Results for “Human System” — Page 52

NASA NTRS2010

Risk as a Driver for Innovation

The Space Life Sciences directorate (SLSD) and Human Research Program (HRP) at NASA Johnson Space Center has implemented a system for managing human systems risks. These risks are defined as the health and performance risks posed to crew during and after spaceflight. Identification and evaluation of these risks has led to the identification of gaps in knowledge about the risks as well as gaps in technology needed to mitigate them. Traditional routes of closing technology gaps have, in some cases, proven to be too slow when a solution was required quickly. Therefore, certain gaps were used to drive the development of "challenges" for the scientific community. Partnering with open innovation service providers such as InnoCentive and Yet2.com, SLSD and HRP have decreased the amount of time from identification of a need to the evaluation of a solution. Although not all proposed solutions will result in a risk mitigation strategy or tool, the process has allowed faster evaluation of proposed solutions providing the researcher the ability to move to another possible solution if the first does not sufficiently address the problem. Moreover, this process engages the community outside of NASA and broadens the population from which to draw solutions. In the traditional grant funding structure, only those in the specific field will apply for the grant. However, using open innovation, solutions can come from individuals in many different fields. This can expand the general view of a field (way of thinking within a field) and the application of solutions form new fields while providing a pathway for the acquisition of novel solutions or refinements of current mitigations. Identification of the human systems risks has helped drive the development and evaluation of innovative solutions as well as engaging a broader scientific audience in working with NASA.

Davis, Jeff↗

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Crew Launch Vehicle Approach Builds on Lessons from Past and Present Missions

The United States Vision for Space Exploration, announced in January 2004, outlines the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) strategic goals and objectives, including retiring the Space Shuttle and replacing it with a new human-rated system suitable for missions to the Moon and Mars. The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that the new Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) lofts into space early next decade will initially ferry astronauts to the International Space Station and be capable of carrying crews back to lunar orbit and of supporting missions to Mars orbit. NASA is using its extensive experience gained from past and ongoing launch vehicle programs to maximize the CLV system design approach, with the objective of reducing total lifecycle costs through operational efficiencies. To provide in-depth data for selecting this follow-on launch vehicle, the Exploration Systems Architecture Study was conducted during the summer of 2005, following the confirmation of the new NASA Administrator. A team of aerospace subject matter experts used technical, budget, and schedule objectives to analyze a number of potential launch systems, with a focus on human rating for exploration missions. The results showed that a variant of the Space Shuttle, utilizing the reusable Solid Rocket Booster as the first stage, along with a new upper stage that uses a derivative of the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine to deliver 25 metric tons to low-Earth orbit, was the best choice to reduce the risks associated with fielding a new system in a timely manner. The CLV Project, managed by the Exploration Launch Office located at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, is leading the design, development, testing, and operation of this new human-rated system. The CLV Project works closely with the Space Shuttle Program to transition hardware, infrastructure, and workforce assets to the new launch system . leveraging a wealth of lessons learned from Shuttle operations. The CL V is being designed to reduce costs through a number of methods, ranging from validating requirements to conducting trades studies against the concept design. Innovations such as automated processing will build on lessons learned from the Shuttle, other launch systems, Department of Defense operations experience, and subscale flight tests such as the Delta Clipper-Experimental Advanced (DCXA) vehicle operations that utilized minimal touch labor, automated cryogen ic propellant loading , and an 8-hour turnaround for a cryogenic propulsion system. For the CLV, the results of hazard analyses are contributing to an integrated vehicle health monitoring system that will troubleshoot anomalies and determine which ones can be solved without human intervention. Such advances will help streamline the mission operations process for pilots and ground controllers alike. In fiscal year 2005, NASA invested approximately $4.5 billion of its $16 bill ion budget on the Space Shuttle. The ultimate goal of the CLV Project is to deliver a safe, reliable system designed to minimize lifecycle costs so that NASA's budget can be invested in missions of scientific discovery. Lessons learned from developing the CLV will be applied to the growth path for future systems, including a heavy lift launch vehicle.

