Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “human performance”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1992

Biomedical Monitoring and Countermeasures Facility

The Space Station Freedom Program (SSFP) represents the transition within the US Space program from the 'heroic' era of space flight (characterized most vividly by the Mercury and Apollo programs) to an epoch characterized by routine access to the space environment. In this new era, the unique characteristics of the microgravity environment will enable new types of research activities, primarily in the life sciences, materials science, and biotechnology fields. In addition to its role as a'microgravity science laboratory,' Space Station Freedom (SSF) constitutes the operational platform on which the knowledge and skills needed to continue our exploration of space will be acquired. In the area of spacecraft operations, these skills include the ability to assemble, operate, and maintain large structures in space. In the area of crew operations, the potentially harmful effects of extended exposure to microgravity must be understood in order to keep the crew mission capable. To achieve this goal, the complex process of physiological deconditioning must be monitored, and countermeasures utilized as needed to keep the individual crew members within acceptable physiological limits. The countermeasures program under development for the SSF Program is titled the Biomedical Monitoring and Countermeasures (BMAC) program. As implied by the name, this activity has two primary products, a biomedical monitoring element and a countermeasures development effort. The program is a critical path element in the overall SSF Program, and should be considered an essential element of operations on board the space station. It is readily apparent that the capability to both protect and optimize the health and performance of the human operators on board SSF will be a critical element in the overall success of the SSFP. Previous experience within the Russian space program has demonstrated that the time required for countermeasures on extended missions can become a monumental operational burden. Therefore, one of the primary objectives of the countermeasures development activity will be to design and implement countermeasures which are significantly more effective than the existing generation. Other primary objectives include the following: to set health and human performance standards for all mission phases; to determine critical issues that affect performance or return to flight status; to develop and implement monitoring systems to follow health and performance status; and to understand risk, and balance the resource costs of countermeasures vs. the benefit gained.

Stewart, Donald F.↗
NASA NTRS2025

Humans to Mars, but How Many? Trade Space Analyses for Mars Mission Crew Size

Missions to Mars will differ from previous human spaceflight missions in that the 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) developed a methodology for assessing the trade space of factors that affect the number of crew for Mars missions based on human performance and expertise modeling. 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 based on NASA’s crew qualification and responsibilities matrix (CQRM). We present example model results and discuss implications on trade space analyses for Mars mission crew size.

Mars Mission↗
NASA NTRS1982

Human operator performance of remotely controlled tasks: Teleoperator research conducted at NASA's George C. Marshal Space Flight Center

The capabilities within the teleoperator laboratories to perform remote and teleoperated investigations for a wide variety of applications are described. Three major teleoperator issues are addressed: the human operator, the remote control and effecting subsystems, and the human/machine system performance results for specific teleoperated tasks.

Shields, N., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1982

Human operator performance of remotely controlled tasks: Teleoperator research conducted at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. Executive summary

The combination of human and machine capabilities into an integrated engineering system which is complex and interactive interdisciplinary undertaking is discussed. Human controlled remote systems referred to as teleoperators, are reviewed. The human factors requirements for remotely manned systems are identified. The data were developed in three principal teleoperator laboratories and the visual, manipulator and mobility laboratories are described. Three major sections are identified: (1) remote system components, (2) human operator considerations; and (3) teleoperator system simulation and concept verification.

Shields, N., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1986

The effects of voice and manual control mode on dual task performance

Two fundamental principles of human performance, compatibility and resource competition, are combined with two structural dichotomies in the human information processing system, manual versus voice output, and left versus right cerebral hemisphere, in order to predict the optimum combination of voice and manual control with either hand, for time-sharing performance of a dicrete and continuous task. Eight right handed male subjected performed a discrete first-order tracking task, time-shared with an auditorily presented Sternberg Memory Search Task. Each task could be controlled by voice, or by the left or right hand, in all possible combinations except for a dual voice mode. When performance was analyzed in terms of a dual-task decrement from single task control conditions, the following variables influenced time-sharing efficiency in diminishing order of magnitude, (1) the modality of control, (discrete manual control of tracking was superior to discrete voice control of tracking and the converse was true with the memory search task), (2) response competition, (performance was degraded when both tasks were responded manually), (3) hemispheric competition, (performance degraded whenever two tasks were controlled by the left hemisphere) (i.e., voice or right handed control). The results confirm the value of predictive models invoice control implementation.

