Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “humans”

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 NTRS2016

NASA Human System Risk Assessment Process

NASA utilizes an evidence based system to perform risk assessments for the human system for spaceflight missions. The center of this process is the multi-disciplinary Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The HSRB is chartered from the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) at NASA Headquarters. The HSRB reviews all human system risks via an established comprehensive risk and configuration management plan based on a project management approach. The HSRB facilitates the integration of human research (terrestrial and spaceflight), medical operations, occupational surveillance, systems engineering and many other disciplines in a comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB considers all factors that influence human risk. These factors include pre-mission considerations such as screening criteria, training, age, sex, and physiological condition. In mission factors such as available countermeasures, mission duration and location and post mission factors such as time to return to baseline (reconditioning), post mission health screening, and available treatments. All of the factors influence the total risk assessment for each human risk. The HSRB performed a comprehensive review of all potential inflight medical conditions and events and over the course of several reviews consolidated the number of human system risks to 30, where the greatest emphasis is placed for investing program dollars for risk mitigation. The HSRB considers all available evidence from human research and, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit for 6 and 12 months, deep space for 30 days and 1 year, a lunar mission for 1 year, and a planetary mission for 3 years) are considered as human system risks are modified by the hazards associated with space flight such as microgravity, exposure to radiation, distance from the earth, isolation and a closed environment. Each risk has a summary two-page assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence of that risk, available risk mitigations, traceability to the Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS) and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the Human Research Program, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets to provide the most economical and timely mitigations. The risk assessments were completed for the 6 DRMs and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB reviews each risk at least annually or when new evidence/information is available that adds to the body of evidence. The current status of each risk can be reported to program management for operations, budget reviews and general oversight of the human system risk management program.

Francisco, D.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Digital Human Modeling

The development of models to represent human characteristics and behaviors in human factors is broad and general. The term "model" can refer to any metaphor to represent any aspect of the human; it is generally used in research to mean a mathematical tool for the simulation (often in software, which makes the simulation digital) of some aspect of human performance and for the prediction of future outcomes. This section is restricted to the application of human models in physical design, e.g., in human factors engineering. This design effort is typically human interface design, and the digital models used are anthropometric. That is, they are visual models that are the physical shape of humans and that have the capabilities and constraints of humans of a selected population. They are distinct from the avatars used in the entertainment industry (movies, video games, and the like) in precisely that regard: as models, they are created through the application of data on humans, and they are used to predict human response; body stresses workspaces. DHM enable iterative evaluation of a large number of concepts and support rapid analysis, as compared with use of physical mockups. They can be used to evaluate feasibility of escape of a suited astronaut from a damaged vehicle, before launch or after an abort (England, et al., 2012). Throughout most of human spaceflight, little attention has been paid to worksite design for ground workers. As a result of repeated damage to the Space Shuttle which adversely affected flight safety, DHM analyses of ground assembly and maintenance have been developed over the last five years for the design of new flight systems (Stambolian, 2012, Dischinger and Dunn Jackson, 2014). The intent of these analyses is to assure the design supports the work of the ground crew personnel and thereby protect the launch vehicle. They help the analyst address basic human factors engineering questions: can a worker reach the task site from the work platform provided; can she or he see the task site; can she or he control tools, which, if dropped, might damage the system? Figure 7.3.1 provides an example of such analysis for a future NASA launch vehicle. [figure 7.3.1 here] In-space systems for operation by astronauts have long been targets for DHM analysis, given the focus on mission success and concerns for astronaut safety. Figure 7.3.2 illustrates the analysis of the design to support astronaut tasks for an International Space Station glovebox. [Figure 7.3.2 here] Use by

Dischinger, H. Charles, Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Alignment of NASA’s Human System Risks with Technological Capability Gaps to Enable Integrated Research and Technology Development Strategic Planning

