Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “HUMAN ENGINEERING”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2008

The First Development of Human Factors Engineering Requirements for Application to Ground Task Design for a NASA Flight Program

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has long applied standards-derived human engineering requirements to the development of hardware and software for use by astronauts while in flight. The most important source of these requirements has been NASA-STD-3000. While there have been several ground systems human engineering requirements documents, none has been applicable to the flight system as handled at NASA's launch facility at Kennedy Space Center. At the time of the development of previous human launch systems, there were other considerations that were deemed more important than developing worksites for ground crews; e.g., hardware development schedule and vehicle performance. However, experience with these systems has shown that failure to design for ground tasks has resulted in launch schedule delays, ground operations that are more costly than they might be, and threats to flight safety. As the Agency begins the development of new systems to return humans to the moon, the new Constellation Program is addressing this issue with a new set of human engineering requirements. Among these requirements is a subset that will apply to the design of the flight components and that is intended to assure ground crew success in vehicle assembly and maintenance tasks. These requirements address worksite design for usability and for ground crew safety.

Dischinger, H. Charles, Jr.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Launch System (SLS) Human Factors Engineering Modeling & Analysis

The Human Systems Integration & Engineering (HSI&E) team at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) strives to advocate for the humans in the loop of Space Launch System’s (SLS) ground operations. Using assessment methods like human simulation, virtual reality, and physical mockups, both flight hardware and ground support equipment (GSE) are evaluated for human integration. Those ranging from 5th percentile female (approximately 5’2” tall) to 95th percentile male (approximately 6’2” tall) should be able to perform all SLS stacking operations. Operations include element physical mates, element electrical mates, and testing activities. The primary human simulation software used is Process Simulate Human (PSH) made by Siemens. This software supplies highly accurate human manikins that can interact with CAD models. PSH was used to evaluate the Transportation and Integration Platform’s (TIP) side opening that was designed for access to the Payload Adapter (PLA) cables. Technicians will need to access these cables for testing purposes before element stacking at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). After performing an analysis in PSH using the TIP side opening, it was found that neither a 5th percentile female or a 95th percentile male could perform the task as the designers had intended. There is a C-beam that blocks access to the cables (both physically and visually). An alternative analysis was performed using PSH to look at another access point to the PLA cables. Although this method would disrupt already established procedures and produce more work, the designers confirmed it was an option. Instead of technicians accessing the cables through the side opening in the TIP, a human simulation was performed for going through a panel opening in the bottom of the TIP. This method requires removal of a TIP panel and a stepladder of at least 36 inches for a 5th percentile female to access the cables.

human factors↗
NASA NTRS2006

Design, Development, Testing, and Evaluation: Human Factors Engineering

While human-system interaction occurs in all phases of system development and operation, this chapter on Human Factors in the DDT&E for Reliable Spacecraft Systems is restricted to the elements that involve "direct contact" with spacecraft systems. Such interactions will encompass all phases of human activity during the design, fabrication, testing, operation, and maintenance phases of the spacecraft lifespan. This section will therefore consider practices that would accommodate and promote effective, safe, reliable, and robust human interaction with spacecraft systems. By restricting this chapter to what the team terms "direct contact" with the spacecraft, "remote" factors not directly involved in the development and operation of the vehicle, such as management and organizational issues, have been purposely excluded. However, the design of vehicle elements that enable and promote ground control activities such as monitoring, feedback, correction and reversal (override) of on-board human and automation process are considered as per NPR8705.2A, Section 3.3.

Adelstein, Bernard↗
NASA NTRS2006

Space Human Factors Engineering Gap Analysis Project Final Report

Humans perform critical functions throughout each phase of every space mission, beginning with the mission concept and continuing to post-mission analysis (Life Sciences Division, 1996). Space missions present humans with many challenges - the microgravity environment, relative isolation, and inherent dangers of the mission all present unique issues. As mission duration and distance from Earth increases, in-flight crew autonomy will increase along with increased complexity. As efforts for exploring the moon and Mars advance, there is a need for space human factors research and technology development to play a significant role in both on-orbit human-system interaction, as well as the development of mission requirements and needs before and after the mission. As part of the Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Project within the Human Research Program (HRP), a six-month Gap Analysis Project (GAP) was funded to identify any human factors research gaps or knowledge needs. The overall aim of the project was to review the current state of human factors topic areas and requirements to determine what data, processes, or tools are needed to aid in the planning and development of future exploration missions, and also to prioritize proposals for future research and technology development.

