Engineering Papers⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 469 records · Page 26
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

STS-111 Crew Interviews: Paul Lockhart, Pilot

STS-111 Pilot Paul Lockhart 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. He discusses the following mission goals: the crew transfer activities (the Expedition 5 crew is replacing the Expedition 4 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)), the delivery of the payloads which includes the Mobile Remote Servicer Base System (MBS), and the planned extravehicular activities (EVAs) which include attaching the MBS to the ISS and repairing the station's robot arm. He describes in-flight procedures for launch, reentry and docking with the ISS. He ends with his thoughts on the role of international cooperation in building and maintaining ISS.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1989

Airline Crew Training

The discovery that human error has caused many more airline crashes than mechanical malfunctions led to an increased emphasis on teamwork and coordination in airline flight training programs. Human factors research at Ames Research Center has produced two crew training programs directed toward more effective operations. Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) defines areas like decision making, workload distribution, communication skills, etc. as essential in addressing human error problems. In 1979, a workshop led to the implementation of the CRM program by United Airlines, and later other airlines. In Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT), crews fly missions in realistic simulators while instructors induce emergency situations requiring crew coordination. This is followed by a self critique. Ames Research Center continues its involvement with these programs.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

Expedition 7 Crew Training Clip

This video shows the Expedition 7 crew of the International Space Station (ISS) during various training activities prior to launch. The crew consisted of Commander Yuri Malenchenko and Flight Engineer Ed Lu. At the virtual reality lab, the two astronauts work at a control panel, with Lu operating a joystick and speaking on earphones. Another section of the video shows Lu and Malenchenko inputting data into laptop computers, Lu testing an intercom and a video camera, and Lu using a machine to analyze blood samples from the crew. At the neutral buoyancy lab, the astronauts are helped in suit-up. The attachment of their gloves is shown. The video ends with Lu and Malenchenko lowered into a pool on a platform.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

Crewed Mission to Callisto Using Advanced Plasma Propulsion Systems

This paper describes the engineering of several vehicles designed for a crewed mission to the Jovian satellite Callisto. Each subsystem is discussed in detail. Mission and trajectory analysis for each mission concept is described. Crew support components are also described. Vehicles were developed using both fission powered magneto plasma dynamic (MPD) thrusters and magnetized target fusion (MTF) propulsion systems. Conclusions were drawn regarding the usefulness of these propulsion systems for crewed exploration of the outer solar system.

Adams, R. B.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Crewed Mission to Callisto Using Advanced Plasma Propulsion Systems

This paper describes the engineering of several vehicles designed for a crewed mission to the Jovian satellite Callisto. Each subsystem is discussed in detail. Mission and trajectory analysis for each mission concept is described. Crew support components are also described. Vehicles were developed using both fission powered magneto plasma dynamic (MPD) thrusters and magnetized target fusion (MTF) propulsion systems. Conclusions were drawn regarding the usefulness of these propulsion systems for crewed exploration of the outer solar system.

Callisto↗
NASA NTRS2003

Applying a Crew Accommodations Resource Model to Future Space Vehicle Research: A Case Study

Modeling for space vehicle design needs to consider: 1) The Human Factor; and 2) The Mission Factor. The Test Case of a crew resource model in this viewgraph presentation includes: 1) The Problem; 2) Crew Accomodations Resource Model; and 3) Conculsions on the model's utility for working the problem. The presentation uses the Crew Accomodations Resource Model to determine the mass and volume of supplies and equipment for a hypothetical manned Mars mission.

Blume, Jennifer Linda↗
NASA NTRS1995

Summary of a Crew-Centered Flight Deck Design Philosophy for High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) Aircraft

Past flight deck design practices used within the U.S. commercial transport aircraft industry have been highly successful in producing safe and efficient aircraft. However, recent advances in automation have changed the way pilots operate aircraft, and these changes make it necessary to reconsider overall flight deck design. Automated systems have become more complex and numerous, and often their inner functioning is partially or fully opaque to the flight crew. Recent accidents and incidents involving autoflight system mode awareness Dornheim, 1995) are an example. This increase in complexity raises pilot concerns about the trustworthiness of automation, and makes it difficult for the crew to be aware of all the intricacies of operation that may impact safe flight. While pilots remain ultimately responsible for mission success, performance of flight deck tasks has been more widely distributed across human and automated resources. Advances in sensor and data integration technologies now make far more information available than may be prudent to present to the flight crew.