BACKGROUND: Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains a set of twenty-nine different Human System Risks with subject matter experts from across the agency providing regular updates to the estimated likelihood and consequence associated with each risk. The Human Research Program (HRP) has historically used these risk classifications as a primary basis for identifying and prioritizing human research investments aimed at characterizing and/or mitigating the respective human system risks. In many cases, technology development is required to mature and validate risk mitigation strategies, however, NASA’s primary technology development programs have not typically used Human System Risks as a basis for strategic planning. A primary function of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is to continually identify, review, and update technological capability gaps and to establish and oversee multiyear strategic roadmaps aimed at guiding NASA’s technology development priorities in these areas. These roadmaps are intended to be agency-wide and independent of any program, directorate, or other organization within NASA. DESCRIPTION: The SCLT and HRP collaborated to establish a set of Human System Capability Gaps, which establish a formal linkage between the capability gaps used to prioritize investments across much of NASA, and the Human System Risks that are primarily used to inform and prioritize human research. This set of twenty-eight gaps was developed by subject matter experts, and each gap mapped to the primary associated Human System Risks. The gaps and risk mapping were then reviewed and approved via the HSRB, thereby formally aligning the research-focused Human System Risks with the technology-focused capability gaps. DISCUSSION: This effort has enabled development of integrated roadmaps and budget coordination with research and technology development activities that are formally linked to agency-recognized capability gaps and Human System Risks. Close and ongoing coordination between the SCLT, HRP, Mars Campaign Office, and the Health & Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) is essential to ensure alignment and prioritization of CHP-related research and technology development to enable NASA’s future exploration missions.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
NASA NTRS2004

Perceptual learning through optimization of attentional weighting: human versus optimal Bayesian learner

Human performance in visual detection, discrimination, identification, and search tasks typically improves with practice. Psychophysical studies suggest that perceptual learning is mediated by an enhancement in the coding of the signal, and physiological studies suggest that it might be related to the plasticity in the weighting or selection of sensory units coding task relevant information (learning through attention optimization). We propose an experimental paradigm (optimal perceptual learning paradigm) to systematically study the dynamics of perceptual learning in humans by allowing comparisons to that of an optimal Bayesian algorithm and a number of suboptimal learning models. We measured improvement in human localization (eight-alternative forced-choice with feedback) performance of a target randomly sampled from four elongated Gaussian targets with different orientations and polarities and kept as a target for a block of four trials. The results suggest that the human perceptual learning can occur within a lapse of four trials (<1 min) but that human learning is slower and incomplete with respect to the optimal algorithm (23.3% reduction in human efficiency from the 1st-to-4th learning trials). The greatest improvement in human performance, occurring from the 1st-to-2nd learning trial, was also present in the optimal observer, and, thus reflects a property inherent to the visual task and not a property particular to the human perceptual learning mechanism. One notable source of human inefficiency is that, unlike the ideal observer, human learning relies more heavily on previous decisions than on the provided feedback, resulting in no human learning on trials following a previous incorrect localization decision. Finally, the proposed theory and paradigm provide a flexible framework for future studies to evaluate the optimality of human learning of other visual cues and/or sensory modalities.

Non-NASA Center↗
DOE OSTI2024

Proteomics Analysis of Human Contaminant Proteins

Complete characterization of unknowns via proteomics remains challenging. There exist regions of mass spectrometry-based proteomics data where empirical measurements are not attributed to peptides, and/or sequenced peptides from mass spectra are not attributed to any source. These uncharacterized regions are known as the “dark” proteome. Many proteomics tools rely on some a priori knowledge of sample composition; few tools allow for investigation of unknowns without relying on composition assumptions. Further, the potential low abundance of minor traces in these uncharacterized regions can make elucidation of the “dark” proteome challenging. Herein, we describe the development and evaluation of approaches to study the “dark” proteome and move towards an untargeted approach for more complete characterization, namely by studying minor human protein traces in non-human samples and combining that approach with non-human source organism identification without relying on assumptions. Human protein markers, in the form of genetically variant peptides, have been extensively examined in a variety of human matrices, including blood, plasma, and hair, but have yet to be investigated in non-human samples, such as cell cultures, as human contaminant traces. Genetically variant peptides are those that are found in proteins carrying single nucleotide polymorphisms. In this work, we aimed to (1) investigate the feasibility of detecting human contaminant genetically variant peptides (GVPs) in a diverse set of non-human organisms using public proteomics data and a computational pipeline, as well as to (2) develop a combined capability for untargeted source organism characterization and GVP detection. To our knowledge, this is the first report of applying these approaches towards a more complete proteomic characterization of unknowns. We successfully demonstrate the feasibility of broad human contaminant GVP detection in proteomics data, develop a better understanding of GVP detectability, characterize the sample-to-sample variability in GVP detection, and identify a core set of GVPs that can potentially be used as markers indicative of the human contaminant traces portion of the “dark” proteome. Further, we developed and evaluated a combined pipeline, MARLOWE-GVP, that enables both untargeted source organism characterization and GVP detection. We show high accuracy of correct source organism characterization and high degree of similarity of human contaminant GVP detection compared to the conventional approach. Success on both these efforts have allowed us to advance our understanding and characterization of the “dark” proteome.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1989

