SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Crew”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 451 records · Page 25

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2000

STS-106 Crew Activity Report / Flight Day Highlights Day 2

STS-106 was launched on Sept 8, 2000 at 8:45 a.m. The crew was commanded by Terrence W. Wilcutt, the pilot was Scott D. Altman. The mission specialists were Daniel C. Burbank, Edward T. Lu, Richard A. Mastracchio, Yuri Ivanovich Malenchenko, and Boris V. Morukov. During the 11-day mission, the crew spent a week inside the International Space Station (ISS) unloading supplies from both a double SPACEHAB cargo module in the rear of the Atlantis cargo bay and from a Russian Progress M-1 resupply craft docked to the aft end of the Zvezda Service Module. The videotape shows the activities of the second day of the flight and the preparations for docking with the ISS. Shown on the video are shots of the flight deck on the shuttle, the shuttle payload arm, and shots of the crew eating lunch.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2000

Explosive Fracturing of an F-16 Canopy for Through-Canopy Crew Egress

Through-canopy crew egress, such as in the Harrier (AV-8B) aircraft, expands escape envelopes by reducing seat ejection delays in waiting for canopy jettison. Adverse aircraft attitude and reduced forward flight speed can further increase the times for canopy jettison. However, the advent of heavy, high-strength polycarbonate canopies for bird-strike resistance has not only increased jettison times, but has made seat penetration impossible. The goal of the effort described in this paper was to demonstrate a method of explosively fracturing the F-16 polycarbonate canopy to allow through-canopy crew ejection. The objectives of this effort were to: 1. Mount the explosive materials on the exterior of the canopy within the mold line, 2. Minimize visual obstructions, 3. Minimize internal debris on explosive activation, 4. Operate within less than 10 ms, 5. Maintain the shape of the canopy after functioning to prevent major pieces from entering the cockpit, and 6. Minimize the resistance of the canopy to seat penetration. All goals and objectives were met in a full-scale test demonstration. In addition to expanding crew escape envelopes, this canopy fracture approach offers the potential for reducing system complexity, weight and cost, while increasing overall reliability, compared to current canopy jettison approaches. To comply with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and permit public disclosure, this document addresses only the principles of explosive fracturing of the F-16 canopy materials and the end result. ITAR regulations restrict information on improving the performance of weapon systems. Therefore, details on the explosive loads and final assembly of this canopy fracture approach, necessary to assure functional performance, are not included.

Bement, Laurence J.↗

NASA NTRS2000

STS-106 Crew Activity Report/Flight Day 8 Highlights

On this eighth day of the STS-106 Atlantis mission, the flight crew, Commander Terrence W. Wilcutt, Pilot Scott T. Altman, and Mission Specialists Daniel C. Burbank, Edward T. Lu, Richard A. Mastracchio, Yuri Ivanovich Malenchenko, and Boris V. Morukov move into the second half of preparing the International Space Station (ISS) for its first resident crew. Lu and Malenchenko are seen installing the power converters in the Zvezda module and components of the primary oxygen generation system. Mastracchio and Wilcutt moves supplies and logistics from the payload of Atlantis to the ISS. Wilcutt and Altman participate in several interviews and the crew wishes the Olympiads in Sydney good luck in their endeavors. Scenes also include external views of the ISS and images of Earth, including Sydney, Australia.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2000

A Study of a Lifting Body as a Space Station Crew Exigency Return Vehicle (CERV)

A lifting body is described for use as a return vehicle for crews from a space station. Reentry trajectories, subsystem weights and performance, and costs are included. The baseline vehicle is sized for a crew of eight. An alternate configuration is shown in which only four crew are carried with the extra volume reserved for logistics cargo. A water parachute recovery system is shown as an emergency alternative to a runway landing. Primary reaction control thrusters from the Shuttle program are used for orbital maneuvering while the Shuttle verniers are used for all attitude control maneuvers.

MacConochie, Ian O.↗

NASA NTRS2000

Evaluation of X-38 Crew Return Vehicle Input Control Devices in a Microgravity Environment

This report was created by students from Longview High School, Longview, Texas. Longview High School was selected from a group of Texas high schools to participate in the 1999 Texas Fly High Program. This program gives Texas high school students a chance to work with NASA engineers to design and fly a real-world experiment aboard the KC-135 during zero-g parabolas. Jeffrey Fox's role was to provide a concept for the experiment and to mentor the students in its design and testing. The students were responsible for executing all phases of the project. The X-38 Project Office at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Johnson Space is designing a crew return vehicle (CRV) to be docked at the International Space Station for crew rescue in an emergency. Vehicle controls will be almost completely automated, but a few functions will be manually controlled. Four crew input control devices were selected for evaluation by Longview High School students as part of the 1999 Texas Fly High program. These were (1) Logitech Trackman Marble (optical trackball), (2) Smart Cat Touchpad. (3) Microsoft SideWinder 3D-Pro Joystick, and (4) Microsoft SideWinder Gamepad. In two flight tests in the KC-135 aircraft and a series of ground tests, the devices were evaluated for ability to maneuver an on-screen cursor, level of accuracy, ease of handling blind operations, and level of user comfort in microgravity. The tests results led to recommendation of further tests with the Joystick and the Trackman by astronauts and actual space station residents.

