Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Kara Latorella

Publications and source records attributed to Kara Latorella.

10 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Trade Space Analyses: Balancing Crew and Mission Design Parameters

In 2020, the Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations and the Agency’s Federated Board requested an assessment to develop a methodology for trade space analysis comparing crew size for Mars missions against mission design parameters. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conducted an assessment to develop a methodology for systematic, repeatable trade space analysis for crew size and developed an initial set of human performance models and a list of candidate crew tasks for NASA’s first mission to Mars. This report contains the results of the NESC assessment.

Humans to Mars↗
NASA NTRS2024

Assessing the Number of Crew for Mars Against Trade Space Parameters

Missions to Mars will differ from all previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner given the long communication delays on Mars missions. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk in that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, the crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise in the Mission Control Central (MCC) team on which NASA has come to rely. We present a framework for trade space analysis along with results from human-performance models developed in IMPRINT. We discuss the implications of model results on the trade space for number of crew for missions to Mars. This work was funded by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) with support from NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP).

Donna Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-18030-DND

This study investigated the relative acceptance of different avionics implementations that present Flightdeck Interval Management (FIM) speeds and speed deviations to commercial pilots, and for indications of conditions that require action. Each crew evaluated four Avionics conditions: (1) Integrated in which the FIM target speed was presented in the upper left corner of the primary flight display (PFD) and speed profile deviation information was implicitly indicated as the deviation between current speed and an instantaneous speed profile bug on the PFD speed tape. In this Avionics condition, clearance information would have been entered, and could be referenced, on the FIM page in the MCDU. This page also gave a digital readout of speed profile deviation. Significant deviations from the speed profile triggered a message on the EICAS system. (2) EFB-Aft in which an aft-mounted EFB was used as the device housing the FIM algorithm and presented all the relevant information for the operation, including speed targets, speed deviation information, and all elements of the IM clearance. Significant deviations from the speed profile triggered messages on the same EFB display. (3) EFB-Fore in which the same information was presented as in the EFB-Aft condition, but the display was mounted in a more forward location, just under the outboard window. (4) EFB-Aft-AGD in which the EFB-Aft condition was augmented with the ADS-B Guidance Display (AGD). The AGD repeats the same FIM target speed and speed deviation information provided on the EFB. This study compares the efficacy of these Avionics Conditions as well as three methods of annunciating FIM events (a new speed, a reminder that a new speed occurred, and a deviation from the FIM speed profile), using only visual indications, visual indications and an aural for all events, or visual indications for all events plus an aural for speed deviations only. Results show clear preference for the Integrated condition and the use of aural indications. Other metrics of performance using these conditions and methods are mixed.

Kara Latorella↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations to Advance Space Trusted Autonomy

While the various space agencies of the U.S. federal government have distinctly different visions for future operational space systems, all share important foundational commonalities: improve mission performance, reduce mission costs, incorporate technology advances more rapidly, increase reliability and resiliency, reduce risk, and adapt to anomalies and environmental hazards. These common needs, combined with the maturation of autonomous technology and the prospect of leveraging autonomous systems to address these needs, have led each agency to consider how and when to implement increasing levels of autonomy in their space systems. Simultaneously, the related question of how to determine the trustworthiness of an autonomous system is also escalating in significance.

Christopher A Jones↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations to Advance Space Trusted Autonomy

The interagency Space Science and Technology Partnership Forum was established in2015 to identify synergistic efforts and technologies across the U.S. government. While the various space agencies of the U.S. government have distinctly different visions for future operational space systems, all share important foundational common needs. These needs, combined with the maturation of autonomous technology and the prospect of leveraging autonomous systems to address those needs, have led each agency to consider how and when to to implement increasing levels of autonomy in their space systems, and how to determine the trustworthiness of an autonomous system. The Partnership facilitated dialogue among the partners, collected and analyzed data on current and desired future levels of capability, and identified gaps to motivate three recommendations that can be addressed within the Partnership community. These recommendations address the need for more robust documenting and socializing of anomalies in space system operations; the need to expand communication and trust within the community of developers, operators, and end users; and the need for a safe development and testing environment for maturing and demonstrating future autonomous space systems. These recommendations will facilitate both near-term programmatic actions and long-term steps for implementing enduring progress towards enabling space trusted autonomy.

Christopher A Jones↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

This presentation summarizes the contents of the uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities paper. It outlines the functions, features, and capabilities that support sustained human and robotic surface operations. It summarizes the complexities associated with the development and operation of autonomous systems and discusses a simulation tool for integrated surface operations planning.

Lunar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Humans to Mars, but How Many? Using Training Requirements Modeling to Inform Crew Size

Missions to Mars will differ from previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner due to the long communication delays. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, that crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise of the Mission Control Central (MCC) team NASA currently relies upon. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is developing a methodology for assessing the trade space of factors that affect the number of crew for future missions. This methodology includes the consideration of results from three human performance models developed using the Improved Performance Research and Integration Tool (IMPRINT) modeling platform as well as a custom-built model on expertise trained within the crew. The IMPRINT results will be presented in the modeling and simulation sub-tag. Here we present results of a model based on NASA’s crew qualification and responsibility matrix (CQRM), a tool used to identify the crew qualifications for each area of responsibility (operation, system, and payload) for a mission. The model outputs an optimized allocation of training assignments along with a flight-assigned CQRM that can be used to consider the expertise that can be trained within a crew of a given size. We discuss the CQRM model result implications on the trade space for Mars mission crew size.

Mars↗