Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “VOs”

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 91 records · Page 5

Metabolic Costs and Biomechanics of Inclined Ambulation and Exploration Tasks in a Planetary Suit

Observations from Apollo lunar surface extravehicular activities (EVAs) and a few studies conducted in partial-gravity simulation environments have helped us understand suited human performance in reduced-gravity environments. The Constellation Program EVA Systems Project Office initiated a series of tests aimed at increasing our understanding of human performance and suit kinematics under various simulated lunar EVA conditions, including matched unsuited controls, to identify the specific metabolic costs and biomechanics of the prototype Mark III Advanced Spacesuit Technology Demonstrator. A primary goal of the series is to provide evidence-based recommendations for suit mass, center of gravity, pressure, and suit kinematic constraints that optimize human performance in partial-gravity environments. Results will be combined with studies in other lunar analogs to evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of these environments. As our understanding of suited human performance matures, different combinations of variables can be evaluated to determine whether significant interactions exist between parameters. This report provides an overview of key findings of Integrated Suit Test (IST)-2. As future tests are completed, focusing on other suit factors, analog environments, or different suits, study results will be combined and reevaluated. The series of tests comprising IST-2 was conducted from June 13, 2007 through October 24, 2007.

Aerospace environments↗

Orion Capsule Handling Qualities for Atmospheric Entry

Two piloted simulations were conducted at NASA's Johnson Space Center using the Cooper-Harper scale to study the handling qualities of the Orion Command Module capsule during atmospheric entry flight. The simulations were conducted using high fidelity 6-DOF simulators for Lunar Return Skip Entry and International Space Station Return Direct Entry flight using bank angle steering commands generated by either the Primary (PredGuid) or Backup (PLM) guidance algorithms. For both evaluations, manual control of bank angle began after descending through Entry Interface into the atmosphere until drogue chutes deployment. Pilots were able to use defined bank management and reversal criteria to accurately track the bank angle commands, and stay within flight performance metrics of landing accuracy, g-loads, and propellant consumption, suggesting that the pilotability of Orion under manual control is both achievable and provides adequate trajectory performance with acceptable levels of pilot effort. Another significant result of these analyses is the applicability of flying a complex entry task under high speed entry flight conditions relevant to the next generation Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle return from Mars and Near Earth Objects.

Tigges, Michael A.↗

Orion Handling Qualities During ISS Proximity Operations and Docking

NASA's Orion spacecraft is designed to autonomously rendezvous and dock with many vehicles including the International Space Station. However, the crew is able to assume manual control of the vehicle s attitude and flight path. In these instances, Orion must meet handling qualities requirements established by NASA. Two handling qualities assessments were conducted at the Johnson Space Center to evaluate preliminary designs of the vehicle using a six degree of freedom, high-fidelity guidance, navigation, and control simulation. The first assessed Orion s handling qualities during the last 20 ft before docking, and included both steady and oscillatory motions of the docking target. The second focused on manual acquisition of the docking axis during the proximity operations phase and subsequent station-keeping. Cooper-Harper handling qualities ratings, workload ratings and comments were provided by 10 evaluation pilots for the docking study and 5 evaluation pilots for the proximity operations study. For the docking task, both cases received 90% Level 1 (satisfactory) handling qualities ratings, exceeding NASA s requirement. All ratings for the ProxOps task were Level 1. These evaluations indicate that Orion is on course to meet NASA's handling quality requirements for ProxOps and docking.