Human machine interaction via the transfer of power and information signals

Robot manipulators are designed to perform tasks which would otherwise be executed by a human operator. No manipulator can even approach the speed and accuracy with which humans execute these tasks. But manipulators have the capability to exceed human ability in one particular area: strength. Through any reasonable observation and experience, the human's ability to perform a variety of physical tasks is limited not by his intelligence, but by his physical strength. If, in the appropriate environment, we can more closely integrate the mechanical power of a machine with intellectually driven human hand under the supervisory control of the human's intellect, we will then have a system which is superior to a loosely-integrated combination of a human and his fully automated robot as in the present day robotic systems. We must therefore develop a fundamental approach to the problem of this extending human mechanical power in certain environments. Extenders will be a class of robots worn by humans to increase human mechanical ability, while the wearer's intellect remains the central intelligent control system for manipulating the extender. The human body, in physical contact with the extender, exchanges information signals and power with the extender. Commands are transferred to the extender via the contact forces between the wearer and the extender as opposed to use of joystick (master arm), push-button or key-board to execute such commands that were used in previous man amplifiers. Instead, the operator becomes an integral part of the extender while executing the task. In this unique configuration the mechanical power transfer between the human and extender occurs in addition to information signal transfer. When the wearer uses the extender to touch and manipulate an object, the extender transfers to the wearer's hand, in feedback fashion, a scaled-down value of the actual external load which the extender is manipulating. This natural feedback force on the wearer's hand allows him to feel the scaled-down value of the external forces in the manipulations. Extenders can be utilized to maneuver very heavy loads in factories, shipyards, airports, and construction sites. In some instances, for example, extenders can replace forklifts. The experimental results for a prototype extender are discussed.

Kazerooni, H.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Thermodynamic Modeling and Analysis of Human Stress Response

A novel approach based on the second law of thermodynamics is developed to investigate the psychophysiology and quantify human stress level. Two types of stresses (thermal and mental) are examined. A Unified Stress Response Theory (USRT) is developed under the new proposed field of study called Engineering Psychophysiology. The USRT is used to investigate both thermal and mental stresses from a holistic (human body as a whole) and thermodynamic viewpoint. The original concepts and definitions are established as postulates which form the basis for thermodynamic approach to quantify human stress level. An Objective Thermal Stress Index (OTSI) is developed by applying the second law of thermodynamics to the human thermal system to quantify thermal stress or dis- comfort in the human body. The human thermal model based on finite element method is implemented. It is utilized as a "Computational Environmental Chamber" to conduct series of simulations to examine the human thermal stress responses under different environmental conditions. An innovative hybrid technique is developed to analyze human thermal behavior based on series of human-environment interaction simulations. Continuous monitoring of thermal stress is demonstrated with the help of OTSI. It is well established that the human thermal system obeys the second law of thermodynamics. Further, the OTSI is validated against the experimental data. Regarding mental stress, an Objective Mental Stress Index (OMSI) is developed by applying the Maxwell relations of thermodynamics to the combined thermal and cardiovascular system in the human body. The OMSI is utilized to demonstrate the technique of monitoring mental stress continuously and is validated with the help of series of experimental studies. Although the OMSI indicates the level of mental stress, it provides a strong thermodynamic and mathematical relationship between activities of thermal and cardiovascular systems of the human body.