Wickens, C. D.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Stimulus information contaminates summation tests of independent neural representations of features

Many models of visual processing assume that visual information is analyzed into separable and independent neural codes, or features. A common psychophysical test of independent features is known as a summation study, which measures performance in a detection, discrimination, or visual search task as the number of proposed features increases. Improvement in human performance with increasing number of available features is typically attributed to the summation, or combination, of information across independent neural coding of the features. In many instances, however, increasing the number of available features also increases the stimulus information in the task, as assessed by an optimal observer that does not include the independent neural codes. In a visual search task with spatial frequency and orientation as the component features, a particular set of stimuli were chosen so that all searches had equivalent stimulus information, regardless of the number of features. In this case, human performance did not improve with increasing number of features, implying that the improvement observed with additional features may be due to stimulus information and not the combination across independent features.

NASA Discipline Space Human Factors↗
NASA NTRS2009

Results and Lessons Learned from Performance Testing of Humans in Spacesuits in Simulated Reduced Gravity

NASA's Constellation Program has plans to return to the Moon within the next 10 years. Although reaching the Moon during the Apollo Program was a remarkable human engineering achievement, fewer than 20 extravehicular activities (EVAs) were performed. Current projections indicate that the next lunar exploration program will require thousands of EVAs, which will require spacesuits that are better optimized for human performance. Limited mobility and dexterity, and the position of the center of gravity (CG) are a few of many features of the Apollo suit that required significant crew compensation to accomplish the objectives. Development of a new EVA suit system will ideally result in performance close to or better than that in shirtsleeves at 1 G, i.e., in "a suit that is a pleasure to work in, one that you would want to go out and explore in on your day off." Unlike the Shuttle program, in which only a fraction of the crew perform EVA, the Constellation program will require that all crewmembers be able to perform EVA. As a result, suits must be built to accommodate and optimize performance for a larger range of crew anthropometry, strength, and endurance. To address these concerns, NASA has begun a series of tests to better understand the factors affecting human performance and how to utilize various lunar gravity simulation environments available for testing.

Chappell, Steven P.↗
NASA NTRS1980

Automation literature: A brief review and analysis

Current thought and research positions which may allow for an improved capability to understand the impact of introducing automation to an existing system are established. The orientation was toward the type of studies which may provide some general insight into automation; specifically, the impact of automation in human performance and the resulting system performance. While an extensive number of articles were reviewed, only those that addressed the issue of automation and human performance were selected to be discussed. The literature is organized along two dimensions: time, Pre-1970, Post-1970; and type of approach, Engineering or Behavioral Science. The conclusions reached are not definitive, but do provide the initial stepping stones in an attempt to begin to bridge the concept of automation in a systematic progression.

Smith, D.↗
NASA NTRS1973

Identification of human operator performance models utilizing time series analysis

The results of an effort performed by Sperry Systems Management Division for AMRL in applying time series analysis as a tool for modeling the human operator are presented. This technique is utilized for determining the variation of the human transfer function under various levels of stress. The human operator's model is determined based on actual input and output data from a tracking experiment.

Holden, F. M.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Risk of Impaired Performance Due to Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength &, Endurance (Short Title: Muscle) and Risk of Reduced Physical Performance Capabilities Due to Reduced Aerobic Capacity (Short Title: Aerobic)