Stephens, John-Paul↗

Development of Human System Integration at NASA

Human Systems Integration seeks to design systems around the capabilities and limitations of the humans which use and interact with the system, ensuring greater efficiency of use, reduced error rates, and less rework in the design, manufacturing and operational deployment of hardware and software. One of the primary goals of HSI is to get the human factors practitioner involved early in the design process. In doing so, the aim is to reduce future budget costs and resources in redesign and training. By the preliminary design phase of a project nearly 80% of the total cost of the project is locked in. Potential design changes recommended by evaluations past this point will have little effect due to lack of funding or a huge cost in terms of resources to make changes. Three key concepts define an effective HSI program. First, systems are comprised of hardware, software, and the human, all of which operate within an environment. Too often, engineers and developers fail to consider the human capacity or requirements as part of the system. This leads to poor task allocation within the system. To promote ideal task allocation, it is critical that the human element be considered early in system development. Poor design, or designs that do not adequately consider the human component, could negatively affect physical or mental performance, as well as, social behavior. Second, successful HSI depends upon integration and collaboration of all the domains that represent acquisition efforts. Too often, these domains exist as independent disciplines due to the location of expertise within the service structure. Proper implementation of HSI through participation would help to integrate these domains and disciplines to leverage and apply their interdependencies to attain an optimal design. Via this process domain interests can be integrated to perform effective HSI through trade-offs and collaboration. This provides a common basis upon which to make knowledgeable decisions. Finally, HSI must be considered early in the requirements development phase of system design and acquisition. This will provide the best opportunity to maximize return on investment (ROI) and system performance. HSI requirements must be developed in conjunction with capability ]based requirements generation through functional. HSI requirements will drive HSI metrics and embed HSI issues within the system design. After a system is designed, implementation of HSI oversights can be very expensive. An HSI program should be included as an integral part of a total system approach to vehicle and habitat development. This would include, but not limited to, workstation design, D&C development, volumetric analysis, training, operations, and human -robotic interaction. HSI is a necessary process for Human Space Flight programs to meet the Agency Human ]System standards and thus mitigate human risks to acceptable levels. NASA has been involved in HSI planning, procedures development, process, and implementation for many years, and has been building several internal and publicly accessible products to facilitate HSI fs inclusion in the NASA Systems Engineering Lifecycle. Some of these products include: NASA STD 3001 Volumes 1 and 2, Human Integration Design Handbook, NASA HSI Implementation Plan, NASA HSI Implementation Plan Templates, NASA HSI Implementation Handbook, and a 2 ]hour short course on HSI delivered as part of the NASA Space and Life Sciences Directorate Academy. These products have been created leveraging industry best practices and lessons learned from other Federal Government agencies.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗

Evidence Report: Risk of Inadequate Human-Computer Interaction

Human-computer interaction (HCI) encompasses all the methods by which humans and computer-based systems communicate, share information, and accomplish tasks. When HCI is poorly designed, crews have difficulty entering, navigating, accessing, and understanding information. HCI has rarely been studied in an operational spaceflight context, and detailed performance data that would support evaluation of HCI have not been collected; thus, we draw much of our evidence from post-spaceflight crew comments, and from other safety-critical domains like ground-based power plants, and aviation. Additionally, there is a concern that any potential or real issues to date may have been masked by the fact that crews have near constant access to ground controllers, who monitor for errors, correct mistakes, and provide additional information needed to complete tasks. We do not know what types of HCI issues might arise without this "safety net". Exploration missions will test this concern, as crews may be operating autonomously due to communication delays and blackouts. Crew survival will be heavily dependent on available electronic information for just-in-time training, procedure execution, and vehicle or system maintenance; hence, the criticality of the Risk of Inadequate HCI. Future work must focus on identifying the most important contributing risk factors, evaluating their contribution to the overall risk, and developing appropriate mitigations. The Risk of Inadequate HCI includes eight core contributing factors based on the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS): (1) Requirements, policies, and design processes, (2) Information resources and support, (3) Allocation of attention, (4) Cognitive overload, (5) Environmentally induced perceptual changes, (6) Misperception and misinterpretation of displayed information, (7) Spatial disorientation, and (8) Displays and controls.

Kritina Holden↗

Proposed Objective Odor Control Test Methodology for Waste Containment

The Orion Cockpit Working Group has requested that an odor control testing methodology be proposed to evaluate the odor containment effectiveness of waste disposal bags to be flown on the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. As a standardized "odor containment" test does not appear to be a matter of record for the project, a new test method is being proposed. This method is based on existing test methods used in industrial hygiene for the evaluation of respirator fit in occupational settings, and takes into consideration peer reviewed documentation of human odor thresholds for standardized contaminates, industry stardnard atmostpheric testing methodologies, and established criteria for laboratory analysis. The proposed methodology is quantitative, though it can readily be complimented with a qualitative subjective assessment. Isoamyl acetate (IAA - also known at isopentyl acetate) is commonly used in respirator fit testing, and there are documented methodologies for both measuring its quantitative airborne concentrations. IAA is a clear, colorless liquid with a banana-like odor, documented detectable smell threshold for humans of 0.025 PPM, and a 15 PPB level of quantation limit.

