Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “crew scheduling”

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 NTRS2015

The Integrated Medical Model: A Probabilistic Simulation Model for Predicting In-Flight Medical Risks

The Integrated Medical Model (IMM) is a probabilistic model that uses simulation to predict mission medical risk. Given a specific mission and crew scenario, medical events are simulated using Monte Carlo methodology to provide estimates of resource utilization, probability of evacuation, probability of loss of crew, and the amount of mission time lost due to illness. Mission and crew scenarios are defined by mission length, extravehicular activity (EVA) schedule, and crew characteristics including: sex, coronary artery calcium score, contacts, dental crowns, history of abdominal surgery, and EVA eligibility. The Integrated Medical Evidence Database (iMED) houses the model inputs for one hundred medical conditions using in-flight, analog, and terrestrial medical data. Inputs include incidence, event durations, resource utilization, and crew functional impairment. Severity of conditions is addressed by defining statistical distributions on the dichotomized best and worst-case scenarios for each condition. The outcome distributions for conditions are bounded by the treatment extremes of the fully treated scenario in which all required resources are available and the untreated scenario in which no required resources are available. Upon occurrence of a simulated medical event, treatment availability is assessed, and outcomes are generated depending on the status of the affected crewmember at the time of onset, including any pre-existing functional impairments or ongoing treatment of concurrent conditions. The main IMM outcomes, including probability of evacuation and loss of crew life, time lost due to medical events, and resource utilization, are useful in informing mission planning decisions. To date, the IMM has been used to assess mission-specific risks with and without certain crewmember characteristics, to determine the impact of eliminating certain resources from the mission medical kit, and to design medical kits that maximally benefit crew health while meeting mass and volume constraints.

Risk Analysis↗
NASA NTRS2010

Operations Concepts for Deep-Space Missions: Challenges and Opportunities

Historically, manned spacecraft missions have relied heavily on real-time communication links between crewmembers and ground control for generating crew activity schedules and working time-critical off-nominal situations. On crewed missions beyond the Earth-Moon system, speed-of-light limitations will render this ground-centered concept of operations obsolete. A new, more distributed concept of operations will have to be developed in which the crew takes on more responsibility for real-time anomaly diagnosis and resolution, activity planning and replanning, and flight operations. I will discuss the innovative information technologies, human-machine interfaces, and simulation capabilities that must be developed in order to develop, test, and validate deep-space mission operations

McCann, Robert S.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Power Management for Space Advanced Life Support

Space power systems include the power source, storage, and management subsystems. In current crewed spacecraft, solar cells are the power source, batteries provide storage, and the crew performs any required load scheduling. For future crewed planetary surface systems using Advanced Life Support, we assume that plants will be grown to produce much of the crew's food and that nuclear power will be employed. Battery storage is much more costly than nuclear power capacity and so is not likely to be used. We investigate the scheduling of power demands by the crew or automatic control, to reduce the peak power load and the required generating capacity. The peak to average power ratio is a good measure of power use efficiency. We can easily schedule power demands to reduce the peak power from its maximum, but simple scheduling approaches may not find the lowest possible peak to average power ratio. An initial power scheduling example was simple enough for a human to solve, but a more complex example with many intermittent load demands required automatic scheduling. Excess power is a free resource and can be used even for minor benefits.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Self-Scheduling Countermeasures in NASA's HERA Campaign 6

Enhancing crew capabilities for planning and scheduling activities is critical for periods of increased crew autonomy in future long-duration missions where communication delays preclude real-time ground support from Earth. Our study focuses on how to empower astronauts to manage their timelines independently from the experts in the mission control center (MCC). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of scheduling countermeasures on crew scheduling performance, workload, and usability in an analog mission environment. The study involved 16 crew members across four missions in the Limited Autonomy phase of Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaign 6. Crew members used Playbook to schedule one operational day for the entire crew. Half the participants accessed scheduling aids, and we compared their performance to a control group with no aids. Performance, workload, and usability were assessed using time on task, violation counts, NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), and System Usability Scale (SUS). Participants using scheduling aids completed sessions 20% faster and committed 33% fewer violations. While these differences were not statistically significant due to the study’s operational limitations, trends indicate that scheduling aids may reduce errors and improve efficiency. These results can inform the design of scheduling tools to enhance astronauts’ autonomy in long-duration space missions, contributing to improved crew performance and reduced reliance on ground support.

space robotics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Self-Scheduling Countermeasures in NASA's HERA Campaign 6