Boregowda, S. C.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Human Rating Requirements for NASA's Constellation Program

NASA s Constellation Program (CxP) will conduct a series of human space expeditions of increasing scope, starting with missions supporting the International Space Station and expanding to encompass the Moon and Mars. Although human-rating is an integral part of all CxP activities throughout their life cycle, NASA Procedural Requirements document NPR 8705.2B, Human-Rating Requirements (HRR) for Space Flight Systems, defines the additional processes, procedures, and requirements necessary to produce human-rated space systems that protect the safety of crew members and passengers on these NASA missions. In order to be in compliance with 8705.2B the CxP must show appropriate implementation or progression toward the HRR, or justification for an exception. Compliance includes an explanation of how the CxP intends to meet the HRR, analyses to be performed to determine implementation; and a matrix to trace the HRR to CxP requirements. The HRR requires the CxP to establish a human system integration team (HSIT), consisting of astronauts, mission operations personnel, training personnel, ground processing personnel, human factors personnel, and human engineering experts, with clearly defined authority, responsibility, and accountability to lead the human-system integration. For example, per the HRR the HSIT is involved in the evaluation of crew workload, human-in-the-loop usability evaluations, determining associated criteria, and in assessment of how these activities influenced system design. In essence, the HSIT is invaluable in CxP s ability to meet the three fundamental tenets of human rating: the process of designing, evaluating, and assuring that the total system can safely conduct the required human missions; the incorporation of design features and capabilities that accommodate human interaction with the system to enhance overall safety and mission success; and the incorporation of design features and capabilities to enable safe recovery of the crew from hazardous situations.

Berdich, Debbie↗
NASA NTRS2009

Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan

The Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes the portfolio of Human Research Program (HRP) research and technology tasks. The IRP is the HRP strategic and tactical plan for research necessary to meet HRP requirements. The need to produce an IRP is established in HRP-47052, Human Research Program - Program Plan, and is under configuration management control of the Human Research Program Control Board (HRPCB). Crew health and performance is critical to successful human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The Human Research Program (HRP) is essential to enabling extended periods of space exploration because it provides knowledge and tools to mitigate risks to human health and performance. Risks include physiological and behavioral effects from radiation and hypogravity environments, as well as unique challenges in medical support, human factors, and behavioral or psychological factors. The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. Without HRP results, NASA will face unknown and unacceptable risks for mission success and post-mission crew health. This Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes HRP s approach and research activities that are intended to address the needs of human space exploration and serve HRP customers and how they are integrated to provide a risk mitigation tool. The scope of the IRP is limited to the activities that can be conducted with the resources available to the HRP; it does not contain activities that would be performed if additional resources were available. The timescale of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illustrates the program s research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of extended duration.

Source record↗
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.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Development of Human System Integration at NASA

Human Systems Integration seeks to design systems around the capabilities and limitations of the humans which use and interact with the system, ensuring greater efficiency of use, reduced error rates, and less rework in the design, manufacturing and operational deployment of hardware and software. One of the primary goals of HSI is to get the human factors practitioner involved early in the design process. In doing so, the aim is to reduce future budget costs and resources in redesign and training. By the preliminary design phase of a project nearly 80% of the total cost of the project is locked in. Potential design changes recommended by evaluations past this point will have little effect due to lack of funding or a huge cost in terms of resources to make changes. Three key concepts define an effective HSI program. First, systems are comprised of hardware, software, and the human, all of which operate within an environment. Too often, engineers and developers fail to consider the human capacity or requirements as part of the system. This leads to poor task allocation within the system. To promote ideal task allocation, it is critical that the human element be considered early in system development. Poor design, or designs that do not adequately consider the human component, could negatively affect physical or mental performance, as well as, social behavior. Second, successful HSI depends upon integration and collaboration of all the domains that represent acquisition efforts. Too often, these domains exist as independent disciplines due to the location of expertise within the service structure. Proper implementation of HSI through participation would help to integrate these domains and disciplines to leverage and apply their interdependencies to attain an optimal design. Via this process domain interests can be integrated to perform effective HSI through trade-offs and collaboration. This provides a common basis upon which to make knowledgeable decisions. Finally, HSI must be considered early in the requirements development phase of system design and acquisition. This will provide the best opportunity to maximize return on investment (ROI) and system performance. HSI requirements must be developed in conjunction with capability ]based requirements generation through functional. HSI requirements will drive HSI metrics and embed HSI issues within the system design. After a system is designed, implementation of HSI oversights can be very expensive. An HSI program should be included as an integral part of a total system approach to vehicle and habitat development. This would include, but not limited to, workstation design, D&C development, volumetric analysis, training, operations, and human -robotic interaction. HSI is a necessary process for Human Space Flight programs to meet the Agency Human ]System standards and thus mitigate human risks to acceptable levels. NASA has been involved in HSI planning, procedures development, process, and implementation for many years, and has been building several internal and publicly accessible products to facilitate HSI fs inclusion in the NASA Systems Engineering Lifecycle. Some of these products include: NASA STD 3001 Volumes 1 and 2, Human Integration Design Handbook, NASA HSI Implementation Plan, NASA HSI Implementation Plan Templates, NASA HSI Implementation Handbook, and a 2 ]hour short course on HSI delivered as part of the NASA Space and Life Sciences Directorate Academy. These products have been created leveraging industry best practices and lessons learned from other Federal Government agencies.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗
NASA NTRS2023

