Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site
Our DNA reveals the human race is the result of alien genetic manipulation
-
Similar Topics
-
By NASA
Explore This Section RPS Home About About RPS About the Program About Plutonium-238 Safety and Reliability For Mission Planners Contact RPS Systems Overview Power Systems Thermal Systems Dynamic Radioisotope Power Missions Overview Timeline News Resources STEM Power to Explore Contest FAQ 4 min read
NASA Reveals Semifinalists of Power to Explore Challenge
A word cloud showing “superpowers” of the 45 semifinalists. NASA/David Lam NASA selected 45 student essays as semifinalists of its 2024-2025 Power to Explore Challenge, a national competition for K-12 students featuring the enabling power of radioisotopes. Contestants were challenged to explore how NASA has powered some of its most famous science missions and to dream up how their personal “superpower” would energize their success on their own radioisotope-powered science mission to explore one of the nearly 300 moons of our solar system.
The competition asked students to learn about radioisotope power systems (RPS), a type of “nuclear battery” that NASA uses to explore the harshest, darkest, and dustiest parts of our solar system. RPS have enabled many spacecraft to explore a variety of these moons, some with active volcanoes, methane lakes, and intricate weather patterns similar to Earth. Many of these moons remain a mystery to us.
This year’s submissions to NASA’s Power to Explore Challenge were immensely enthralling, and we’re thrilled that the number of entries reached a record high.
Carl Sandifer II
Program Manager, NASA Radioisotope Power Systems Program
In 275 words or less, students wrote about a mission of their own that would use these space power systems to explore any moon in our solar system and described their own power to achieve their mission goals.
The Power to Explore Challenge offered students the opportunity to learn more about these reliable power systems, celebrate their own strengths, and interact with NASA’s diverse workforce. This year’s contest set a record, receiving 2,051 submitted entries from all 50 states, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Overseas.
“This year’s submissions to NASA’s Power to Explore Challenge were immensely enthralling, and we’re thrilled that the number of entries reached a record high,” said Carl Sandifer II, program manager of the Radioisotope Power Systems Program at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. “It was particularly interesting to see which moons the students selected for their individual essays, and the mysteries they hope to unravel. Their RPS-powered mission concepts always prove to be innovative, and it’s a joy to learn about their ‘superpowers’ that exemplify their path forward as the next generation of explorers.”
Entries were split into three categories: grades K-4, 5-8, and 9-12. Every student who submitted an entry received a digital certificate, and over 4,859 participants who signed up received an invitation to the Power Up with NASA virtual event. Students learned about what powers the NASA workforce utilizes to dream big and work together to explore. Speakers included Carl Sandifer II, Dr. Wanda Peters, NASA’s deputy associate administrator for programs in the Science Mission Directorate and Dr. Zibi Turtle, principal investigator for NASA’s Dragonfly mission from the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory.
Fifteen national semifinalists in each grade category (45 semifinalists total) have been selected. These participants also will receive a NASA RPS prize pack. Finalists for this challenge will be announced on April 23.
Grades K-4
Vihaan Akhoury, Roseland, NJ Ada Brolan, Somerville, MA Ashwin Cohen, Washington D.C Unnathi Chandra Devavarapu, San Marcos, CA Levi Fisher, Portland, OR Tamanna Ghosh, Orlando, FL Ava Goodison, Arnold, MD Anika Lal, Pflugerville, TX Diya Loganathan, Secaucus, NJ Mini M, Ann Arbor, MI Mark Porter, Temple Hills, MD Rohith Thiruppathy, Canton, MI Zachary Tolchin, Guilford CT Kavin Vairavan, West Windsor Township, NJ Terry Xu, Arcadia, CA Grades 5-8
Chowdhury Wareesha Ali, Solon OH Caydin Brandes, Los Angeles, CA Caleb Braswell, Crestview, FL Lilah Coyan, Spokane, WA Ashwin Dhondi Kubeer, Phoenix, AZ Jonathan Gigi, Cypress, TX Gagan Girish, Portland, OR Maggie Hou, Snohomish, WA Sanjay Koripelli, Louisville, KY Isaiah Muniz, South Orange, NJ Sarabhesh Saravanakumar, Bothell, WA Eliya Schubert, Katonah, NY Gabriel Traska, Fort Woth, TX Jaxon Verbeck, Riggins, ID Krish Vinodhkumar, Monrovia, MD Grades 9-12
Samaria Berry, Kinder, LA David Cai, Saipan, MP Reggie Castro, Saipan, MP Ryan Danyow, Rutland City, VT Faiz Karim, Jericho, NY Sakethram Kuncha, Chantilly, VA Katerina Morin, Miami, FL Emilio Olivares, Edmond, OK Kairat Otorov, Trumbull, CT Dev Rai, Herndon, VA Shaurya Saxena, Irving, TX Saanvi Shah, Bothell, WA Niyant Sithamraju, San Ramon, CA Anna Swenson, Henderson, NV Alejandro Valdez, Orlando, FL About the Challenge
The Power to Explore Student Challenge is funded by the NASA Science Mission Directorate’s Radioisotope Power Systems Program Office and managed and administered by Future Engineers under the direction of the NASA Tournament Lab, a part of the Prizes, Challenges, and Crowdsourcing Program in NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate.