This report reviews the scientific literature regarding the human system risks to the microgravity environment of space flight in relation to human performance. The primary human performance-related risks involve deconditioning of the cardiovascular and skeletal muscles systems due to prolonged exposure to the reduced gravitational input. The chronological history of U.S. space flight is reviewed as a starting point to inform and understand the gaps in the knowledge to these risks. Maintenance of physical performance capabilities involves understanding the health of many organ systems (peripheral [vascular, heart, blood volume, skeletal muscle] and central [brain]) that ultimately contribute to the submaximal and maximal capacity of the aerobic (VO2peak), skeletal muscle (strength and endurance) systems. Maintaining astronaut VO2peak, muscle mass, strength, and endurance before, during, and after space flight is a significant priority to NASA for the current International Space Station (ISS) era, as well as for future exploration missions. A growing research database from both space flight and ground-based analog studies finds that the cardiorespiratory system is compromised and skeletal muscles (predominantly postural muscles of the lower limbs) undergo atrophy. These structural and metabolic responses to living in microgravity conditions contribute to physiological deconditioning during space flight that potentially increase the risks to astronauts returning to surface operations (i.e., Moon, Mars, or Earth). The time course changes from short to long-duration space flight and the relationships between in-flight performance deconditioning levels are not well characterized. Moreover, there are large interindividual variabilities that may be dependent on genetics, age, sex, preflight fitness levels, and individual exercise prescriptions that need further careful evaluations. Efforts should be made to understand the current status of preflight, in-flight, and postflight exercise performance capability and to define the operational goals and target areas for protection with the in-flight exercise program. There is a bi-directional relationship between exercise prescription and hardware countermeasures that need further understanding in-flight. For example, hardware with limited capabilities/modalities may be counterbalanced by changes in exercise prescription (i.e., frequency, time, intensity, volume) for providing effective responses to maintain fitness. Importantly, the minimal requirements for exercise prescription on ISS hardware may not translate to lower capability hardware on exploration missions. Due to limited volume on exploration vehicles, future Artemis missions to the Lunar surface will not have similar exercise hardware capabilities as ISS. This may alter the effectiveness of hardware to provide adequate physiological stress on bodily systems allowing for adaptations to maintain aerobic capacity, strength, and bone density. Thus, it will be important to understand the exercise responses of current ISS countermeasures to develop individualized exercise prescriptions that minimize aerobic and muscular risks, accounting for the large variability of responses among crewmembers. Newer exploration exercise hardware is currently being evaluated that is more compact (i.e., E4D and Orion Flywheel) and will require careful evaluation of the hardware on the stressor (i.e., metabolic rate, oxygen uptake, and heart rate work relationships, and force plate load profiles) needed the human body to protect and maintain crew health and performance. Moreover, exercise responses on the hardware need careful evaluation on the chronic adaptations. Lastly, in-flight evaluation of hardware exercise response may differ in 0-g or partial-g compared to 1-g. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the stress on the body will be the same in each environment. Understanding this has a direct impact on exercise prescriptions. This document provides an overview of key scientific investigations that have been conducted before, during, and after human space flight missions, as well as from human ground-based analog studies that contribute to the evidence base on changes in aerobic capacity and muscle mass, strength, and endurance. Additional data from rodent and nonhuman primate experiments of skeletal muscle unloading completed during space flight or ground-based flight-simulations provide supportive information about this risk topic. Most importantly, a recent, large dataset from long-duration ISS crew has been added to give improved insight into the variability of exercise response of crew, demonstrating that a large portion of the crew population return to Earth with greater than 10-20% loss of aerobic capacity and muscle strength and endurance. Data from human space flight and ground-based studies are narrowing in on the required exercise paradigms but thus far still provide an incomplete answer to an effective approach for maintaining skeletal muscle function and aerobic fitness of all human space travelers. Finally, the relationship of this risk topic to various space flight operational scenarios is examined and discussed.

Eric Rivas↗
NASA NTRS2010

NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC)

The NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC) will provide a collaborative and virtual forum to integrate all disciplines of the human system to address spaceflight, aviation, and terrestrial human health and performance topics and issues. The NHHPC will serve a vital role as integrator, convening members to share information and capture a diverse knowledge base, while allowing the parties to collaborate to address the most important human health and performance topics of interest to members. The Center and its member organizations will address high-priority risk reduction strategies, including research and technology development, improved medical and environmental health diagnostics and therapeutics, and state-of-the art design approaches for human factors and habitability. Once full established in 2011, the NHHPC will focus on a number of collaborative projects focused on human health and performance, including workshops, education and outreach, information sharing and knowledge management, and research and technology development projects, to advance the study of the human system for spaceflight and other national and international priorities.