Palmer, Michael T.↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery Mission Status Briefing (incl. Statement from Cmdr. Collins and Crew)

Commander Eileen Collins and crew briefly thanked everyone who worked hard to get the Shuttle back in space, and dedicated the mission to the Columbia crew as she bids their first "good night" to the Mission Control Room in Houston. Video continues with the Mission Status Briefing by Phil Engelauf, STS-114 Mission Operations Representative, and John Shannon, Manager of the Space Shuttle Operations and Integration. Phil noted that launching and ascent had gone extremely well, the crews and the flight control team performed well and the vehicle performed exceptionally as well. The launch is the beginning of a 12 day mission period. John details the tasks of the Engineering team processing the radar data taken during ascent and checking frame by frame the imagery from both on vehicle imagery and ground imagery. John further detailed the two debris event from ascent video clips of tile loss and an unidentified material falling off from the external tank; the release of TYVEK covers, and bird impact on the external tank nose cone. Tile shearing, tile damage, tile repair, landing gear door seals, repair capabilities, debris assessment, safety, inspections criteria, data acquisitions and data analysis were topics covered with the News media.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

Evaluation of Life Sciences Glovebox (LSG) and Multi-Purpose Crew Restraint Concepts

Within the scope of the Multi-purpose Crew Restraints for Long Duration Spaceflights project, funded by Code U, it was proposed to conduct a series of evaluations on the ground and on the KC-135 to investigate the human factors issues concerning confined/unique workstations, such as the design of crew restraints. The usability of multiple crew restraints was evaluated for use with the Life Sciences Glovebox (LSG) and for performing general purpose tasks. The purpose of the KC-135 microgravity evaluation was to: (1) to investigate the usability and effectiveness of the concepts developed, (2) to gather recommendations for further development of the concepts, and (3) to verify the validity of the existing requirements. Some designs had already been tested during a March KC-135 evaluation, and testing revealed the need for modifications/enhancements. This flight was designed to test the new iterations, as well as some new concepts. This flight also involved higher fidelity tasks in the LSG, and the addition of load cells on the gloveports.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗
NASA NTRS2005

Operational behavioral health and performance resources for international space station crews and families

The Behavioral Health and Performance Section (BHP) at NASA Johnson Space Center provides direct and indirect psychological services to the International Space Station (ISS) astronauts and their families. Beginning with the NASA-Mir Program, services available to the crews and families have gradually expanded as experience is gained in long-duration flight. Enhancements to the overall BHP program have been shaped by crewmembers' personal preferences, family requests, specific events during the missions, programmatic requirements, and other lessons learned. The BHP program focuses its work on four areas: operational psychology, behavioral medicine, human-to-system interface, and sleep and circadian. Within these areas of focus are psychological and psychiatric screening for astronaut selection as well as many resources that are available to the crewmembers, families, and other groups such as crew surgeon and various levels of management within NASA. Services include: preflight, in flight, and postflight preparation; training and support; resources from a Family Support Office; in-flight monitoring; clinical care for astronauts and their families; and expertise in the workload and work/rest scheduling of crews on the ISS. Each of the four operational areas is summarized, as are future directions for the BHP program.

Space Flight↗
NASA NTRS2005

Nutrititional Status Assessment of International Space Station Crew Members

Defining optimal nutrient requirements is imperative to ensure crew health on long-duration space exploration missions. To date, nutrient requirement data have been extremely limited because of small sample sizes and difficulties associated with collecting biological samples. In this study, we examined changes in body composition, bone metabolism, hematology, general blood chemistry, and blood levels of selected vitamins and minerals after long-duration (128-195 d) space flight aboard the International Space Station. Crew members consumed an average of 80% of the recommended energy intakes, and on landing day their body weight had decreased (P=0.051). After flight, hematocrit was less, and serum femtin was greater than before flight (P<0.01). Serum iron, ferritin saturation, and transferrin had decreased after flight. The finding that other acute-phase proteins, including ceruloplasmin, retinol binding protein, transthyretin, and albumin were not changed after flight suggests that the changes in iron metabolism may not be strictly due to an inflammatory response. Urinary 8- hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine concentration was greater and superoxide dismutase was less after flight, indicating that oxidative damage had increased (P<0.05). Despite the reported use of vitamin D supplements during flight, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D was significantly decreased after flight (P<0.01). Bone resorption was increased after flight, as indicated by several urinary markers of bone resorption. Bone formation, assessed by serum concentration of bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, was elevated only in crew members who landed in Russia, probably because of the longer time lapse between landing and sample collection. These data provide evidence that bone loss, compromised vitamin D status, and oxidative damage remain critical concerns for long-duration space flight.

