Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Human System”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Characterization of Evidence for Human System Risk Assessment

Understanding the kinds of evidence available and using the best evidence to answer a question is critical to evidenced-based decision-making, and it requires synthesis of evidence from a variety of sources. Categorization of human system risks in spaceflight, in particular, focuses on how well the integration and interpretation of all available evidence informs the risk statement that describes the relationship between spaceflight hazards and an outcome of interest. A mature understanding and categorization of these risks requires: 1) sufficient characterization of risk, 2) sufficient knowledge to determine an acceptable level of risk (i.e., a standard), 3) development of mitigations to meet the acceptable level of risk, and 4) identification of factors affecting generalizability of the evidence to different design reference missions. In the medical research community, evidence is often ranked by increasing confidence in findings gleaned from observational and experimental research (e.g., "levels of evidence"). However, an approach based solely on aspects of experimental design is problematic in assessing human system risks for spaceflight. For spaceflight, the unique challenges and opportunities include: (1) The independent variables in most evidence are the hazards of spaceflight, such as space radiation or low gravity, which cannot be entirely duplicated in terrestrial (Earth-based) analogs, (2) Evidence is drawn from multiple sources including medical and mission operations, Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH), spaceflight research (LSDA), and relevant environmental & terrestrial databases, (3) Risk metrics based primarily on LSAH data are typically derived from available prevalence or incidence data, which may limit rigorous interpretation, (4) The timeframe for obtaining adequate spaceflight sample size (n) is very long, given the small population, (5) Randomized controlled trials are unattainable in spaceflight, (6) Collection of personal and environmental data on the astronaut population may create opportunities for advanced analytics and human-environment modeling that goes beyond that achieved in isolated experimental designs; and (7) Translation of relevant research to operations is a complex, transdisciplinary enterprise in which the approach must apply across the physical, biological, behavioral, and social sciences. The approach to synthesizing evidence must address both source and fidelity of data, and reflect the most general attributes of quality of evidence in science and engineering: reliability and validity. The authors are developing a two-factor approach which includes the various kinds of evidence required to understand risks and for the integrated interpretation of all evidence that is essential to develop standards and countermeasures. A unified framework for aggregating and assessing different kinds of evidence provides a consistent, traceable, evidence-based decision-making process to translate research to operations in an environment where engineers, scientists, physicians, and managers all engage in analyzing the trade space of vehicle design, standards, requirements and solutions for spaceflight.

Steinberg, S. L.↗
NASA NTRS2021

NASA Human Systems Integration Handbook

This handbook is intended to provide general guidance and information on Human Systems Integration (HSI) for the NASA community and the applicability of HSI to NASA programs and projects. The primary goals are to increase awareness and consistency across the Agency, advance the practice and implementation of HSI principles, and provide invaluable information and guidance to HSI practitioners in the performance of their duties. Specific aims of this handbook are to define HSI, illustrate the value of HSI in programmatic decisions, demonstrate how HSI fits into the NASA project life cycle process, describe how HSI applies across all three NASA Technical Authorities, provide guidance on HSI processes and products, and provide helpful information on HSI resources within the NASA community. Largely within the engineering community, a system is thought of as the integration or assemblance of hardware and software that together perform a function. HSI considers a system to be the integration of hardware, software, humans, data, and processes, where the human in HSI refers to all personnel involved with a given system, including system owners, users/customers, operators, maintainers, assemblers, support personnel, logistics suppliers, training personnel, test personnel, and others. This handbook should be used as a companion for implementing NPR 7123.1, Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, NASA directives, and any Center-specific handbooks and directives developed for implementing programs and projects. As of 2021, both NPR 7123.1 and NPR 7120.5 require HSI to be implemented within NASA technical efforts.

