Global criteria of efficiency and their hierarchy for life support systems for space stations crews

Аuthors

Proshkin V. Y.^*, Kurmazenko E. A.^**

Scientific Research and Design Institute of Chemical Engineering, NIIchimmash, 14, Bolshaya Novodmitrovskaya str., Moscow, 127015, Russia

*e-mail: v_proshkin@mail.ru
**e-mail: e_kurmazenko@niichimmash.ru

Abstract

The authors suggest employ three global criteria of efficiency (GCE) to analyze life support systems (LSS) for space stations crews and planetary bases. These GCE integrate a number of LSS’s partial criteria (PC) such as survivability (G) (integrating such PCs as resource, reliability etc.); cost value (integrating PCs such as energy consumption, weight, servicing time, material cost etc), and comfort F (including such PCs as habitat, interaction with crew and other systems, layout, operation modes etc.).

The GCE hierarchy (significance) relative to each other depends on the type and characteristics of the LSS, its complexity and availability of means for reprocessing the source substances into final product within the system. Survivability is of most significance for regenerative LSS (RLSS), the cost value – for LSS on consumable components (LSS-C), and comfort – for emergency life support systems (LSS-E).

G > C > F. RLSS with a long operating time (several years), operating constantly, without maintenance.

G > F > C. RLSS, which operates periodically and for a short time (hours), with maintenance.

C > F > G. LSS-C with simple structure and processes.

C > G > F. LSS-C with more complex structure and processes (more probability of abnormal situations effecting the crew occurrence).

F > C > G. Emergency stock of consumables.

F > G > C. LSS-E for operation in abnormal situations on board.

G ≈ F ≈ C. Biotechnical LSS of future planetary bases, which will have a more significant cost value (high consumption of mass and energy) and comfort (specific requirements for greenhouses LSS).

While performing analysis, influence coefficients on three GCT kG , kC , kF are being determined for each parameter. The total coefficient is k_Σ = a₁ k_G + a₂ k_C + a₃ k_F .

Weight coefficients a1 , a2 , a3 have their own values for each LSS and relative to each other correspond to the GCE hierarchy. For example, on board of International space station for Russian “Elektron-VM” system (О2 generation by water electrolysis): a₁ = 9, a₂ = 3, a₃ = 1.

Application of this analysis in relation to existing and LSS being developed allows identify parameters and components with higher coefficients of influence and gives directions for constructional and operational modernization.

Keywords:

life support system, global criteria of efficiency, survivability, cost, comfort, hierarchy of global criteria

References

1. Bobe L.S., Samsonov N.M., Novikov V.M., Kochetkov A.A., Soloukhin V.A., Telegin A.A., Andreichuk P.O., Protasov N.N., Sinyak Yu.E. Izvestiya RAN. Energetika, 2009, no. 1, pp. 69 – 78.

2. Bobe L., Kochetkov A., Tsygankov A., Korobkov A., Romanov S., Zeleznyakov A., Andreychuk P., Sinyak Yu.E. Design and Operation of Water Recovery Systems for Space Stations, 46th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Vienna, Austria, July 10-14, 2016, ICES-2016-28, pp. 10.

3. Proshkin V.Ju., Kurmazenko E.A., Kochetkov A.A., Gavrilov L.I. Trudy MAI, 2013, no. 65, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=35841

4. Bagdigian R.M., Dake J., Gentry G., Gault M. International Space Station Environmental Control and Life Support System Mass and Crewtime Utilization in Comparison to a Long Duration Human Space Exploration Mission, 45th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Bellevue, Washington, USA, 12-16 July, 2015, ICES-2015-094, pp. 16.

5. Gentry G.J. International Space Station (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) System Overview of Events: 2016-2017, 47th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, 16-20 July, 2017, ICES-2017-059, pp. 10.

6. Carter L., Takada K., Brown C.A., Bazley J., Gazda D., Schaezler R., Thomas F. Status of ISS Water Management and Recovery, 47th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, 16-20 July, 2017, ICES-2017-036, pp. 17.

7. Bockstahler K., Hartwich R., Matthias C., Witt J., Hovland S., Laurini D. Status of the Advanced Closed Loop System ACLS for Accommodation on the ISS, 47th International Conference on Environmental Systems, (Charleston, South Carolina, USA), 16-20 July, 2017, ICES-2017-135, pp. 11.