Kristin Jansen
NASA’s Glenn Research Center
View the full article
-
-
-
By NASA
Center Director Dr. Jimmy Kenyon gives an overview of NASA Glenn Research Center’s areas of expertise and how it supports the agency’s missions and programs. Credit: NASA/Susan Valerian NASA Glenn Research Center’s Director Dr. Jimmy Kenyon and Chief Counsel Callista Puchmeyer participated in a local symposium that addressed the operational and legal challenges of human spaceflight. The one-day conference was held at the Cleveland State University (CSU) College of Law on Feb.13.
Kenyon gave a keynote that provided an overview of NASA Glenn’s areas of expertise and how the center supports the agency’s missions and programs. He also talked about the role of growing commercial partnerships at NASA.
Panelists, left to right: Col. (Ret.) Joseph Zeis, senior advisor for Aerospace and Defense, Office of the Governor of Ohio; Callista Puchmeyer, chief counsel, NASA’s Glenn Research Center; and Jon. P. Yormick, international business and trade attorney, Yormick Law, answer questions on operational and legal challenges of human spaceflight at a Cleveland State University College of Law symposium. Credit: NASA/Susan Valerian Puchmeyer, a graduate of CSU’s College of Law and recent inductee into its Hall of Fame, participated in a panel about Northeast Ohio’s aerospace industry and the legal aspects of commercial partnerships.
Additionally, human spaceflight experts from academia, law, and science spoke throughout the day on topics ranging from the health and training of astronauts to the special law of space stations. Romanian astronaut Dumitru-Dorin Prunariu joined remotely to provide a personal perspective.
Return to Newsletter Explore More
2 min read NASA Releases its Spinoff 2025 Publication
Article 4 mins ago 1 min read NASA Glenn Welcomes Spring 2025 Interns
Article 4 mins ago 5 min read NASA’s Chevron Technology Quiets the Skies
Article 22 hours ago View the full article
-
By NASA
6 min read
Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
Risks Concept Risk is inherent in human spaceflight. However, specific risks can and should be understood, managed, and mitigated to reduce threats posed to astronauts. Risk management in the context of human spaceflight can be viewed as a trade-based system. The relevant evidence in life sciences, medicine, and engineering is tracked and evaluated to identify ways to minimize overall risk to the astronauts and to ensure mission success. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) manages the process by which scientific evidence is utilized to establish and reassess the postures of the various risks to the Human System during all of the various types of existing or anticipated crewed missions. The HSRB operates as part of the Health and Medical Technical Authority of the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer of NASA via the JSC Chief Medical Officer.
The HSRB approaches to human system risks is analogous to the approach the engineering profession takes with its Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in that a process is utilized to identify and address potential problems, or failures to reduce their likelihood and severity. In the context of risks to the human system, the HSRB considers eight missions which different in their destinations and durations (known as Design Reference Missions [DRM]) to further refine the context of the risks. With each DRM a likelihood and consequence are assigned to each risk which is adjusted scientific evidence is accumulated and understanding of the risk is enhanced, and mitigations become available or are advanced.
Human System Risks This framework enables the principles of Continuous Risk Management and Risk Informed Decision Making (RIDM) to be applied in an ongoing fashion to the challenges posed by Human System Risks. Using this framework consistently across the 29 risks allows management to see where risks need additional research or technology development to be mitigated or monitored and for the identification of new risks and concerns. Further information on the implementation of the risk management process can be found in the following documents:
Human System Risk Management Plan – JSC-66705 NASA Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) Implementation – NPR 7120.11A NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements – NPR 7120.5 Human System Risk Board Management Office
The HSRB Risk Management Office governs the execution of the Human System Risk management process in support of the HSRB. It is led by the HSRB Chair, who is also referred to as the Risk Manager.
Risk Custodian Teams
Along with the Human System Risk Manager, a team of risk custodians (a researcher, an operational researcher or physician, and an epidemiologist, who each have specific expertise) works together to understand and synthesize scientific and operational evidence in the context of spaceflight, identify and evaluate metrics for each risk in order to communicate the risk posture to the agency.