Enhancing crew capabilities for planning and scheduling activities is critical for periods of increased crew autonomy in future long-duration missions where communication delays preclude real-time ground support from Earth. Our study focuses on how to empower astronauts to manage their timelines independently from the experts in the mission control center (MCC). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of scheduling countermeasures on crew scheduling performance, workload, and usability in an analog mission environment. The study involved 16 crew members across four missions in the Limited Autonomy phase of Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaign 6. Crew members used Playbook to schedule one operational day for the entire crew. Half the participants accessed scheduling aids, and we compared their performance to a control group with no aids. Performance, workload, and usability were assessed using time on task, violation counts, NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), and System Usability Scale (SUS). Participants using scheduling aids completed sessions 20% faster and committed 33% fewer violations. While these differences were not statistically significant due to the study’s operational limitations, trends indicate that scheduling aids may reduce errors and improve efficiency. These results can inform the design of scheduling tools to enhance astronauts’ autonomy in long-duration space missions, contributing to improved crew performance and reduced reliance on ground support.

space robotics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Designing Autonomy into Interfaces for Long-Duration Missions

As NASA develops technologies for long-duration crewed missions, we must understand how communication between ground control teams and astronauts differs from the current dynamic to adapt new concepts for long-duration mission operations. Today, ground control teams support astronauts with immediate availability to answer questions, resolve issues, and manage activities. In the near future, however, extended communication delays during long-duration missions will require astronauts to become more autonomous. As many of the responsibilities shift from the ground control teams to the astronauts on-board, the concept of operations must also change from how it functions today. With increased astronaut autonomy, software tools must be developed that enable efficient completion of mission tasks without increased mental workload. Designing software tools to facilitate crew autonomy requires development teams to know which data will enhance quick decision making while providing necessary context for situational awareness of systems being managed on-board. NASA's Autonomous Systems and Operations (ASO) team is presently developing a software interface tool, EXPRESS (EXpedite the PRocessing of Experiments for Space Station) 2.5 to enable a long-duration crew to schedule activities for and operate autonomous systems. This paper describes details of the integrated human factors approach that drove the design of the elements of the software tool, including self-managed scheduling, constraint-driven planning, autonomous system fault recovery, and recommended troubleshooting actions. Additionally, this paper will chronicle ASO modifications of the user interface after the team's first flight demonstration, how it was based on lessons learned during software development, as well as from crew feedback in order to develop the current version which will be demonstrated on ISS in 2021. In the upcoming ISS demonstration, the astronaut crew will be given scenarios for scheduling and operating autonomous system activities, including off-nominal scenarios and autonomous system recoveries. The demonstration of the EXPRESS 2.5 tool is a step towards improved levels of autonomy as our new journeys take us farther into space.

autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2017

Increasing Crew Autonomy for Long Duration Exploration Missions: Self-Scheduling

Over the last three years, we have been investigating the operational concept of crew self-scheduling as a method of increasing crew autonomy for future exploration missions. Through Playbook, a planning and scheduling software tool, we have incrementally increased the ability for Earth analog mission crews to modify their schedules. Playbook allows the crew to add new activities from scratch, add new activities or groups of activities through a Task List, and reschedule or reassign flexible activities. The crew is also able to identify if plan modifications create violations, i.e., plan constraints not being met. This paper summarizes our observations with qualitative evidence from four NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) analog missions that supported self-scheduling as a feasible operational concept.

planning and scheduling↗
NASA NTRS2017

Increasing Crew Autonomy for Long Duration Exploration Missions: Self-Scheduling

Over the last three years, we have been investigating the operational concept of crew self-scheduling as a method of increasing crew autonomy for future exploration missions. Through Playbook, a planning and scheduling software tool, we have incrementally increased the ability for Earth analog mission crews to modify their schedules. Playbook allows the crew to add new activities from scratch, add new activities or groups of activities through a Task List, and reschedule or reassign flexible activities. The crew is also able to identify if plan modifications create violations, i.e., plan constraints not being met. This paper summarizes our observations with qualitative evidence from four NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) analog missions that supported self-scheduling as a feasible operational concept.

crew autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2002

STS-113 Flight Day 9 Highlights

This video shows the activities of the STS-113 (Jim Wetherbee, Commander; Paul Lockhart, Pilot; Michael Lopez-Alegria, John Herrington, Mission Specialists) crew during flight day 9. Also seen are the outgoing Expedition 5 (Valeri Korzun, Commander; Peggy Whitsun, ISS Science Officer/Flight Engineer; Sergei Treschev, Flight Engineer) and incoming Expedition 6 (Kenneth Bowersox, Commander; Donald Pettit, Nikolai Budarin, Flight Engineers) crews of the ISS (International Space Station). Flight day 9 is a relatively inactive day, with some off-time scheduled for crew bonding and enjoying views. Seven of the joint crew members, including Lopez-Alegria, Wetherbee, Herrington, and Whitsun, pose together and answer questions. Footage shows ISS Science Officers Whitsun and Pettit troubleshooting equipment. The video also contains a clear view of southern South America, a cloudy view of the South Pacific, and external footage of the ISS including the Canadarm robotic arm. The payload bay of the shuttle Endeavour is also shown.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2000