Welge, Kirsten↗

NASA NTRS1993

STS-55 Crew Briefing, Part 1 of 2

Commander Steven R. Nagel introduces the crew of STS-55, Pilot Terence T. Henricks, Mission Specialists Jerry L. Ross, Charles J. Precourt, and Dr. Bernard A. Harris Jr., and Payload Specialists Dr. Ulrich Walter and Hans Schlegel. Each crew member gives an overview of the mission objectives, activities, spaceborne experiments, payload (Spacelab-D2, SAREX-II), and his role in the mission. They then answer questions from the press. The video ends during the questions and continues on 'STS-55 Crew Briefing, Part 2 of 2' (internal processing ID 2001001575).

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2001

STS-98 Crew Activity Report/Flight Day 5 Highlights

On this fifth day of the STS-98 mission, the crew of Atlantis (Commander Kenneth D. Cockrell, Pilot Mark L. Polansky, and Mission Specialists Robert L. Curbeam, Thomas D. Jones, and Marsha S. Ivins), the Expedition 1 crew (William M. Shepherd, Yuri P. Gidzenko, and Sergei K. Krikalev), and the Expedition 2 crew (James S. Voss, Susan J. Helms, and Yuriy V. Usachev), are seen opening and entering the Destiny Laboratory Module.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2001

STS-102 Crew Activity Report/Flight Day 3 Highlights

Footage shows the docking of the Discovery Orbiter with the International Space Station (ISS). The STS-102 crew (Commander James D. Wetherbee, Pilot James M. Kelly, and Mission Specialists Andrew S. W. Thomas and Paul Richards) and the Expedition 2 crew (James S. Voss, Susan J. Helms, and Yuriy V. Usachev) are seen greeting the Expedition 1 crew (William M. Shepherd, Yuri P. Gidzenko, and Sergei K. Krikalev) after Commander Wetherbee opens the hatch connecting Discovery to the ISS.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2001

Expedition 4 Crew Interviews: Yury I. Onufrienko

Expedition 4 Commander Yury Onufrienko is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 4 crew in place of the Expedition 3 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)), the day-to-day life on an extended stay mission, the experiments he will be conducting on board, and what the S0 truss will mean to ISS. Onufrienko ends with his thoughts on the short-term and long-term future of the International Space Station.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2001

Expedition 4 Crew Interviews: Dan Bursch

Expedition 4 Flight Engineer Dan Bursch is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 4 crew in place of the Expedition 3 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)), the day-to-day life on an extended stay mission, the experiments he will be conducting on board, and what the S0 truss will mean to ISS. Bursch ends with his thoughts on the short-term and long-term future of the International Space Station.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2001

Expedition 4 Crew Interviews: Carl Walz

Expedition 4 Flight Engineer Carl Walz is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 4 crew in place of the Expedition 3 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)), the day-to-day life on an extended stay mission, the experiments he will be conducting on board, and what the S0 truss will mean to ISS. Walz ends with his thoughts on the short-term and long-term future of the International Space Station.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2002

STS-109 Crew Training

Footage shows the crew of STS-109 (Commander Scott Altman, Pilot Duane Carey, Payload Commander John Grunsfeld, and Mission Specialists Nancy Currie, James Newman, Richard Linnehan, and Michael Massimino) during various parts of their training. Scenes show the crew's photo session, Post Landing Egress practice, training in Dome Simulator, Extravehicular Activity Training in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL), and using the Virtual Reality Laboratory Robotic Arm. The crew is also seen tasting food as they choose their menus for on-orbit meals.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1997