8. Malozemov V.V., Zaretskii B.F. Inzhenernaya ekologiya, 2012, no. 2, pp. 37 – 45.

9. Zaretskii B.F., Morozov G.I., Kurmazenko E.A., Proshkin V.Yu. Pilotiruemye polety v kosmos, 2015, no. 2, pp. 49 – 66.

10. Proshkin V.Yu. Inzhenernaya ekologiya, 2014, no. 2, pp. 27 – 45.

11. Kurmazenko E.A., Bobe L.S., Gavrilov L.I., Kochetkov A.A., Proshkin V.Yu., Khabarovskiy N.N. Inzhenernaya ekologiya, 2014, no. 2, pp. 2 – 26.

12. Jones H.W. Reliability and Failure in NASA Missions: Blunders, Normal Accidents, High Reliability, Bad Luck, 45th International Conference on Environmental Systems Bellevue, Washington, USA, 12-16 July, 2015, ICES-2015-045, pp. 10.

13. Proshkin V.Yu., Kurmazenko E.A. Pilotiruemye polety v kosmos, 2013, no. 3, pp. 84 – 99.

14. Kogan I.L. Trudy MAI, 2015, no. 82, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=58453

15. Bobe L.S., Rakov V.V., Arakcheev D.V., Kanaev P.A. Trudy MAI, 2012, no. 52, available at: http://trudymai.ru/published.php?ID=29414

16. Yurgin A.V., Romanov S.Yu., Guzenberg A.S., Ryabkin A.M., Telegin A.A. Aviakosmicheskaya i ekologicheskaya meditsina, 2008, vol. 42, no. 6/1, pp. 92 – 93.

17. Bobe L., Kochetkov A., Tsygankov A., Zeleznyakov A., Andreychuk P., Sinyak Ju.E. The Performance of the System for Water Recovery from Humidity Condensate (SRV-K) and the System for Urine Feed and Pretreatment (SPK-U) on Russian Segment of the ISS (Missions 1 through 37), 44th International Conference on Environmental Systems Tucson, Arizona, USA, July 13-17, 2014, ICES-2014-307, pp. 11.

18. Isobe J., Henson P., MacKnight A., Yates S., Schuck D., Winton D. Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies for U.S. Space Vehicles: Past, Present, and Future, 46th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Vienna, Austria, July 10-14, 2016, ICES-2016-425, pp. 10.

19. Grigor’ev A.I., Sychev V.N. Vestnik Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 2004, vol. 74, no. 8, pp. 675 – 689.

20. Morrow R.C., Wetzel J.P., Richter R.C., Crabb T.M. Evolution of Space-Based Plant Growth Technologies for Hybrid Life Support Systems, 47th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, 16-20 July, 2017, ICES-2017-301, pp. 9.

21. Morozov G.I. Proektirovanie biotekhnicheskikh sistem zhizneobespecheniya kosmonavtov (ing Biotechnical life support systems design for astronauts), Moscow, MAI-Print, 2010, 187 p.

22. Meleshko G.I., Shepelev E.Ya. Biologicheskie sistemy zhizneobespecheniya (zamknutye ekologicheskie sistemy) (Biological life support systems (closed ecological systems)), Moscow, Sintez, 1994, 278 p.

23. Escobar C.M., Nabity J.A. Past, Present, and Future of Closed Human Life Support Ecosystems – A Review, 47th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, 16-20 July, 2017, ICES-2017-311, pp. 18.

24. Jones H. Comparison of Bioregenerative and Physical / Chemical Life Support Systems, 36th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Norfolk, Virginia, USA, July 17-20, 2006, SAE Technical Paper Series, 2006-01-2082, pp. 12.

25. Jones H.W. Don’t Trust a Management Metric, Especially in Life Support, 44th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Tucson, Arizona, USA, July 13-17, 2014, ICES-2014-073, pp. 10.

26. Surdyk R.J., Morrow R.C., Wetzel J.P. Life Support Multidimensional Assessment Criteria, 47th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Charleston, South Carolina, USA), 16-20 July, 2017, ICES-2017-306, pp. 9.

Download