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗

NASA NTRS1982

An evaluation of NASA's program in human factors research: Aircrew-vehicle system interaction

Research in human factors in the aircraft cockpit and a proposed program augmentation were reviewed. The dramatic growth of microprocessor technology makes it entirely feasible to automate increasingly more functions in the aircraft cockpit; the promise of improved vehicle performance, efficiency, and safety through automation makes highly automated flight inevitable. An organized data base and validated methodology for predicting the effects of automation on human performance and thus on safety are lacking and without such a data base and validated methodology for analyzing human performance, increased automation may introduce new risks. Efforts should be concentrated on developing methods and techniques for analyzing man machine interactions, including human workload and prediction of performance.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1966

Human decision-making in manual control systems

Model to describe human decision making in manual control systems

DECISION MAKING↗

NASA NTRS2012

Evaluating Models of Human Performance: Safety-Critical Systems Applications

This presentation is part of panel discussion on Evaluating Models of Human Performance. The purpose of this panel is to discuss the increasing use of models in the world today and specifically focus on how to describe and evaluate models of human performance. My presentation will focus on discussions of generating distributions of performance, and the evaluation of different strategies for humans performing tasks with mixed initiative (Human-Automation) systems. I will also discuss issues with how to provide Human Performance modeling data to support decisions on acceptability and tradeoffs in the design of safety critical systems. I will conclude with challenges for the future.

Feary, Michael S.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Human Lunar Landing Strategy

In early 2020, NASA's Human Landing System Program made awards to a set of American companies to compete for the design, delivery and demonstration of an integrated human landing system to land the next Americans near the South Pole of the Moon by 2024. Awards were made utilizing the NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement procurement mechanism and kicked off a seven-month Certification Baseline Review, leading up to a Continuation Review and possible down-select by NASA at the end of 2020. This paper discusses the work that has been done thus far for the rapid development of a human landing system to safely carry the first woman and the next man to the lunar surface. It will also provide a preview of the work that remains ahead for the program. Keywords: Artemis, Human Landing System, Mars, Moon, Propulsion

Lisa Watson-Morgan↗

DOE OSTI2023

Review of quantitative methods to assess impacts of changing climate and socioeconomic conditions on Arctic transportation systems

Rapid climate and socioeconomic changes are transforming Arctic human- Earth systems. An integral part of these systems is mobility, which encompasses the transport of humans and goods into, out of, and between Arctic regions. Impacts of climate and socioeconomic drivers on Arctic mobility are heterogenous. Methodologies are needed to quantify these impacts in measures that can be linked with broader socioeconomic systems. This article reviews existing such methods and organizes them into a conceptual framework to understand trends and gaps in the literature. We found methods quantifying impacts of a range of climate drivers on most transportation modes present in the Arctic, but few methods focused on socioeconomic drivers. Also underrepresented were methods explicitly considering adaptive capacity of transportation systems. In conclusion, we provide insight into the data and relationships relevant to understanding impacts of Arctic change on transportation systems and how these impacts fit into broader human- Earth systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2016

HESTIA Phase I Test Results: The Air Revitalization System

In any human spaceflight mission, a number of Environmental Control & Life Support System (ECLSS) technologies work together to provide the conditions astronauts need to live healthily, productively, and comfortably in space. In a long-duration mission, many of these ECLSS technologies may use materials supplied by In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), introducing more interactions between systems. The Human Exploration Spacecraft Test-bed for Integration & Advancement (HESTIA) Project aims to create a test-bed to evaluate ECLSS and ISRU technologies and how they interact in a high-fidelity, closed-loop, human-rated analog habitat. Air purity and conditioning are essential components within any ECLSS and for HESTIA's first test they were achieved with the Air Revitalization System (ARS) described below. The ARS provided four essential functions to the test-bed chamber: cooling the air, removing humidity from the air, removing trace contaminants, and scrubbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. In this case, the oxygen supply function was provided by ISRU. In the current configuration, the ARS is a collection of different subsystems. A fan circulates the air, while a condensing heat exchanger (CHX) pulls humidity out of the air. A Trace Contaminant Removal System (TCRS) filters the air of potentially harmful contaminants. Lastly, a Reactive Plastic Lithium Hydroxide (RP-LiOH) unit removes CO2 from the breathing air. During the HESTIA Phase I test in September 2015, the ARS and its individual components each functioned as expected, although further analysis is underway. During the Phase I testing and in prior bench-top tests, the energy balance of heat removed by the CHX was not equal to the cooling it received. This indicated possible instrument error and therefore recalibration of the instruments and follow-up testing is planned in 2016 to address the issue. The ARS was tested in conjunction with two other systems: the Human Metabolic Simulator (HMS) and the Electrolyzer. They behaved as anticipated as well. The HMS added humidity, CO2, and heat to the chamber while removing oxygen, and the Electrolyzer (an ISRU technology) added oxygen. The objective for HESTIA in 2015 was achieved: the creation of a high-fidelity test-bed for ECLSS and ISRU technologies. With the 'backbone' technologies installed, more technologies will be added to increase the analog habitat's fidelity over the next few years. The ARS was designed with this in mind, and as new technologies develop and mature, the strategic installation of the existing components will allow for them to be replaced with the new technologies.