Technological and Medical Human Health and Well-Being Options in Deep Space

Zeroth order, maintenance of human health requires supportive protection from the hazards of space, including supplying breathable air, comfortable temperatures, a supportive diet/nutrition, radiation protection, and sufficient gravity to avoid the combinatorial impacts of such effecting human operability and health. Spacecraft operability must be “fail-safe” to ensure these basic human life support conditions are maintained throughout the mission and the mission(s) must be affordable. There are known effects and unknowns effects regarding aspects of human health for Mars duration missions. Mars has the order of a third g. We have no data regarding the health impacts of this on humans or the combinatorial effects associated with 45% GCR on the Martian surface over time. There is a suspicion that if humans survive such conditions over long times they will evolve to living at reduced g and become “Martians”. Cascading failures and subcritical degradations in systems of systems causing an overall unrecoverable failure are a potential issue. There are two exremely complex systems associated with humans-Mars missions: the technical, engineering, and architectural system of systems that enable the mission and the humans. Both need to be mutually configured and operated to mitigate the overall risks and hazards of the mission. Regarding the humans that mitigation includes both the mission risks and supporting-to-increasing the human immune and other concomitant physiological systems. This report will summarize the risks, current mitigation approaches, and putative approaches including lifestyle, nutrition, and “wellness” approaches to possibly improve the human capacity to withstand the large number of combinatorial human physiological rigors of the missions. The wellness observations also apply to and are derived from Earth terrestrial applicable research.

Dennis M Bushnell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Human-In-The-Loop Simulation for Urban Air Mobility in the Terminal Area

In this paper researchers propose a human-in-the-loop experiment to study human performance when tasked with tactical deconfliction in terminal area air taxi operations. The air taxi operations being considered herein are an advanced air transportation concept called Urban Air Mobility (UAM). The UAM concept aims to support not only air taxi operations, but also package delivery and emergency response among other use cases. The key innovation over current air transportation lies with the introduction of highly automated aircraft and air traffic management systems. Development of the UAM system will include transitional midterm phases where some operational services will be provided by a mixture of automation and human actors. Midterm operations present a unique challenge, since the scope of responsibility of automated systems is largely undefined, suggesting the need for direct human participation with little to inform how much human intervention is necessary. Here it is assumed that traffic management responsibilities require coordination between human actors and automated systems and focus on arrival flows for midterm operations. In the proposed human-in-the-loop simulation, virtual UAM traffic is strategically deconflicted by a Provider of Services for UAM at departure, then tactically managed by a human at the arrival facility. Generated traffic consists of UAM participants flying in UAM exclusive airspace structures, thus isolated from traditional traffic. The human operator is tasked with managing spacing of arrival traffic and executing speed adjustments as deemed necessary. Researchers propose the investigation of three levels of automation assistance: 1) no assistance; 2) spacing violation detection; 3) spacing violation detection and speed adjustment recommendations. Quantitative measures like throughput and delay are used to assess the human's capacity for accommodating airborne delays. Qualitative evaluations such as surveys and open-ended feedback are used to gain insight into human factors. These factors could introduce additional capacity constraints on traffic, independent of physical or technical constraints. Although findings for this study will not be reported as the study has not yet been executed, the authors conclude with potential outcomes informed by previous simulations in the literature and suggestions for the structure and procedures of midterm human-automation air traffic management.