ISS Expedition 1 Crew Interviews: Sergei K. Krikalev

Live footage of a preflight interview with Flight Engineer Sergei K. Krikalev is seen. The interview addresses many different questions including why Krikalev became a cosmonaut, the events that led to his interest, the transition from being an engineer to being selected as a Russian cosmonaut. Other interesting information that this one-on-one interview discusses are the main goals of the first Expedition Crew, their scheduled docking with the International Space Station (ISS), making the ISS ready for human inhabitance, and all the specifics that will make his living arrangements difficult. Krikalev mentions his responsibilities during the much-anticipated two-day flight to the ISS, as well as the possibility of his space-walk. Krikalev also discusses the crew's first tasks upon entrance including other scheduled tasks for the first week, docking from cargo ships, and spacecraft delivering equipment or performing Extra Vehicular Activities (EVA). He explains his opinion of the implications of having human beings in space.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2000

ISS Expedition 1 Crew Interviews: Yuri P. Gidzenko

Live footage of a preflight interview with Soyuz Commander Yuri P. Gidzenko is seen. The interview addresses many different questions including why Gidzenko became interested in the space program, the events that led to his interest, the transition from being a military pilot to being selected as a Russian cosmonaut. Other interesting information that this one-on-one interview discusses are the main goals of the first Expedition Crew, their scheduled docking with the International Space Station (ISS), making the ISS ready for human inhabitance, and all the specifics that will make his living arrangements difficult. Gidzenko mentions his responsibilities during the much-anticipated two-day flight to the ISS on the Soyuz spacecraft, as well as the possibility of his space-walk. Gidzenko also discusses the crew's first tasks upon entrance including other scheduled tasks for the first week, docking from cargo ships, and spacecraft delivering equipment or performing Extra Vehicular Activities (EVA). He explains his opinion of the implications of having human beings in space.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1999

One Year Old and Growing: A Status Report on the International Space Station and Its Partners

The first elements of the International Space Station have been launched and docked together, and are performing well on-orbit. The Station is currently being operated jointly by NASA and Russian space organizations. In May 1999, the Space Shuttle was the first vehicle to dock to the International, Space Station. A crew of seven U.S. and Russian astronauts delivered 4000 pounds of supplies, made repairs to communications and battery systems, and installed external hardware during an EVA. The next module, the Russian Service Module, is due to join the orbital complex this year. This will initiate a period of rapid growth, with new modules and equipment continually added for the next five to six years, through assembly complete. The first crew is scheduled to begin permanent occupation of the International Space Station early next year. Hardware is being developed by Space Station partners and participants around the world and is largely on schedule for launch. Mission control centers are fully functioning in Houston and Moscow, with operations centers in St. Hubert, Darmstadt, Tsukuba, Turino, and Huntsville going on line as they are required. International crews are selected and in training. Coordination efforts continue with each of the five partners and two participants, involving 16 nations. All of them continue to face their own challenges and have achieved their own successes. This paper will discuss the status of the ISS partners and participants, their contributions and accomplished milestones, and upcoming events. It will also give a status report on the developments of the remainder of the ISS modules and components by each partner and participant. The ISS, the largest and most complicated peacetime project in history, is flying, and, with the help of all the ISS members, will continue to grow.

Bartoe, John-David F.↗
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 NTRS2012

Flying Schedule-Matching Descents to Explore Flight Crews' Perceptions of Their Load and Task Feasibility

Multiple studies have investigated the development and use of ground-based (controller) tools to manage and schedule traffic in future terminal airspace. No studies have investigated the impacts that such tools (and concepts) could have on the flight-deck. To begin to redress the balance, an exploratory study investigated the procedures and actions of ten Boeing-747-400 crews as they flew eight continuous descent approaches in the Los Angeles terminal airspace, with the descents being controlled using speed alone. Although the study was exploratory in nature, four variables were manipulated: speed changes, route constraints, clearance phraseology, and winds. Despite flying the same scenarios with the same events and timing, there was at least a 50 second difference in the time it took crews to fly the approaches. This variation is the product of a number of factors but highlights potential difficulties for scheduling tools that would have to accommodate this amount of natural variation in descent times. The primary focus of this paper is the potential impact of ground scheduling tools on the flight crews performance and procedures. Crews reported "moderate to low" workload, on average; however, short periods of intense and high workload were observed. The non-flying pilot often reported a higher level of workload than the flying-pilot, which may be due to their increased interaction with the Flight Management Computer, when using the aircraft automation to assist with managing the descent clearances. It is concluded that ground-side tools and automation may have a larger impact on the current-day flight-deck than was assumed and that studies investigating this impact should continue in parallel with controller support tool development.