Hudy, Cynthia↗
NASA NTRS1994

NASA's Man-Systems Integration Standards: A Human Factors Engineering Standard for Everyone in the Nineties

During the second half of the 1980s, a document was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to aid in the application of good human factors engineering and human interface practices to the design and development of hardware and systems for use in all United States manned space flight programs. This comprehensive document, known as NASA-STD-3000, the Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS), attempts to address, from a human factors engineering/human interface standpoint, all of the various types of equipment with which manned space flight crew members must deal. Basically, all of the human interface situations addressed in the MSIS are present in terrestrially based systems also. The premise of this paper is that, starting with this already created standard, comprehensive documents addressing human factors engineering and human interface concerns could be developed to aid in the design of almost any type of equipment or system which humans interface with in any terrestrial environment. Utilizing the systems and processes currently in place in the MSIS Development Facility at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX, any number of MSIS volumes addressing the human factors / human interface needs of any terrestrially based (or, for that matter, airborne) system could be created.

Cletis R. Booher↗
NASA NTRS2019

Challenges in applying model-based systems engineering: human-centered design perspective

Systems engineering is, by its nature, human-centered. It is about tradeoffs and negotiations by systems engineers among different disciplines and systems to ensure the resulting system of systems can achieve the mission objectives successfully. Applying MBSE means enabling system engineers to use MBSE processes, methods, and tools to perform such work. This requires not only tools and infrastructure that support MBSE but also cultural change in how system engineers approach their work. Although the cultural change is listed as one of the challenges for MBSE infusion to address, its details and how to address them are not often discussed in the literature and the community. We used Human-Centered Design framework to articulate a core set of related challenges and the implications to tool and infrastructure developments. We will discuss the details of the HCD framework applied and discuss the core challenges using an electrical system engineering to harness engineering workflow as a case study.

Jimenez, Alejandro↗
NASA NTRS1994

Human Factors Engineering: Current and Emerging Dual-Use Applications

Human Factors Engineering is a multidisciplinary endeavor in which information pertaining to human characteristics is used in the development of systems and machines. Six representatives considered to be experts from the public and private sectors were surveyed in an effort to identify the potential dual-use of human factors technology. Each individual was asked to provide a rating as to the dual-use of 85 identified NASA technologies. Results of the survey were as follows: nearly 75 percent of the technologies were identified at least once as high dual-use by one of the six survey respondents, and nearly 25 percent of the identified NASA technologies were identified as high dual-use technologies by a majority of the respondents. The perceived level of dual-use appeared to be independent of the technology category. Successful identification of dual-use technology requires expanded input from industry. As an adjunct, cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to identify the feasibility of the dual-use technology. Concurrent with this effort should be an examination of precedents established by other technologies in other industrial settings. Advances in human factors and systems engineering are critical to reduce risk in any workplace and to enhance industrial competitiveness.

Chandlee, G. O.↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Space Human Factors Engineering Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) participated in a WebEx/teleconference with members of the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) Element, representatives from the Human Research Program (HRP), the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), and NASA Headquarters on November 17, 2014 (list of participants is in Section XI of this report). The SRP reviewed the updated research plans for the Risk of Incompatible Vehicle/Habitat Design (HAB Risk) and the Risk of Performance Errors Due to Training Deficiencies (Train Risk). The SRP also received a status update on the Risk of Inadequate Critical Task Design (Task Risk), the Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI Risk), and the Risk of Inadequate Human-Computer Interaction (HCI Risk).

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2015

2015 Space Human Factors Engineering Standing Review Panel

The 2015 Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 2 - 3, 2015. The SRP reviewed the updated research plans for the Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI Risk), the Risk of Inadequate Human-Computer Interaction (HCI Risk), and the Risk of Inadequate Mission, Process and Task Design (MPTask Risk). The SRP also received a status update on the Risk of Incompatible Vehicle/Habitat Design (Hab Risk) and the Risk of Performance Errors Due to Training Deficiencies (Train Risk). The SRP is pleased with the progress and responsiveness of the SHFE team. The presentations were much improved this year. The SRP is also pleased with the human-centered design approach. Below are some of the more extensive comments from the SRP. We have also made comments in each section concerning gaps/tasks in each. The comments below reflect more significant changes that impact more than just one particular section.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2014

Software Engineering for Human Spaceflight

The Spacecraft Software Engineering Branch of NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) provides world‐class products, leadership, and technical expertise in software engineering, processes, technology, and systems management for human spaceflight. The branch contributes to major NASA programs (e.g. ISS, MPCV/Orion) with in‐house software development and prime contractor oversight, and maintains the JSC Engineering Directorate CMMI rating for flight software development. Software engineering teams work with hardware developers, mission planners, and system operators to integrate flight vehicles, habitats, robotics, and other spacecraft elements. They seek to infuse automation and autonomy into missions, and apply new technologies to flight processor and computational architectures. This presentation will provide an overview of key software‐related projects, software methodologies and tools, and technology pursuits of interest to the JSC Spacecraft Software Engineering Branch.