Smith, S. M.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Methodology and Assumptions of Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS) Calculations Using ISS Environmental Control and Life Support Systems

The current International Space Station (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) system is designed to support an ISS crew size of three people. The capability to expand that system to support nine crew members during a Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS) scenario has been evaluated. This paper describes how the ISS ECLS systems may be operated for supporting CSCS, and the durations expected for the oxygen supply and carbon dioxide control subsystems.

Prokhorov, Kimberlee↗
NASA NTRS2006

In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling

As humans venture farther from earth for longer durations, it will become essential for those on the journey to have significant control over the scheduling of their own activities as well as the activities of their companion systems and robots. However, there are many reasons why the crew will not do all the scheduling; timelines will be the result of collaboration with ground personnel. Emerging technologies such as in-space message buses, delay-tolerant networks, and in-space internet will be the carriers on which the collaboration rides. Advances in scheduling technology, in the areas of task modeling, scheduling engines, and user interfaces will allow the crew to become virtual scheduling experts. New concepts of operations for producing the timeline will allow the crew and the ground support to collaborate while providing safeguards to ensure that the mission will be effectively accomplished without endangering the systems or personnel.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS1998

Evaluation of Cabin Crew Technical Knowledge

Accident and incident reports have indicated that flight attendants have numerous opportunities to provide the flight-deck crew with operational information that may prevent or essen the severity of a potential problem. Additionally, as carrier fleets transition from three person to two person flight-deck crews, the reliance upon the cabin crew for the transfer of this information may increase further. Recent research (Chute & Wiener, 1996) indicates that light attendants do not feel confident in their ability to describe mechanical parts or malfunctions of the aircraft, and the lack of flight attendant technical training has been referenced in a number of recent reports (National Transportation Safety Board, 1992; Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 1995; Chute & Wiener, 1996). The present study explored both flight attendant technical knowledge and flight attendant and dot expectations of flight attendant technical knowledge. To assess the technical knowledge if cabin crewmembers, 177 current flight attendants from two U.S. carriers voluntarily :ompleted a 13-item technical quiz. To investigate expectations of flight attendant technical knowledge, 181 pilots and a second sample of 96 flight attendants, from the same two airlines, completed surveys designed to capture each group's expectations of operational knowledge required of flight attendants. Analyses revealed several discrepancies between the present level of flight attendants.

Dunbar, Melisa G.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Systems Integration Processes for NASA's Crew Launch Vehicle

NASA's Exploration Initiative will require development of many new elements to constitute a robust system of systems. New launch vehicles are needed to place cargo and crew in stable low earth orbit. This paper examines the systems integration processes NASA is utilizing to ensure integration and control of propulsion and non-propulsion elements within NASA's Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV). The objective of the CLV is to provide the transportation capabilities to meet the Constellation Program requirements for delivering a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) or other payload to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in support of the lunar and Mars missions. The CLV must successfully provide the capability within cost and schedule with an acceptable risk approach. This paper will describe in detail the systems engineering management processes that will be applied to assure CLV Project success through complete and efficient technical integration. Discussion of specific processes for requirements development and verification, integrated design and analysis, integrated simulation and testing and the integration of reliability, maintainability and supportability (RMS) into the design will also be included. The CLV Project is broken logically into elements by the major hardware groupings, and associated management, system engineering, and integration functions. The processes to be described herein are designed to integrate within these CLV elements and among the other Constellation projects. Launch vehicle stack integration (CLV to CEV, and Ground and Flight Operations integration) throughout the life cycle, including integrated vehicle performance through orbital insertion, recovery of the first stage, and reentry of the upper stage will also be discussed. The processes for decomposing requirements to the Elements and ensuring that requirements have been correctly validated, decomposed, allocated, and that the verification requirements are properly defined to ensure that the system design meets requirements will be discussed.

