Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Ian Wesley Taylor Robertson

Publications and source records attributed to Ian Wesley Taylor Robertson.

A Summary of the Development and Validation of the Scale for Habitat Usability (SHU)

Usability is an important concept to consider when designing space habitats/vehicles. In addition to objective outcomes (success rate, net habitable volume etc.), collecting users’ subjective judgments via comments and questionnaires can provide valuable data for evaluating conceptual designs, identifying potential layout issues, improving concept of operations, substantiating design changes, or selecting between competing mockups. Historically at NASA, there has been no “gold standard” questionnaire for capturing users’ subjective viewpoint regarding habitat design. To address this gap a Human Research Program (HRP) study was conducted to create a new measurement tool: the Scale for Habitat Usability (SHU).

Usability↗

Speech-Enhanced and Context Dependent Alerts: Future Implications for Spacecraft Design Abstract

In the future, NASA missions will involve many different space vehicles, habitats, and surface assets working together to provide safe and productive living and working environments for crew. Because these systems will be provided by multiple commercial companies working with NASA, it will be very different from missions of the past, bringing new challenges. One of the challenges is related to whether NASA should move beyond simple tone annunciation alerting systems, to more advanced systems that include speech. The other is related to determining the level of consistency required of safety-critical alert systems across spacecraft. Two studies were completed to address these important issues. The first study investigated the advantages and disadvantages of a tone+speech alert relative to the traditional tone-only alert. Results indicate that speech-enhanced alerts initially take longer to silence (the default action to which NASA personnel are trained), due to the need to listen to the entire message, but ultimately provided for faster understanding of the alert situation. Speech-enhanced alerts were also preferred by a large majority of crew-like study participants. An unexpected finding from this first study was that participants took longer to respond to tone-only alerts when they were mixed with speech- enhanced alerts. Participants waited to hear the speech message even for alerts they were trained to know did not contain speech components. This performance error is believed to be due to negative transfer of training. A second study focused on task and alert performance using a common set of tones across two contexts (“vehicles”) versus performance with a different set of tones for each context (“vehicle”). Participants were able to manage two different alert sets successfully; results indicate that discriminability of the two alert sets played a major role in their success. Implications for the design of spacecraft alerts are discussed and future areas of research are identified.

alerts↗

An Evaluation of Extended Reality Technologies for Use in Verification Testing at NASA 2024 HRP IWS Abstract

BACKGROUND At NASA, verification testing is the formal process of ensuring that a product conforms to requirements set by a project or program. Some verification methods, such as Demonstrations and Test, require either the end product or a mockup of the product with sufficient fidelity to stand-in for the product during the test. Traditionally, these mockups have been physical (e.g., foam-core and wood) but there is growing interest in exploring new methods for testing with these mockups. These methods include virtual reality (VR), mixed reality, and augmented reality which are collectively referred to as eXtended Reality (XR) technologies. VR has already been adopted and used by many in the aerospace industry as a tool for use in early design phases (e.g., developmental testing) and may have the most potential for use in verification tests. Benefits of using VR mockups offer cost effectiveness, ease of iteration, simulation of hazardous conditions (e.g., an egress through a hatch with smoke obscuring vision), and the ability to simulate microgravity conditions, which are challenging to do with physical mockups. However, the validity of test results obtained from VR mockup demonstrations or testing, compared to the current gold standard of physical mockups, remains uncertain. It is unlikely that there is one clean answer as there are many different types of verification outcomes and each XR technology must be evaluated on its own merits. This is not an issue during developmental testing as the design is still in flux and the total success of the design is not dependent upon the results of a developmental test. Verification tests, however, only happen once, assuming no change to the design, and the results are used to certify the product. Therefore, establishing the validity of XR mockup-based verification outcomes is essential before considering them for any use in verification tests. OBJECTIVE AND METHOD To address this concern, the Human Research Program has funded a project to explore and qualify how XR technologies might be used in verification demonstration and testing at NASA. Currently, we are conducting a review of the literature on the utilization of XR mockups for design activities, prototyping, and user testing. We are employing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis method to identify the pros, cons, and barriers to adoption of XR technologies for verification testing at NASA. Additionally, we are developing a framework to guide the deployment of XR mockups for verification tests. Building upon available evidence from the literature and subject-matter expert feedback, our goal for the framework is to provide guidelines for which forms of XR mockups are suitable for a given verification test, when only physical mockups should be employed and to highlight areas for which more evidence is needed. To further refine our framework and to contribute to the body of evidence, we are planning a lab-based experiment comparing a VR mockup to a physical twin for a set of select verification outcomes. ANTICIPATED RESULTS In this presentation, we will present the work we conducted to evaluate XR technologies for use in verification tests at NASA. We will summarize and report our findings from the SWOT analysis and our lab-based study, and we will present the current state of the XR Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project. Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project.

Extended Reality↗