Martin, Lynne Hazel↗
NASA NTRS1977

Apollo-Soyuz pamphlet no. 1: The flight

The goals of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project are described in this first in a series of nine pamphlets designed as a curriculum supplement for teachers, supervisors, curriculum specialists, and textbook writers as well as for the general public. Aspects of the space flight covered include descriptions of the astronaut-cosmonaut meeting and of the spacecraft and landing module; spacecraft launch; control, and rendezvous; crew work schedule; and telemetry. Experiments performed are listed in tables, and their major results are summarized.

Page, L. W.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Psychological Health Maintenance on Space Station Freedom

The scheduling of crew rotations for up to 180 days on Space Station Freedom presents a special challenge for behavioral scientists who are tasked with providing psychological support for the crews, their families, and mission flight controllers. Preflight psychological support planning may minimize the negative impact of psychological and social issues on mission success, as well as assist NASA management in making real-time mission planning decisions in the event of a significant social event (for example, the death of a family member). During flight, the combined psychological, emotional, and social stressors on the astronauts must be monitored, along with other aspects of their health. The Health Maintenance Facility (HMF) will have the capability of providing preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic assistance for significant psychiatric and interpersonal problems which may develop. Psychological support will not end with the termination of the mission. Mental health professionals must be part of the team of medical personnel whose job will be to facilitate the transition—physical and mental—from the space environment back to planet Earth. This paper reviews each phase of mission planning for Space Station Freedom and specifies those factors that may be critical for psychological health maintenance on extended-duration space missions.

Patricia A Santy↗
NASA NTRS1995

Mission planning for the Lidar in Space Technology Experiment

Developing a mission planning system for a Space Shuttle mission is a complex procedure. Several months of preparation are required to develop a plan that optimizes science return during the short operations time frame. Further complicating the scenario is the necessity to schedule around crew activities and other payloads which share Orbiter resources. SpaceTec, Inc. developed the mission planning system for the Lidar In Space Technology Experiment, or LITE, which flew on Space Shuttle mission STS-64 in September of 1994. SpaceTec used a combination of off-th-shelf and in-house developed software to analyze various mission scenarios both premission and real-time during the flight. From this analysis, SpaceTec developed a comprehensive mission plan that met the mission objectives.

Redifer, Matthew E.↗
NASA NTRS1999

The Aviation System Analysis Capability Air Carrier Cost-Benefit Model

To meet its objective of assisting the U.S. aviation industry with the technological challenges of the future, NASA must identify research areas that have the greatest potential for improving the operation of the air transportation system. Therefore, NASA is developing the ability to evaluate the potential impact of various advanced technologies. By thoroughly understanding the economic impact of advanced aviation technologies and by evaluating how the new technologies will be used in the integrated aviation system, NASA aims to balance its aeronautical research program and help speed the introduction of high-leverage technologies. To meet these objectives, NASA is building the Aviation System Analysis Capability (ASAC). NASA envisions ASAC primarily as a process for understanding and evaluating the impact of advanced aviation technologies on the U.S. economy. ASAC consists of a diverse collection of models and databases used by analysts and other individuals from the public and private sectors brought together to work on issues of common interest to organizations in the aviation community. ASAC also will be a resource available to the aviation community to analyze; inform; and assist scientists, engineers, analysts, and program managers in their daily work. The ASAC differs from previous NASA modeling efforts in that the economic behavior of buyers and sellers in the air transportation and aviation industries is central to its conception. Commercial air carriers, in particular, are an important stakeholder in this community. Therefore, to fully evaluate the implications of advanced aviation technologies, ASAC requires a flexible financial analysis tool that credibly links the technology of flight with the financial performance of commercial air carriers. By linking technical and financial information, NASA ensures that its technology programs will continue to benefit the user community. In addition, the analysis tool must be capable of being incorporated into the wide-ranging suite of economic and technical models that comprise ASAC. This report describes an Air Carrier Cost-Benefit Model (CBM) that meets these requirements. The ASAC CBM is distinguished from many of the aviation cost-benefit models by its exclusive focus on commercial air carriers. The model considers such benefit categories as time and fuel savings, utilization opportunities, reliability and capacity enhancements, and safety and security improvements. The model distinguishes between benefits that are predictable and those that occur randomly. By making such a distinction, the model captures the ability of air carriers to reoptimize scheduling and crew assignments for predictable benefits. In addition, the model incorporates a life-cycle cost module for new technology, which applies the costs of nonrecurring acquisitions, recurring maintenance and operation, and training to each aircraft equipment type independently.

Gaier, Eric M.↗