Reuter, James L.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) Upper Stage Configuration Selection Process

The Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), a key component of NASA's blueprint for the next generation of spacecraft to take humans back to the moon, is being designed and built by engineers at NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). The vehicle s design is based on the results of NASA's 2005 Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which called for development of a crew-launch system to reduce the gap between Shuttle retirement and Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Initial Operating Capability, identification of key technologies required to enable and significantly enhance these reference exploration systems, and a reprioritization of near- and far-term technology investments. The Upper Stage Element (USE) of the CLV is a clean-sheet approach that is being designed and developed in-house, with element management at MSFC. The USE concept is a self-supporting cylindrical structure, approximately 115' long and 216" in diameter, consisting of the following subsystems: Primary Structures (LOX Tank, LH2 Tank, Intertank, Thrust Structure, Spacecraft Payload Adaptor, Interstage, Forward and Aft Skirts), Secondary Structures (Systems Tunnel), Avionics and Software, Main Propulsion System, Reaction Control System, Thrust Vector Control, Auxiliary Power Unit, and Hydraulic Systems. The ESAS originally recommended a CEV to be launched atop a four-segment Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) CLV, utilizing an RS-25 engine-powered upper stage. However, Agency decisions to utilize fewer CLV development steps to lunar missions, reduce the overall risk for the lunar program, and provide a more balanced engine production rate requirement prompted engineers to switch to a five-segment design with a single Saturn-derived J-2X engine. This approach provides for single upper stage engine development for the CLV and an Earth Departure Stage, single Reusable Solid Rocket Booster (RSRB) development for the CLV and a Cargo Launch Vehicle, and single core SSME development. While the RSRB design has changed since the CLV Project's inception, the USE design has remained essentially a clean-sheet approach. Although a clean-sheet upper stage design inherently carries more risk than a modified design, it does offer many advantages: a design for increased reliability; built-in extensibility to allow for commonality/growth without major redesign; and incorporation of state-of-the-art materials, hardware, and design, fabrication, and test techniques and processes to facilitate a potentially better, more reliable system. Because consideration was given in the ESAS to both clean-sheet and modified USE designs, this paper will highlight the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches and provide a detailed discussion of trades/selections made that led to the final upper stage configuration.

Davis, Daniel J.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) Avionics and Software Integration Overview

On January 14, 2004, the President of the United States announced a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) to develop and field a Constellation Architecture that will bring the Space Exploration vision to fruition. The Constellation Architecture includes a human-rated Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) segment, managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), comprised of the First Stage (FS), Upper Stage (US), and Upper Stage Engine (USE) elements. The CLV s purpose is to provide safe and reliable crew and cargo transportation into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), as well as insertion into trans-lunar trajectories. The architecture's Spacecraft segment includes, among other elements, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), managed by the Johnson Space Flight Center (JSC), which is launched atop the CLV. MSFC is also responsible for CLV and CEV stack integration. This paper provides an overview of the Avionics and Software integration approach (which includes the Integrated System Health Management (ISHM) functions), both within the CLV, and across the CEV interface; it addresses the requirements to be met, logistics of meeting those requirements, and the roles of the various groups. The Avionics Integration and Vehicle Systems Test (ANST) Office was established at the MSFC with system engineering responsibilities for defining and developing the integrated CLV Avionics and Software system. The AIVST Office has defined two Groups, the Avionics and Software Integration Group (AVSIG), and the Integrated System Simulation and Test Integration Group (ISSTIG), and four Panels which will direct trade studies and analyses to ensure the CLV avionics and software meet CLV system and CEV interface requirements. The four panels are: 1) Avionics Integration Panel (AIP), 2) Software Integration Panel, 3) EEE Panel, and 4) Systems Simulation and Test Panel. Membership on the groups and panels includes the MSFC representatives from the requisite engineering disciplines, the First Stage, the Upper Stage, the Upper Stage Engine projects, and key personnel from other NASA centers. The four panels will take the results of trade studies and analyses and develop documentation in support of Design Analysis Cycle Reviews and ultimately the System Requirements Review.

Monell, Donald W.↗
NASA NTRS2006

In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling

As humans venture farther from Earth for longer durations, it will become essential for those on the journey to have significant control over the scheduling of their own activities as well as the activities of their companion systems and robots. However, the crew will not do all the scheduling; timelines will be the result of collaboration with ground personnel. Emerging technologies such as in-space message buses, delay-tolerant networks, and in-space internet will be the carriers on which the collaboration rides. Advances in scheduling technology, in the areas of task modeling, scheduling engines, and user interfaces will allow the crew to become virtual scheduling experts. New concepts of operations for producing the timeline will allow the crew and the ground support to collaborate while providing safeguards to ensure that the mission will be effectively accomplished without endangering the systems or personnel.

Jaap, John↗