UAM↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Human-In-The-Loop Simulation for Urban Air Mobility in the Terminal Area

In this presentation we propose a human-in-the-loop experiment to study the potential impact of human engagement in tactical mitigation of delay in terminal area air taxi operations. The air taxi operations being considered herein is an advanced air transportation concept called Urban Air Mobility (UAM). The UAM concept aims to support not only air taxi operations, but also package delivery and emergency response among other use cases. The key innovation over current air transportation lies with the introduction of autonomous aircraft and autonomous air traffic management systems. Development of the UAM system will include transitional midterm phases where some operational services will be provided by a mixture of automation and human actors. Midterm operations present a unique challenge, since the scope of responsibility of automated systems is largely undefined, suggesting the need for direct human participation with little to inform how much human intervention is necessary. Here we assume that traffic management responsibilities require coordination between human actors and automated systems and focus on arrival flows for midterm operations. In the proposed human-in-the-loop simulation, virtual UAM traffic is strategically deconflicted by a Provider of Services for UAM at departure, then tactically managed by a human at the arrival facility. Generated traffic consists of UAM participants flying in UAM exclusive airspace structures, thus isolated from traditional traffic. The human operator is tasked with managing spacing of arrival traffic and executing speed adjustments as deemed necessary. We propose the investigation of three levels of automation assistance: 1) no assistance; 2) spacing violation detection; 3) spacing violation detection and speed adjustment recommendations. Quantitative measures like throughput and delay are used to assess the human's capacity for accommodating airborne delays. Qualitative evaluations such as surveys and open-ended feedback are used to gain insight into human factors. These factors could introduce additional capacity constraints on traffic, independent of physical or technical constraints. Although findings for this study will not be reported as the study has not yet been executed, we conclude with potential outcomes informed by previous simulations in the literature and suggestions for the structure and procedures of midterm human-automation air traffic management.

UAM↗
NASA NTRS2018

Human-Automation Allocations for Current Robotic Space Operations

Within the Human Research Program, one risk delineates the uncertainty surrounding crew working with automation and robotics in spaceflight. The Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI) is concerned with the detrimental effects on crew performance due to ineffective user interfaces, system designs and/or functional task allocation, potentially compromising mission success and safety. Risk arises because we have limited experience with complex automation and robotics. One key gap within HARI, is the gap related to functional allocation. The gap states: We need to evaluate, develop, and validate methods and guidelines for identifying human-automation/robot task information needs, function allocation, and team composition for future long duration, long distance space missions. Allocations determine the human-system performance as it identifies the functions and performance levels required by the automation/robotic system, and in turn, what work the crew is expected to perform and the necessary human performance requirements. Allocations must take into account each of the human, automation, and robotic systems capabilities and limitations. Some functions may be intuitively assigned to the human versus the robot, but to optimize efficiency and effectiveness, purposeful role assignments will be required. The role of automation and robotics will significantly change in future exploration missions, particularly as crew becomes more autonomous from ground controllers. Thus, we must understand the suitability of existing function allocation methods within NASA as well as the existing allocations established by the few robotic systems that are operational in spaceflight. In order to evaluate future methods of robotic allocations, we must first benchmark the allocations and allocation methods that have been used. We will present 1) documentation of human-automation-robotic allocations in existing, operational spaceflight systems; and 2) To gather existing lessons learned and best practices in these role assignments, from spaceflight operational experience of crew and ground teams that may be used to guide development for future systems. NASA and other space agencies have operational spaceflight experience with two key Human-Automation-Robotic (HAR) systems: heavy lift robotic arms and planetary robotic explorers. Additionally, NASA has invested in high-fidelity rover systems that can carry crew, building beyond Apollo's lunar rover. The heavy lift robotic arms reviewed are: Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEMRMS), and the European Robotic Arm (ERA, designed but not deployed in space). The robotic rover systems reviewed are: Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Science Laboratory rover, and the high-fidelity K10 rovers. Much of the design and operational feedback for these systems have been communicated to flight controllers and robotic design teams. As part of the mitigating the HARI risk for future human spaceflight operations, we must document function allocations between robots and humans that have worked well in practice.

robotic allocation↗
NASA NTRS2007

Integrated Human-Robotic Missions to the Moon and Mars: Mission Operations Design Implications