Lisa O Rippy↗
NASA NTRS2005

Step 1: Human System Integration Simulation and Flight Test Progress Report

The Access 5 Human Systems Integration Work Package produced simulation and flight demonstration planning products for use throughout the program. These included: Test Objectives for Command, Control, Communications; Pilot Questionnaire for Command, Control, Communications; Air Traffic Controller Questionnaire for Command, Control, Communications; Test Objectives for Collision Avoidance; Pilot Questionnaire for Collision Avoidance; Plans for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Control Station Simulations Flight Requirements for the Airspace Operations Demonstration

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2016

NASA UAS Integration into the NAS Project: Human Systems Integration

This presentation provides an overview of the work the Human Systems Integration (HSI) sub-project has done on detect and avoid (DAA) displays while working on the UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) Integration into the NAS project. The most recent simulation on DAA interoperability with Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) is discussed in the most detail. The relationship of the work to the larger UAS community and next steps are also detailed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the moon and eventually enable a human Mars mission. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the crew health and performance (CHP) research and technology development (R&D) necessary to enable these future missions. These organizations include flight programs as well as other organizations such as the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), Human Research Program, Space Technology Mission Directorate, and System Capability Leadership Teams, each of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for the management of risks and strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA for identifying and prioritizing R&D needs. Alignment and evolution of these strategic planning constructs is ongoing and will allow for alignment and traceability between M2M objectives and R&D investments at a detailed level. While this reorganization is ongoing, and even after it is established, there is a recognized need among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&D priorities in a unified and digestible way that synthesizes the considerations and perspectives of the CHP community across NASA. To achieve this, the HMTA facilitated a series of group discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, which culminated in a product identifying the eight highest priority mission-enabling CHP capabilities for human missions to Mars, referred to as the “Top Human System Capability Needs for Mars”. The list includes Earth-Independent Human Operations; Mars Duration Food System; Mars Duration Effects on Human Physiology; Risks Mitigations for Vehicle Atmospheres; Computational Injury & Anthropometric Models; Exploration Exercise Countermeasures; Individual Variability in Responses to Spaceflight; and Sensorimotor Countermeasures. Existing strategic planning and risk management tools and processes were considered, as well as practicalities of technical, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&D risk mitigations and technology solutions. The product is not owned by any one organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. It is anticipated that this list will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&D progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the Moon and to eventually enable humans to explore Mars. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the research and technology development (R&TD) that will be necessary to enable crew health and performance (CHP) during these future missions. These organizations include flight programs, the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), the Human Research Program, the Space Technology Mission Directorate, System Capability Leadership Teams, and other organizations, many of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for managing risks and supporting strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA to identify and prioritize R&TD needs. These strategic planning constructs are evolving to allow M2M objectives and R&TD investments to be aligned and traced at a detailed level. A recognized need exists among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&TD priorities in a unified and digestible way that addresses the perspectives of NASA’s CHP community. To achieve this, the HMTA arranged a series of discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, during which the 8 highest priority CHP capabilities that will enable human missions to Mars, referred to as the “top human system capability needs for Mars”, were identified. The list includes Earth-independent human operations; Mars-duration food system; Mars-duration effects on human physiology; risk mitigations for vehicle atmospheres; computational injury and anthropometric models; exploration exercise countermeasures; individual variability in responses to spaceflight; and sensorimotor countermeasures. Existing tools and processes for strategic planning and risk management were evaluated, as well as the technical practicalities, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&TD investments in different capability need areas. This capability needs report is not owned by any one NASA organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. These top capability needs will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&TD progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

technology gaps↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the Moon and to eventually enable humans to explore Mars. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the research and technology development (R&TD) that will be necessary to enable crew health and performance (CHP) during these future missions. These organizations include flight programs, the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), the Human Research Program, the Space Technology Mission Directorate, System Capability Leadership Teams, and other organizations, many of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for managing risks and supporting strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA to identify and prioritize R&TD needs. These strategic planning constructs are evolving to allow M2M objectives and R&TD investments to be aligned and traced at a detailed level. A recognized need exists among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&TD priorities in a unified and digestible way that addresses the perspectives of NASA’s CHP community. To achieve this, the HMTA arranged a series of discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, during which the 8 highest priority CHP capabilities that will enable human missions to Mars, referred to as the “top human system capability needs for Mars”, were identified. The list includes Earth-independent human operations; Mars-duration food system; Mars-duration effects on human physiology; risk mitigations for vehicle atmospheres; computational injury and anthropometric models; exploration exercise countermeasures; individual variability in responses to spaceflight; and sensorimotor countermeasures. Existing tools and processes for strategic planning and risk management were evaluated, as well as the technical practicalities, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&TD investments in different capability need areas. This capability needs report is not owned by any one NASA organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. These top capability needs will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&TD progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