Davis, J. R.↗
NASA NTRS1982

PROCRU: A model for analyzing flight crew procedures in approach to landing

A model for the human performance of approach and landing tasks that would provide a means for systematic exploration of questions concerning the impact of procedural and equipment design and the allocation of resources in the cockpit on performance and safety in approach-to-landing is discussed. A system model is needed that accounts for the interactions of crew, procedures, vehicle, approach geometry, and environment. The issues of interest revolve principally around allocation of tasks in the cockpit and crew performance with respect to the cognitive aspects of the tasks. The model must, therefore, deal effectively with information processing and decision-making aspects of human performance.

Baron, S.↗
NASA NTRS1980

Performance and human factors results from thrust vectoring investigations in simulated air combat

In support of research related to advanced fighter technology, the Langley Differential Maneuvering Simulator (DMS) has been used to investigate the effects of advanced aerodynamic concepts, parametric changes in performance parameters, and advanced flight control systems on the combat capability of fighter airplanes. At least five studies were related to thrust vectoring and/or inflight thrust reversing. The aircraft simulated ranged from F-4 class to F-15 class, and included the AV-8 Harrier. This paper presents an overview of these studies including the assumptions involved, trends of results, and human factors considerations that were found.

Pennington, J. E.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Commonality between Reduced Gravity and Microgravity Habitats for Long Duration Missions

Many conceptual studies for long duration missions beyond Earth orbit have assumed unique habitat designs for each destination and for transit habitation. This may not be the most effective approach. A variable gravity habitat, one designed for use in microgravity, lunar, Martian, and terrestrial environments may provide savings that offset the loss of environment-specific optimization. However, a brief analysis of selected flown spacecraft and Constellation-era conceptual habitat designs suggests that one cannot simply lift a habitat from one environment and place it in another that it was not designed for without incurring significant human performance compromises. By comparison, a conceptual habitat based on the Skylab II framework but designed specifically to accommodate variable gravity environments can be shown to yield significant advantages while incurring only minimal human performance compromises.

Howard, Robert↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How Do Different Knowledge Frameworks Help Us Learn From Aviation Line Observations?

Human performance includes actions that increase safety, as well as actions that can reduce safety. Ensuring safety in complex dynamic operations like commercial aviation depends on the ability to institute appropriate responses based on what is learned from flightcrew performance and the contexts in which it occurs. To do this systemically at the organization level requires collecting data on flightcrew performance, developing effective approaches to analyzing those data, and understanding how to translate what has been learned into policies, procedures, and practice. Systematic observation of front-line operators is a vital source of human performance data. Much has been learned from such observations, including methodological principles. Most observations have been based on a framework focused on managing safety challenges and the ensuing unsafe events. A complementary perspective focuses on flexibility and actions that promote continued safe and effective operation. We consider lessons learned about observational methods from an established framework focused on undesired actions and how these might be extended for a framework focused on desired actions.

safety↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Walkback Test: A Study to Evaluate Suit and Life Support System Performance Requirements for a 10 Kilometer Traverse in a Planetary Suit

As planetary suit and planetary life support systems develop, specific design inputs for each system relate to a presently unanswered question concerning operational concepts: What distance can be considered a safe walking distance for a suited EVA crew member exploring the surface of the Moon to "walk-back" to the habitat in the event of a rover breakdown, taking into consideration the planned EVA tasks as well as the possible traverse back to the habitat? It has been assumed, based on Apollo program experience, that 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) will be the maximum EVA excursion distance from the lander or habitat to ensure the crew member s safe return to the habitat in the event of a rover failure. To investigate the feasibility of performing a suited 10 km Walkback, NASA-JSC assembled a multi-disciplinary team to design and implement the Lunar Walkback Test . The test was designed not only to determine the feasibility of a 10 km excursion, but also to collect human performance, biomedical, and biomechanical data relevant to optimizing space suit design and life support system sizing. These data will also be used to develop follow-on studies to understand interrelationships of such key parameters as suit mass, inertia, suit pressure, and center of gravity (CG), and the respective influences of each on human performance.