Vos, Gordon↗

A Tool for the Automated Collection of Space Utilization Data: Three Dimensional Space Utilization Monitor

Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) Element within the Human Research Program (HRP), in collaboration with the Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Element, is conducting research regarding Net Habitable Volume (NHV), the internal volume within a spacecraft or habitat that is available to crew for required activities, as well as layout and accommodations within that volume. NASA is looking for innovative methods to unobtrusively collect NHV data without impacting crew time. Data required includes metrics such as location and orientation of crew, volume used to complete tasks, internal translation paths, flow of work, and task completion times. In less constrained environments methods for collecting such data exist yet many are obtrusive and require significant post‐processing. Example technologies used in terrestrial settings include infrared (IR) retro‐reflective marker based motion capture, GPS sensor tracking, inertial tracking, and multiple camera filmography. However due to constraints of space operations many such methods are infeasible, such as inertial tracking systems which typically rely upon a gravity vector to normalize sensor readings, and traditional IR systems which are large and require extensive calibration. However multiple technologies have not yet been applied to space operations for these explicit purposes. Two of these include 3‐Dimensional Radio Frequency Identification Real‐Time Localization Systems (3D RFID‐RTLS) and depth imaging systems which allow for 3D motion capture and volumetric scanning (such as those using IR‐depth cameras like the Microsoft Kinect or Light Detection and Ranging / Light‐Radar systems, referred to as LIDAR).

Vos, Gordon A.↗

A Tool for the Automated Collection of Space Utilization Data: Three Dimensional Space Utilization Monitor

Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) Element within the Human Research Program (HRP) and the Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Element are conducting research regarding Net Habitable Volume (NHV), the internal volume within a spacecraft or habitat that is available to crew for required activities, as well as layout and accommodations within the volume. NASA needs methods to unobtrusively collect NHV data without impacting crew time. Data required includes metrics such as location and orientation of crew, volume used to complete tasks, internal translation paths, flow of work, and task completion times. In less constrained environments methods exist yet many are obtrusive and require significant post-processing. Examplesused in terrestrial settings include infrared (IR) retro-reflective marker based motion capture, GPS sensor tracking, inertial tracking, and multi-camera methods Due to constraints of space operations many such methods are infeasible. Inertial tracking systems typically rely upon a gravity vector to normalize sensor readings,and traditional IR systems are large and require extensive calibration. However, multiple technologies have not been applied to space operations for these purposes. Two of these include: 3D Radio Frequency Identification Real-Time Localization Systems (3D RFID-RTLS) Depth imaging systems which allow for 3D motion capture and volumetric scanning (such as those using IR-depth cameras like the Microsoft Kinect or Light Detection and Ranging / Light-Radar systems, referred to as LIDAR)

Vos, Gordon A.↗

The 2015-2016 SEPMAP Program at NASA JSC: Science, Engineering, and Program Management Training

The Systems Engineering Project Management Advancement Program (SEPMAP) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is an employee development program designed to provide graduate level training in project management and systems engineering. The program includes an applied learning project with engineering and integrated science goals requirements. The teams were presented with a task: Collect a representative sample set from a field site using a hexacopter platform, as if performing a scientific reconnaissance to assess whether the site is of sufficient scientific interest to justify exploration by astronauts. Four teams worked through the eighteen-month course to design customized sampling payloads integrated with the hexacopter, and then operate the aircraft to meet sampling requirements of number (≥ 5) and mass (≥ 5g each). The "Mars Yard" at JSC was utilized for this purpose. This project activity closely parallels NASA plans for the future exploration of Mars, where remote sites will be reconnoitered ahead of crewed exploration.

Graham, L.↗

A search for variability in exoplanet analogues and low-gravity brown dwarfs

We report the results of a J-band survey for photometric variability in a sample of young, low-gravity objects using the New Technology Telescope (NTT) and the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT). Surface gravity is a key parameter in the atmospheric properties of brown dwarfs and this is the first large survey that aims to test the gravity dependence of variability properties. We do a full analysis of the spectral signatures of youth and assess the group membership probability of each target using membership tools from the literature. This results in a 30 object sample of young low-gravity brown dwarfs. Since we are lacking in objects with spectral types later than L9, we focus our statistical analysis on the L0–L8.5 objects. We find that the variability occurrence rate of L0–L8.5 low-gravity brown dwarfs in this survey is 30(+16,−8) per cent⁠. We reanalyse the results of Radigan (2014) and find that the field dwarfs with spectral types L0–L8.5 have a variability occurrence rate of 11(+13,−4) per cent⁠. We determine a probability of 98 per cent that the samples are drawn from different distributions. This is the first quantitative indication that the low-gravity objects are more likely to be variable than the field dwarf population. Furthermore, we present follow-up J(S) and K(S) observations of the young, planetary-mass variable object PSO 318.5–22 over three consecutive nights. We find no evidence of phase shifts between the J(S) and K(S) bands and find higher J(S) amplitudes. We use the J(S) light curves to measure a rotational period of 8.45 ± 0.05 h for PSO 318.5–22.

