A dynamic object oriented top-level advanced life support system model

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has shifted program goals towards long-term space missions. Potential mission scenarios include the International Space Station (ISS) and permanent Lunar and Martian bases. The logistics involved in long-term missions have become progressively more complicated as mission duration increases. Most notably, the life-sustaining supplies from Earth will not be readily available. The distance to these locations is simply overwhelming and regular travel for supply purposes rapidly becomes too costly. Therefore, members of NASA's Advanced Life Support (ALS) Program currently investigate the systems capable of providing the needs of a human crew in long-term missions. These ALS Systems may include a biological component where higher plants are grown to provide food as well as recycle air and water. Biological and/or physicochemical waste processing will be necessary to recycle solid and liquid wastes back into the system. Further, the explorers themselves will be components in the overall system since they also process food, air, and water in their everyday biological activities.; A modeling tool has been developed for the analysis of ALS systems. The modeling tool takes a top-level approach and is modular enough to allow flexibility, in simulation while considering the entire system. Object-oriented techniques are well suited for this and are utilized in the development of the modeling tool.; Four major sub-systems have been identified within an ALS System: Biomass Production, the Crew, Food Processing & Nutrition, and Waste Processing & Resource Recovery. Each subsystem is modeled independently and is subsequently united with other sub-models to form one overall top-level model.; Several scenarios have successfully been simulated demonstrating the usefulness of the modeling tool. The simulations have demonstrated the flexibility of the modeling tool by modeling a variety of scenarios. Scenarios discussed here include three different biomass production subsystems ranging from a salad machine to two large biomass production chambers. Two solid waste processing subsystems were compared considering stabilizing technologies versus oxidative technologies. Two different carbon dioxide removal systems were considered for air revitalization. Wastewater processing was also varied allowing the comparison of a physicochemical wastewater processing system versus a biological system.