technology gaps↗
NASA NTRS2009

Human-System Integration Scorecard Update to VB.Net

The purpose of this project was to create Human-System Integration (HSI) scorecard software, which could be utilized to validate that human factors have been considered early in hardware/system specifications and design. The HSI scorecard is partially based upon the revised Human Rating Requirements (HRR) intended for NASA's Constellation program. This software scorecard will allow for quick appraisal of HSI factors, by using visual aids to highlight low and rapidly changing scores. This project consisted of creating a user-friendly Visual Basic program that could be easily distributed and updated, to and by fellow colleagues. Updating the Microsoft Word version of the HSI scorecard to a computer application will allow for the addition of useful features, improved easy of use, and decreased completion time for user. One significant addition is the ability to create Microsoft Excel graphs automatically from scorecard data, to allow for clear presentation of problematic areas. The purpose of this paper is to describe the rational and benefits of creating the HSI scorecard software, the problems and goals of project, and future work that could be done.

Sanders, Blaze D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Systems Integration (HSI) Framework and Training - Shifting the View of HSI for Better Implementation

The Implementation of Human Systems Integration (HSI) presents challenges within the acquisition community for two reasons. The first is that misconceptions of HSI still exist, with many Program Managers (PMs) and leadership uncertain of the value or where to begin. The second is due to an unbalanced approach to HSI in its own framework. These implementation challenges lead to barriers in the early prevention of mishaps. Understanding HSI practices and how they should be implemented in the Acquisition Product Life Cycle (PLC) has been a challenge across the government, leaving the value of HSI unknown and misunderstood with Program Managers. In the case for many acquisition programs, HSI is not implemented in early design, losing the perspective on human capabilities and limitations, creating impacts on human-centered design. Expectations in human performance are not clearly set and operations are baselined with no margin for changes in technology and processes that will affect system performance. The HSI framework addresses total system performance holistically using collaboration as the primary tool. The goal is to create a system with efficiencies while minimizing risk to the operators, maintainers, and support personnel, as well as any collateral personnel and systems. To accomplish this, HSI should be implemented as part of preemptive measures to minimize potential human error and mishaps during the operation phase. Investigative and assessment tools exist that consider events, issues, and other outside influences of a system that may not fall under the current construct of the HSI domains, leaving gaps in early HSI implementation and affecting the prevention of human errors and mishaps. This presentation will outline what NASA HSI is doing to support Early HSI implementation and Operational Performance shifts that affect human performance.

Anthony T Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2004

Human Systems Integration and Automation Issues in Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

The goal of this report is to identify Human System Integration (HSI) and automation issues that contribute to improved effectiveness and efficiency in the operation of U.S. military Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (SUAVs). HSI issues relevant to SUAV operations are reviewed and observations from field trials are summarized. Short-term improvements are suggested research issues are identified and an overview is provided of automation technologies applicable to future SUAV design.

DRONES↗
NASA NTRS2017

Towards Designing Graceful Degradation into Trajectory Based Operations: A Human-Systems Integration Approach

One of the most fundamental changes to the air traffic management system in NextGen is the concept of trajectory based operations (TBO). With the introduction of such change, system safety and resilience is a critical concern, in particular, the ability of systems to gracefully degrade. In order to design graceful degradation into a TBO envrionment, knowledge of the potential causes of degradation, and appropriate solutions, is required. In addition, previous research has predominantly explored the technological contribution to graceful degradation, frequently neglecting to consider the role of the human operator, specifically, air traffic controllers (ATCOs). This is out of step with real-world operations, and potentially limits an ecologically valid understanding of achieving graceful degradation in an air traffic control (ATC) environment. The following literature review aims to identify and summarize the literature to date on the potential causes of degradation in ATC and the solutions that may be applied within a TBO context, with a specific focus on the contribution of the air traffic controller. A framework of graceful degradation, developed from the literature, is presented. It is argued that in order to achieve graceful degradation within TBO, a human-system integration approach must be applied.

human-system integration↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Impact of Delayed Communication on NASA’s Human-Systems Operations: Preliminary Results of a Systematic Review