Johanna M. Vos↗

NASA’s Identified Risks of Adverse Outcomes Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture in Human Spaceflight

The NASA Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has the overall responsibility for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks that it has identified to be associated with human spaceflight. As part of this process, the Board is charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to mitigate those risks, and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. One of the identified risks is due to inadequate human systems integration architecture (HSIA) and a driving factor of this risk is that given decreasing real-time ground support for execution of complex operations during future exploration missions, there is a possibility of adverse performance outcomes including that crew are unable to adequately respond to unanticipated critical malfunctions or detect safety critical procedural errors. The HSRB uses Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) as a communication tool for describing how astronaut exposure to spaceflight hazards leads to meaningful mission-level health and performance outcomes and as the basis for understanding intermediate causal relationships between risk contributing factors and countermeasures that link hazards to outcomes. The HSIA risk DAG will be presented and described. Historically, critical malfunctions requiring Crew/MCC management occurred at a rate of 1.7 times per year for ISS averaged over the lifetime and 3-4 times per year in the burn in phase for the vehicle. These averages do not include EVA data, which greatly increases the incident rate. Prior experience from the Apollo program showed 10/11 crewed missions experienced significant anomalies where crew relied heavily on MCC expertise in real-time. These failure patterns are in line with those observed in other complex engineered systems (e.g., oil rigs, launch systems, commercial aviation, etc.) It is likely that general malfunction and error rates are > 10% for short duration missions (<30 days), based on past and current spaceflight operations data. Likelihood of adverse outcomes has the potential to increase as crew conduct work with new, complex systems and with less ground support. For Low Earth Orbit missions and Lunar missions less than 30 days, assuming minimal comm delays, disruptions and bandwidth limitations, malfunctions and errors can affect mission objectives and crew health but may be mitigated by ground support. For Lunar missions greater than 30 days and any potential Mars mission malfunctions and errors can have Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission consequences due to reduced ground support (communication delays, constraints and blackouts) for more complex operations, as well as reduced resupply and evacuation options.

Daniel M Buckland↗

Human-in-the-Loop Evaluations: Process and Mockup Fidelity

Human-in-the-loop (HITL) evaluations are iterative events used during design and development to identify issues with the implementation of human systems integration. HITL evaluations involve human test subjects who are user-representative participants performing activities with representative hardware, software, and procedures. The paper will describe the process by which HITL evaluations can be implemented in a program or project. This will include definitions for developmental and verification HITL evaluations, levels of mockup fidelity, and certification of HITL articles. The proposed process can be tailored depending on the type of HITL evaluation being conducted. It is highly recommended that findings are timely reported and incorporated in the hardware and/or software design.

Jackelynne Silva-Martinez↗

NASA's Identified Risk of Adverse Outcomes due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture

The NASA Human System Risk Board (HSRB) is responsible for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks identified to be associated with human spaceflight. As part of this process, the Board is charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to evaluate those risks and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. Risks are ranked by likelihood and consequence. Intermediate causal relationships between risk contributing factors and countermeasures that link hazards to outcomes are described using Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs). The DAGs are also useful for identifying common factors and countermeasures across the top 30 risks as well as communicating how astronaut exposure to spaceflight hazards leads to meaningful mission-level health and performance outcomes. One of the top risks tracked by the HSRB is The Risk of Adverse Outcomes Due to Inadequate Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA). This risk captures the possibility that due to decreasing real-time ground support during missions beyond LEO, crew will be unable to adequately respond to unanticipated critical malfunctions or detect safety-critical procedural errors. The HSIA risk is ranked red (high) for Lunar surface and Mars missions due to the probability of Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission consequences. This paper describes the evidence that supports the HSIA risk ranking and presents the central narrative of the HSIA risk DAG-- i.e., anomaly detection, diagnosis, intervention, and task performance. Characterizations of the current state of practice for each of the DAG’s central nodes and the future tools needed for successful anomaly response are provided.