For most of the history of space exploration, human and robotic programs have been independent, and have responded to distinct requirements. The NASA Vision for Space Exploration calls for the return of humans to the Moon, and the eventual human exploration of Mars; the complexity of this range of missions will require an unprecedented use of automation and robotics in support of human crews. The challenges of human Mars missions, including roundtrip communications time delays of 6 to 40 minutes, interplanetary transit times of many months, and the need to manage lifecycle costs, will require the evolution of a new mission operations paradigm far less dependent on real-time monitoring and response by an Earthbound operations team. Robotic systems and automation will augment human capability, increase human safety by providing means to perform many tasks without requiring immediate human presence, and enable the transfer of traditional mission control tasks from the ground to crews. Developing and validating the new paradigm and its associated infrastructure may place requirements on operations design for nearer-term lunar missions. The authors, representing both the human and robotic mission operations communities, assess human lunar and Mars mission challenges, and consider how human-robot operations may be integrated to enable efficient joint operations, with the eventual emergence of a unified exploration operations culture.

human robotic missions↗
DOE OSTI2023

Identifying human failure events (HFEs) for external hazard probabilistic risk assessment

In recent years, several advancements in nuclear power plant (NPP) probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) have been driven by increased understanding of external hazards, plant response, and uncertainties. However, major sources of uncertainty associated with external hazard PRA remain. One important source is how risk-significant human actions that are carried out to enable plant response and recovery from natural hazards cause the close coupling of physical impacts on plants and overall plant risk during these hazard events. This makes human reliability and human-plant interactions important elements to consider in resolving PRA gaps in external hazards. One of the challenges in considering human response in external hazard probabilistic risk assessment (XHPRA) is that most existing human reliability analysis (HRA) models were not developed for assessing actions outside the control room (termed ex-control room actions) and hazard response. To support this new scope, HRA models will need to be developed or modified to support identification of human activities, causal factors, and uncertainties inherent in external hazard response, thereby providing insights regarding event timing and physical event conditions as they relate to human performance. In this study, there are two main objectives: (1) evaluate the applicability of an existing cognitive-based HRA method, Phoenix, to ex-control room actions, and (2) identify sources of uncertainty to be characterized or reduced in order to make this method suitable for XHPRA. The first step of such work is performed by assessing the suitability of existing HRA methods to support identifying human failure events (HFEs) for human response to flooding hazards. These HFEs are human actions or inactions that are involved in human responses to flooding hazards and could contribute to the loss of a critical function for the plant in the scenario being examined. Here, in this work, decomposition analyses using the cognitive-based Phoenix HRA model are used to identify HFEs. The Phoenix method was found to be suitable for analyzing ex-control room actions as well as identifying specific HFEs and underlying crew failure modes (CFMs). However, the method's suitability for use in ex-control room actions would benefit from expanding the available CFMs to accommodate a larger variety of physical and communication tasks.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Swine acute diarrhea syndrome coronavirus replication in primary human cells reveals potential susceptibility to infection

Zoonotic coronaviruses represent an ongoing threat, yet the myriads of circulating animal viruses complicate the identification of higher-risk isolates that threaten human health. Swine acute diarrhea syndrome coronavirus (SADS-CoV) is a newly discovered, highly pathogenic virus that likely evolved from closely related HKU2 bat coronaviruses, circulating in Rhinolophus spp. bats in China and elsewhere. As coronaviruses cause severe economic losses in the pork industry and swine are key intermediate hosts of human disease outbreaks, we synthetically resurrected a recombinant virus (rSADS-CoV) as well as a derivative encoding tomato red fluorescent protein (tRFP) in place of ORF3. rSADS-CoV replicated efficiently in a variety of continuous animal and primate cell lines, including human liver and rectal carcinoma cell lines. Of concern, rSADS-CoV also replicated efficiently in several different primary human lung cell types, as well as primary human intestinal cells. rSADS-CoV did not use human coronavirus ACE-2, DPP4, or CD13 receptors for docking and entry. Contemporary human donor sera neutralized the group I human coronavirus NL63, but not rSADS-CoV, suggesting limited human group I coronavirus cross protective herd immunity. Importantly, remdesivir, a broad-spectrum nucleoside analog that is effective against other group 1 and 2 coronaviruses, efficiently blocked rSADS-CoV replication in vitro. rSADS-CoV demonstrated little, if any, replicative capacity in either immune-competent or immunodeficient mice, indicating a critical need for improved animal models. Efficient growth in primary human lung and intestinal cells implicate SADS-CoV as a potential higher-risk emerging coronavirus pathogen that could negatively impact the global economy and human health.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