Throughout the history of human spaceflight, NASA has relied on a team of ground-based experts on Earth to manage its missions, vehicles, and crews to ensure crew safety and mission success. However, as missions progress beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), this paradigm of dependence on ground must evolve. Beyond LEO, in missions to the moon and Mars, crews will confront new challenges: limited evacuation options, reduced resupply capabilities, and significant communication delays that impede real-time support from experts on the ground. This reduction in ground support amplifies the likelihood that crews will be unable to adequately respond to unanticipated, safety-critical events. Understanding the scope of these risks and identifying effective countermeasures hinges on understanding the impact of communication delays on complex operations, especially in urgent, unforeseen events. Real-time communication currently provides the crew with continuous access to a large, extensively resourced ground team skilled in anomaly resolution. However, as communication delays grow, the need to transfer some responsibilities from ground experts to onboard crew becomes evident. NASA has been exploring this shift in operational responsibilities and its effectiveness in managing complex operations for decades. Nevertheless, a comprehensive understanding of the specific challenges posed by communication delays and the necessary countermeasures to mitigate them remains a gap. In this paper, we present an update on our systematic review of the literature on communication delays, the first in-depth review since 2013 (Rader et al.). We introduce a coding taxonomy to capture key constructs from papers of interest and discuss preliminary findings. These preliminary results suggest two significant research gaps: limited studies have been conducted 1) with lunar-like latencies and 2) on problem-solving strategies for the maximum latencies expected in Mars missions. We outline plans and propose recommendations to address these gaps through ongoing and future research.

human-systems integration↗
NASA NTRS2010

Space Medicine in the Human System Integration Process

This slide presentation reviews the importance of integration of space medicine in the human system of lunar exploration. There is a review of historical precedence in reference to lunar surface operations. The integration process is reviewed in a chart which shows the steps from research to requirements development, requirements integration, design, verification, operations and using the lessons learned, giving more information and items for research. These steps are reviewed in view of specific space medical issues. Some of the testing of the operations are undertaken in an environment that is an analog to the exploration environment. Some of these analog environments are reviewed, and there is some discussion of the benefits of use of an analog environment in testing the processes that are derived.

Scheuring, Richard A.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Step 1: Human System Integration (HSI) FY05 Pilot-Technology Interface Requirements for Command, Control, and Communications (C3)

The document provides the Human System Integration(HSI) high-level functional C3 HSI requirements for the interface to the pilot. Description includes (1) the information required by the pilot to have knowledge C3 system status, and (2) the control capability needed by the pilot to obtain C3 information. Fundamentally, these requirements provide the candidate C3 technology concepts with the necessary human-related elements to make them compatible with human capabilities and limitations. The results of the analysis describe how C3 operations and functions should interface with the pilot to provide the necessary C3 functionality to the UA-pilot system. Requirements and guidelines for C3 are partitioned into three categories: (1) Pilot-Air Traffic Control (ATC) Voice Communications (2) Pilot-ATC Data Communications, and (3) command and control of the unmanned aircraft (UA). Each requirement is stated and is supported with a rationale and associated reference(s).

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2014

NASA's UAS Integration into the NAS: A Report on the Human Systems Integration Phase 1 Simulation Activities

In 2011 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) began a five-year Project to address the technical barriers related to routine access of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS). Planned in two phases, the goal of the first phase was to lay the foundations for the Project by identifying those barriers and key issues to be addressed to achieve integration. Phase 1 activities were completed two years into the five-year Project. The purpose of this paper is to review activities within the Human Systems Integration (HSI) subproject in Phase 1 toward its two objectives: 1) develop GCS guidelines for routine UAS access to the NAS, and 2) develop a prototype display suite within an existing Ground Control Station (GCS). The first objective directly addresses a critical barrier for UAS integration into the NAS - a lack of GCS design standards or requirements. First, the paper describes the initial development of a prototype GCS display suite and supporting simulation software capabilities. Then, three simulation experiments utilizing this simulation architecture are summarized. The first experiment sought to determine a baseline performance of UAS pilots operating in civil airspace under current instrument flight rules for manned aircraft. The second experiment examined the effect of currently employed UAS contingency procedures on Air Traffic Control (ATC) participants. The third experiment compared three GCS command and control interfaces on UAS pilot response times in compliance with ATC clearances. The authors discuss how the results of these and future simulation and flight-testing activities contribute to the development of GCS guidelines to support the safe integration of UAS into the NAS. Finally, the planned activities for Phase 2, including an integrated human-in-the-loop simulation and two flight tests are briefly described.

National Airspace System↗