Fredrickson, Steven E.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Human Research Program Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (SRP)

The Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (SRP) evaluated 22 gaps and 39 tasks in the three risk areas assigned to the SHFE Project. The area where tasks were best designed to close the gaps and the fewest gaps were left out was the Risk of Reduced Safety and Efficiency dire to Inadequate Design of Vehicle, Environment, Tools or Equipment. The areas where there were more issues with gaps and tasks, including poor or inadequate fit of tasks to gaps and missing gaps, were Risk of Errors due to Poor Task Design and Risk of Error due to Inadequate Information. One risk, the Risk of Errors due to Inappropriate Levels of Trust in Automation, should be added. If astronauts trust automation too much in areas where it should not be trusted, but rather tempered with human judgment and decision making, they will incur errors. Conversely, if they do not trust automation when it should be trusted, as in cases where it can sense aspects of the environment such as radiation levels or distances in space, they will also incur errors. This will be a larger risk when astronauts are less able to rely on human mission control experts and are out of touch, far away, and on their own. The SRP also identified 11 new gaps and five new tasks. Although the SRP had an extremely large quantity of reading material prior to and during the meeting, we still did not feel we had an overview of the activities and tasks the astronauts would be performing in exploration missions. Without a detailed task analysis and taxonomy of activities the humans would be engaged in, we felt it was impossible to know whether the gaps and tasks were really sufficient to insure human safety, performance, and comfort in the exploration missions. The SRP had difficulty evaluating many of the gaps and tasks that were not as quantitative as those related to concrete physical danger such as excessive noise and vibration. Often the research tasks for cognitive risks that accompany poor task or information design addressed only part, but not all, of the gaps they were programmed to fill. In fact the tasks outlined will not close the gap but only scratch the surface in many cases. In other cases, the gap was written too broadly, and really should be restated in a more constrained way that can be addressed by a well-organized and complementary set of tasks. In many cases, the research results should be turned into guidelines for design. However, it was not clear whether the researchers or another group would construct and deliver these guidelines.

Wichansky, Anna↗
NASA NTRS1998

Virtual Environment Computer Simulations to Support Human Factors Engineering and Operations Analysis for the RLV Program

The Army-NASA Virtual Innovations Laboratory (ANVIL) was recently created to provide virtual reality tools for performing Human Engineering and operations analysis for both NASA and the Army. The author's summer research project consisted of developing and refining these tools for NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program. Several general simulations were developed for use by the ANVIL for the evaluation of the X34 Engine Changeout procedure. These simulations were developed with the software tool dVISE 4.0.0 produced by Division Inc. All software was run on an SGI Indigo2 High Impact. This paper describes the simulations, various problems encountered with the simulations, other summer activities, and possible work for the future. We first begin with a brief description of virtual reality systems.

Lunsford, Myrtis Leigh↗
NASA NTRS2019

Using Virtual Reality and Motion Capture as Tools for Human Factors Engineering at Nasa Marshall Space Flight Center

MSFC’s Human Factors Engineering (HFE) team is responsible for all worksite analyses performed for the SLS pre-launch integration activities at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). There is a wide variety of tasks associated with pre-launch integration activities and it is important to verify that vehicle integration will be successful early in the design process. The VR work performed by the HFE team at MSFC has allowed fast changing layouts to be analyzed by various departments with minimal impact to cost or schedule. Implementing these methods for SLS allows for VR use in early design cycles, saving time and budget. Utilizing the resulting HFE analyses improves usability and safety. Ultimately, the goal is to provide a safe environment for the technicians assembling the vehicle and the astronaut crew at launch.

Andrews, Tanya↗
NASA NTRS1991

Technology 2000, volume 1

The purpose of the conference was to increase awareness of existing NASA developed technologies that are available for immediate use in the development of new products and processes, and to lay the groundwork for the effective utilization of emerging technologies. There were sessions on the following: Computer technology and software engineering; Human factors engineering and life sciences; Information and data management; Material sciences; Manufacturing and fabrication technology; Power, energy, and control systems; Robotics; Sensors and measurement technology; Artificial intelligence; Environmental technology; Optics and communications; and Superconductivity.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1991

Technology 2000, volume 2

Technology 2000 was the first major industrial conference and exposition spotlighting NASA technology and technology transfer. It's purpose was, and continues to be, to increase awareness of existing NASA-developed technologies that are available for immediate use in the development of new products and processes, and to lay the groundwork for the effective utilization of emerging technologies. Included are sessions on: computer technology and software engineering; human factors engineering and life sciences; materials science; sensors and measurement technology; artificial intelligence; environmental technology; optics and communications; and superconductivity.

Source record↗