Directed Acyclic Graphs
Summary
The HSRB uses Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG), a type of causal diagramming, as visual tools to create a shared understanding of the risks, improve communication among those stakeholders, and enable the creation of a composite risk network that is vetted by members of the NASA community and configuration managed (Antonsen et al., NASA/TM– 20220006812). The knowledge captured is the Human Health and Performance community’s knowledge about the causal flow of a human system risk, and the relationships that exist between the contributing factors to that risk.
DAGs are:
Intended to improve communication between: Managers and subject matter experts who need to discuss human system risks Subject matter experts in different disciplines where human system risks interact with one another in a potentially cumulative fashion Visual representations of known or suspected relationships Directed – the relationship flows in one direction between any two nodes Acyclic – cycles in the graph are not allowed Example of a Directed Acyclic Graph. This is a simplified illustration of how and the individual, the crew, and the system contribute to the likelihood of successful task performance in a mission. Individual readiness is affected by many of the health and performance-oriented risks followed by the HSRB, but the readiness of any individual crew is complemented by the team and the system that the crew works within. Failures of task performance may lead to loss of mission objectives if severe.NASA View Larger (Example of a Directed Acyclic Graph) Image
Details
At NASA, the Human System Risks have historically been conceptualized as deriving from five Hazards present in the spaceflight environment. These are: altered gravity, isolation and confinement, radiation, a hostile closed environment, and distance from Earth. These Hazards are aspects of the spaceflight environment that are encountered when someone is launched into space and therefore are the starting point for causal diagramming of spaceflight-related risk issues for the HSRB.
These Hazards are often interpreted in relation to physiologic changes that occur in humans as a result of the exposure; however, interaction between human crew (behavioral health and performance), which may be degraded due to the spaceflight environment – and the vehicle and mission systems that the crew must operate – can also be influenced by these Hazards.
Each Human System Risk DAG is intended to show the causal flow of risk from Hazards to Mission Level Outcomes. As such, the structure of each DAG starts with at least one Hazard and ends with at least one of the pre-defined Mission Level Outcomes. In between are the nodes and edges of the causal flow diagrams that are relevant to the Risk under consideration. These are called ‘contributing factors’ in the HSRB terminology, and include countermeasures, medical conditions, and other Human System Risks. A graph data structure is composed of a set of vertices (nodes), and a set of edges (links). Each edge represents a relationship between two nodes. There can be two types of relationships between nodes: directed and undirected. For example, if an edge exists between two nodes A and B and the edge is undirected, it is represented as A–B, (no arrow). If the edge were directed, for example from A to B, then this is represented with an arrow (A->B). Each directed arrow connecting one node to another on a DAG indicates a claim of causality. A directed graph can potentially contain a cycle, meaning that, from a specific node, there exists a path that would eventually return to that node. A directed graph that has no cycles is known as acyclic. Thus, a graph with directed links and no cycles is a DAG. DAGs are a type of network diagram that represent causality in a visual format.
DAGs are updated with the regular Human System Risk updates generally every 1-2 years. Approved DAGs can be found in the NASA/TP 20220015709 below or broken down under each Human System Risk.
Documents
Directed Acyclic Graph Guidance Documentation – NASA/TM 20220006812 Directed Acyclic Graphs: A Tool for Understanding the NASA Human Spaceflight System Risks – NASA/TP 20220015709 Publications
npj Microgravity – Causal diagramming for assessing human
system risk in spaceflight
Apr 22, 2024
PDF (3.09 MB)
npj Microgravity –
Levels of evidence for human system risk
evaluation
Apr 22, 2024
PDF (2.47 MB)
npj Microgravity –
Updates to the NASA human system risk management process
for space exploration
Apr 22, 2024
PDF (2.24 MB)
Points of Contact
Mary Van Baalen
Dan Buckland
Bob Scully
Kim Lowe
Human System Risks Share
Details
Last Updated Mar 11, 2025 EditorRobert E. LewisLocationJohnson Space Center Related Terms
Human Health and Performance Human System Risks Explore More
1 min read Concern of Venous Thromboembolism
Article 31 mins ago 1 min read Risk of Acute and Chronic Carbon Dioxide Exposure
Article 30 mins ago 1 min read Risk of Adverse Cognitive or Behavioral Conditions and Psychiatric Disorders
Article 30 mins ago Keep Exploring Discover More Topics From NASA
Humans In Space
Missions
International Space Station
Solar System
View the full article
-
-
Check out these Videos
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.