Automation Bias and Countermeasures in Flight Crews

Results of recent research investigating the use of automated systems have indicated the presence of automation bias, a term describing errors made when decision makers rely on automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Automation commission errors, i.e., errors made when decision makers take inappropriate action because they over-attend to automated information or directives, and automation omission errors, i.e., errors made when decision makers do not take appropriate action because they are not informed of an imminent problem or situation by automated aids, can result from this tendency. In a series of studies, participants who perceived themselves as "accountable" for their strategies of interaction with automation were significantly more likely to verify its correct functioning, and committed significantly fewer automation-related errors than those who did not report this perception. In this study, we focus on two manipulations to encourage verification behaviors within cockpit crews. The first, an information/training manipulation, will focus on explicit information on automation bias, and training for verification of automated functioning. The second manipulation will consist of display prompts to verify automated functioning. Participants (glass-cockpit crews) will fly a series of approaches on the Mini-ACFS, a two-person pan-task flight simulator. Approach scenarios include several automation "events," that is, glitches, malfunctions, or inappropriate recommendations, that can be caught if cross-checked with other cockpit indicators. We anticipate that these manipulations will ameliorate automation bias. Final data analysis will be completed prior to the OSU symposium, and is expected to support the hypotheses that: a) reduced errors are associated with verification behaviors; b) crews will be more likely to verify under training/display conditions than when in the control condition; and c) effects will persist when subjects return for a follow-up exercise 6-9 weeks after their first session. Implications for training and automation design will be discussed.

Mosier, Kathleen, L.↗

NASA NTRS1999

ISS Propulsion Module Crew Systems Interface Analysis in the Intelligent Synthesis Environment

ERGO, a human modeling software for ergonomic assessment and task analysis, was used for the crew systems interface analysis of the International Space Station (ISS) Propulsion Module (PM). The objective of analysis was to alleviate passageway size concerns. Three basic passageway configuration concepts: (1) 45" clear passageway without centerline offset (2) 50" clear passageway, 12" centerline offset, (3) 50" clear passageway, no centerline offset, and were reviewed. 95 percentile male and female models which were provided by the software performed crew system analysis from an anthropometric point of view. Four scenarios in which the crew floats in microgravity through a 50" no-offset passageway as they carry a 16" x 20" x 30" avionics box were simulated in the 10-weeks of intensive study. From the results of the analysis, concept (3) was the preferred option. A full scale, three-dimensional virtual model of the ISS Propulsion Module was created to experience the sense of the Intelligent Synthesis Environment and to evaluate the usability and applicability of the software.

Chen, Di-Wen↗

NASA NTRS1998

From Crew Communication to Coordination: A Fundamental Means to an End

This viewgraph presentation describes the purposes and contexts of communication, factors which affect the interpretation of communication, and the advantages of effective, systematic communication to and from crews. Communication accomplishes information transfer, team/task management, shared problem solving and decision making, and establishment of the interpersonal climate. These accomplishments support outcomes: Technical task performance; CRM (crew resource management); Procedures and ATC (air traffic control); and Work/team atmosphere. The presentation lists various types of management inefficiency which can result from a lack of each of the four accomplishments. Communication skills are used within the following contexts: physical; social and organizational; task and operational; and speech and linguistic. Crew communication can be evaluated through investigation (case study), research (experimentation), and training.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS2002

STS-113 Crew Interviews: John Herrington, Mission Specialist 2

STS-113 Mission Specialist 2 John Herrington is seen during a prelaunch interview. He answers questions about his inspiration to become an astronaut and his career path, as well as his thoughts on becoming the first Native American in space. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, which include the transfer of the International Space Station's (ISS) Expedition 6 crew for the Expedition 5 crew, as well as the installation of the ISS's P-1 integrated truss structure. Herrington, who will participate in three EVAs (extravehicular activity), provides details on the installation of the truss structure. He also describes the process of crew transfer, which also involves the transfer of soft goods and scientific experiments, such as the MEMS (microelectromechanical systems)-based Picosatellite Inspector (MEPSI) which will be ejected from the shuttle shortly after it undocks from the ISS.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2002

STS-113 Crew Interviews: Jim Wetherbee, Commander

STS-113 Commander Jim Wetherbee is seen during this preflight interview where he gives a quick overview of the mission before answering questions about his inspiration to become an astronaut and his career path. Wetherbee outlines his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 6 crew in place of the Expedition 5 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)) and what the importance of the primary payload (the P1 truss) will be. He also provides a detailed account of the three planned extravehicular activities (EVAs) and additional transfer duties. He ends by offering his thoughts on the success of the ISS as the second anniversary of continuous human occupation of the ISS approaches.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2002

STS-111 Crew Interviews: Ken Cockrell, Commander

STS-111 Mission Commander Ken Cockrell is seen during this preflight interview, answering questions about his inspiration in becoming an astronaut and provides an overview of the mission. He discusses the following topics: the docking of the Endeavour Orbiter to the International Space Station (ISS), the delivery of the Mobile Base System (MBS) to the ISS, the crew transfer activities (the Expedition 5 crew is replacing the Expedition 4 crew on the ISS), the planned extravehicular activities (EVAs), and the installation of the MBS onto the ISS. Cockrell provides a detailed description of the MBS and its significance for the ISS. He also describes prelaunch activities, mission training and international cooperation during the mission.

Source record↗