Vos, Jessica R.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Determining Simulation Fidelity Necessary for Evaluating Onboard Vehicle Capabilities and Crew Roles on Long Duration Exploration Missions Beyond Low-Earth Orbit

Identification of onboard vehicle capabilities and crew roles and responsibilities necessary for achieving effective human-systems collaboration will require iterative cycles of concept development and empirical evaluation of human performance in complex operations. This report presents the results of an effort to lay the groundwork for determining the level of fidelity of simulated environments most suitable for validating concepts and evaluating implementations of a new Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA) that will support the flight crew on long duration exploration missions beyond low-Earth orbit. To do that, we conducted a literature review on simulation fidelity and surveyed simulation capabilities inside and outside of NASA used in NASA-sponsored research. We also analyzed two International Space Station (ISS) vehicle anomalies to identify the types of scenario events and crew activities that may need to be simulated. Our survey findings reveal that most NASA simulation facilities are designed to achieve high physical fidelity while HSIA risk mitigation requires simulation emphasizing task and functional fidelity aspects. A trade analysis shows that, for standard and requirement development, evaluation conducted using synthetic task environments with inexperienced participants will support testing a wide variety of conditions and yield findings robust enough to be generalized to a wide variety of designs on which developed standards and requirements might be levied while allowing human performance standard measures to be collected using consistent methods across tasks and conditions. For technology/tool development, because findings will only need to be generalized to the actual target environment in which the technology/tool will be used, it is more suitable to evaluate the prototypes in a scaled world that preserves functional relationships present in the actual target environment with intended user populations. To wrap up, we give an overview of a well-known synthetical task environment in the space domain and discuss what it takes to construct a synthetic task environment.

simulation fidelity↗
NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors Research for Space Exploration: Measurement, Modeling, and Mitigation

As part of NASA's Human Research Program, the Space Human Factors Engineering Project serves as the bridge between Human Factors research and Human Spaceflight applications. Our goal is to be responsive to the operational community while addressing issues at a sufficient level of abstraction to ensure that our tools and solutions generalize beyond the point design. In this panel, representatives from four of our research domains will discuss the challenges they face in solving current problems while also enabling future capabilities. Historically, engineering-dominated organizations have tended to view good Human Factors (HF) as a desire rather than a requirement in system design and development. Our field has made significant gains in the past decade, however; the Department of Defense, for example, now recognizes Human-System Integration (HSI), of which HF is a component, as an integral part of their divisions hardware acquisition processes. And our own agency was far more accepting of HF/HSI requirements during the most recent vehicle systems definition than in any prior cycle. Nonetheless, HF subject matter experts at NASA often find themselves in catch up mode... coping with legacy systems (hardware and software) and procedures that were designed with little regard for the human element, and too often with an attitude of we can deal with any operator issues during training. Our challenge, then, is to segregate the true knowledge gaps in Space Human Factors from the prior failures to incorporate best (or even good) HF design principles. Further, we strive to extract the overarching core HF issues from the point-design-specific concerns that capture the operators (and managers) attention. Generally, our approach embraces a 3M approach to Human Factors: Measurement, Modeling, and Mitigation. Our first step is to measure human performance, to move from subjective anecdotes to objective, quantified data. Next we model the phenomenon, using appropriate methods in our field, modifying them to suit the unique aspects of the space environment. Finally, we develop technologies, tools, and procedures to mitigate the decrements in human performance and capabilities that occur in space environments. When successful, we decrease risks to crew safety and to mission success. When extremely successful (or lucky), we devise generalizable solutions that advance the state of our practice. Our panel is composed of researchers from diverse domains of our project... from different boxes, if you will, of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS).

Kaiser, Mary K.↗