteria Medical, Behavioral and Health Risks
Rank ing
R
Y
G
High likelihood or high consequence, and low mitigation.
Anything not Red or Green
Low likelihood and low consequence, any mitigation status; or any likelihood, any consequence and high mitigation status.
Notes
ALL risks were judged against the NOMINAL mission case--in OFF-NOMINAL situations, ALL risks are increased.
Numbers within colored cells under each reference mission refer to enabling research and technology questions (EQs)
AHST
BH&P
HAC
MC
RAD
Advanced Human Support Technology
Behavioral Health and Performance
Human Adaptation and Countermeasures
Medical Care
Radiation Health
RISK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Theme
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
AHST
BH&P
BH&P
BH&P
BH&P
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
HAC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
RAD
RAD
RAD
RAD
RAD
Discipline
AEMC
AEMC
AEMC
AEMC
AEMC
AEVA
AFT
ALS
ALS
ALS
ALS
ALS
AHST
SHFE
SHFE
HBP
HBP
SHFE
HBP
Bone
Bone
Bone
Bone
Cardio
Cardio
Env Health
IIH
IIH
IIH
IIH
IIH
Muscle
Muscle
Neuro
Neuro
Neuro
Neuro
Nutrition
Clin
Clin
Clin
Clin
Clin
Clin
Clin
Clin
Rad
Rad
Rad
Rad
Rad
Risk Category
Monitor Air Quality
Monitor External Environment
Monitor Water Quality
Monitor Surfaces Food and Soil
Provide Integrated Autonomous Control of Life Support Systems
Provide Space Suits and Portable Life Support Systems
Maintain Food Quantity and Quality
Maintain Acceptable Atmosphere
Maintain Thermal Balance in Habitable Areas
Manage Waste
Provide and Maintain Bioregenerative Life Support Systems
Provide and Recover Potable Water
Inadequate Mission Resources for the Human System
Mismatch between Crew Physical Capabilities and Task Demands
Mis-assignment of Responsibilities within Multi-agent Systems
Human Performance Failure Due to Poor Psychosocial Adaptation
Human Performance Failure Due to Neurobehavioral Problems
Mismatch between Crew Cognitive Capabilities and Task Demands
Human Performance Failure Due to Sleep Loss and Circadian Rhythm Problems
Accelerated Bone Loss and Fracture Risk
Impaired Fracture Healing
Injury to Joints and Intervertebral Structures
Renal Stone Formation
Occurrence of Serious Cardiovascular Dysrhythmias
Diminished Cardiac and Vascular Function
Define Acceptable Limits for Trace Contaminants in Air and Water
Immunodeficiency / Infection
Virus-Induced Lymphomas and Leukemia's
Anemia, Blood Replacement & Marrow Failure
Altered Host-Microbial Interactions
Allergies and Autoimmune Diseases
Skeletal Muscle Atrophy Resulting in Reduced Strength and Endurance
Increased Susceptibility to Muscle Damage
Vertigo, Spatial Disorientation and Perceptual Illusions
Altered Sensory-Motor Control/Neuro-Motor Coordination
Acute and Chronic Space Motion Sickness
Irreversible Sensory-Motor Changes
Inadequate Nutritional Requirements
Monitoring & Prevention
Major Illness & Trauma
Pharmacology of Space Medicine Delivery
Ambulatory Care
Return to Gravity/Rehabilitation
Insufficient Data/Information/Knowledge Management & Communication Capability
Skill Determination and Training
Palliative, Mortem, and Post-Mortem Medical Activities
Carcinogenesis
Acute and Late CNS Risks
Other Degenerative Tissue Risks
Heredity, Fertility and Sterility Risks
Acute Radiation Syndromes
ISS (1yr)
6
1
4
5
9
6
12
7
7
7
3
7
7
10
8
6
7
12
7
12
11
4
3
10
15
11
6
8
3
7
6
14
3
20
11
20
7
12
12
31
9
5
2
3
4
8
18
19
8
4
7
Moon (30d)
t
f
a
r
D
51 Total Risks
6
1
4
5
9
15
16
11
7
15
13
12
7
10
8
6
7
13
7
12
11
4
3
10
15
14
6
8
3
7
6
14
3
16
6
7
0
12
12
31
9
5
2
3
4
8
18
19
8
4
7
Mars (30m)
6
1
4
5
9
15
16
11
7
15
13
12
7
10
8
6
7
13
7
12
11
4
3
10
15
14
6
8
3
7
6
14
3
14
8
8
1
12
12
31
9
5
2
3
4
8
18
19
8
4
7
444
459
461
# Enabling Questions # Enabling Questions # Enabling Questions
BCPR Design Reference Mission Risks
Total BCPR Risks: 51
Human Adaptation
Countermeasures
19 Risks
Radiation Effects
5 Risks
Behavioral Health
& Performance
4 Risks
Advanced Human
Support Technologies
15 Risks
Medical Care
8 Risks
ISS
Moon
Mars
11
8
0
11
8
0
3
14
2
ISS
Moon
Mars
2
3
0
1
2
2
0
1
4
ISS
Moon
Mars
1
1
2
1
3
0
0
1
3
8
7
0
1
9
5
0
0
15
4
4
0
1
5
2
0
1
7
ISS
Moon
Mars
ISS
Moon
Mars
13
BCPR Design Reference Mission EQ’s
Total EQs: ISS (444); Moon (459); Mars (461)
Human Adaptation
Countermeasures
Radiation Effects
Behavioral Health
& Performance
Advanced Human
Support Technologies
Medical Care
ISS
Moon
Mars
97
86
0
83
74
0
12
122
25
ISS
Moon
Mars
11
45
0
4
27
25
0
4
52
ISS
Moon
Mars
7
13
13
7
28
0
0
7
28
57
28
0
16
104
16
0
0
134
14
60
0
5
30
39
0
5
69
ISS
Moon
Mars
ISS
Moon
Mars
14
BCPR Integration
• Projects as Integrating Tool
– Projects impose discipline on research activities, help
focus on schedule and deliverables
– Project plans force forward and integrated planning
– Project plans reviewed (NAR) and approved to assure
management concurrence
– Project teams to include best experts
• Draw on NASA and non-NASA sources
– Project teams help integration (physicians, scientists,
engineers, managers and astronauts)
– Integration sites (e.g., AIM, ISS) will bring elements
together
• Bioastronautics Should Develop 1 or More
Projects for Each Theme
– Each to have Project Plan (Deliverables, Schedules
and Budgets)