human-systems integration architecture↗

Developing a Motion-Based System for Lunar Vehicle Handling Qualities Testing

— Motion and visual cue influences are critical in any simulator system, as they impact multiple aspects of the human’s neurovestibular and visual systems. Cues of real motion proceeds to the brain before cues of visual change. It is important therefore for simulator motion cues to exist and to match those realistically with those of the real vehicle to provide transferable training of the activity for operations. The United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine (1989)[1] stated that motion platforms are the only simulation devices capable of fully stimulating the body motion sensors. They confirmed that motion platforms can impart accelerations to the whole body and therefore exercise the automatic motion feedback-loop that operators are used to. With both visual and motion cues handling the vehicle becomes more realistic. Strachan (2019)[1] confirms motion cueing from a well set-up motion platform has been found to be important especially in conditions such as night or reduced visibility where motion cues may be more relied upon. As of this writing, the only lunar rover motion simulator is housed at the General Motors (GM) Milford Proving Ground, which only simulates the motions of a traditional car. A NASA Test Team proposed to complete a motion-based simulation system for NASA’s Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) which resides at Johnson Space Center’s Systems Engineering Simulator facility. This activity integrated existing fixed base simulation capabilities with a newly procured six-degree of freedom motion base platform for the design, development, evaluation, and training associated with the LTV project. This would incorporate a South Pole Lunar virtual reality simulation using Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 5m/pixel high-resolution imagery and Unreal 5.2 Virtual Shadow Maps, combined with a virtual reality (VR) headset, integrated within a rover cockpit on a Mikrolar Motion Platform for evaluating human performance and vehicle handling qualities for concept roving vehicle designs. The motion-based system received its Human Rating Certification on March 2023. To begin testing the new facility, a preliminary handling qualities study was conducted. The objectives were to determine if there is a correlation amongst three handling quality methods of performance for a lunar vehicle and to understand the effects of a simulated 1/6-g loads and visuals with a motion platform on the operator while in a 1-g physical environment. The capability this system provides directly benefits the NASA’s Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program and NASA’s Flight Operations Directorate in evaluating the driving qualities of vehicle concepts, human performance related to the operating of a lunar surface vehicle, and assessment of suit related driving impacts. It would also provide direct operational benefit by providing a first-in class and unique simulation platform for the lunar astronaut training curriculum. The empirical knowledge of rover and human performance on this scale is paramount as there is currently no other lunar surface simulator with these capabilities. The result of this study ensures a broadly applicable method of testing for shirtsleeve, unpressurized and pressurized suited rover handling qualities.

Test Track↗

Lunar Rover Motion-Based Simulation System

Our team developed a motion-based simulation system for lunar terrain vehicles which resides at Johnson Space Center’s Systems Engineering Simulator (SES) facility. This activity integrates existing fixed base simulation capabilities with a newly procured motion base platform for the design, development, evaluation, and training associated with lunar terrain vehicles. This incorporates a South Pole Lunar virtual reality simulation, combined with a pair of VR headsets, integrated within a rover cockpit on a motion platform for evaluating human performance and vehicle handling qualities for concept roving vehicle designs for surface mobility operations.

Motion-Based↗

NASA's Center Innovation Fund (CIF) Internal Research and Development (IRAD) Handling Qualities Study on the Mikrolar Motion Platform Test Report

In order to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Extravehicular Activity and Surface Mobility Program (EHP), system engineers, designers, and researchers embarked on a yearlong challenge to develop a new lunar rover-based motion table simulator to study handling qualities of lunar rovers in the lunar South Pole region, support development research for any lunar rover vendor, and provide a lunar training capability for future lunar/planetary astronauts. In 1989, the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine (RAF-IAM) stated that motion platforms are the only simulation devices capable of fully stimulating the body motion sensors. They confirmed that motion platforms can impart accelerations to the whole body and therefore exercise the automatic motion feedback-loop that operators are used to. With both visual and motion cues handling the vehicle becomes more realistic. Strachan (2019) con-firms motion cueing from a well set-up motion platform has been found to be important especially in conditions such as night or reduced visibility where motion cues may be more relied upon

Motion Table↗