Wright, Sarah E.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

The space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 represents the second integrated prototype developed and tested to mature a design that uses advanced technologies to reduce consumables, improve robustness, and provide additional capabilities over the current state of the art. PLSS 2.0 was developed in 2012, with extensive functional evaluations and system performance testing through mid-2014. In late 2014, PLSS 2.0 was integrated with the Mark III space suit in an ambient laboratory environment to facilitate manned testing, designated PLSS 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) testing, in which the PLSS prototype performed the primary life support functions, including suit pressure regulation, ventilation, carbon dioxide control, and cooling of the test subject and PLSS avionics. The intent of this testing was to obtain subjective test subject feedback regarding qualitative aspects of PLSS 2.0 performance such as thermal comfort, sounds, smells, and suit pressure fluctuations due to the cycling carbon dioxide removal system, as well as to collect PLSS performance data over a range of human metabolic rates from 500-3000 Btu/hr. Between October 27 and December 18, 2014, nineteen two-hour simulated EVA test points were conducted in which suited test subjects walked on a treadmill to achieve a target metabolic rate. Six test subjects simulated nominal and emergency EVA conditions with varied test parameters including metabolic rate profile, carbon dioxide removal control mode, cooling water temperature, and Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment (state of the art or prototype). The nineteen test points achieved more than 60 hours of test time, with 36 hours accounting for simulated EVA time. The PLSS 2.0 test article performed nominally throughout the test series, confirming design intentions for the advanced PLSS. Test subjects' subjective feedback provided valuable insight into thermal comfort and perceptions of suit pressure fluctuations that will influence future advanced PLSS design and testing strategies.

Watts, Carly↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

The space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 represents the second integrated prototype developed and tested to mature a design that uses advanced technologies to reduce consumables, improve robustness, and provide additional capabilities over the current state of the art. PLSS 2.0 was developed in 2012, with extensive functional evaluations and system performance testing through mid-2014. In late 2014, PLSS 2.0 was integrated with the Mark III space suit in an ambient laboratory environment to facilitate manned testing, designated PLSS 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) testing, in which the PLSS prototype performed the primary life support functions, including suit pressure regulation, ventilation, carbon dioxide control, and cooling of the test subject and PLSS avionics. The intent of this testing was to obtain subjective test subject feedback regarding qualitative aspects of PLSS 2.0 performance such as thermal comfort, sounds, smells, and suit pressure fluctuations due to the cycling carbon dioxide removal system, as well as to collect PLSS performance data over a range of human metabolic rates from 500-3000 Btu/hr. Between October 27 and December 18, 2014, nineteen two-hour simulated EVA test points were conducted in which suited test subjects walked on a treadmill to achieve a target metabolic rate. Six test subjects simulated nominal and emergency EVA conditions with varied test parameters including metabolic rate profile, carbon dioxide removal control mode, cooling water temperature, and Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment (state of the art or prototype). The nineteen test points achieved more than 60 hours of test time, with 36 hours accounting for simulated EVA time. The PLSS 2.0 test article performed nominally throughout the test series, confirming design intentions for the advanced PLSS. Test subjects' subjective feedback provided valuable insight into thermal comfort and perceptions of suit pressure fluctuations that will influence future advanced PLSS design and testing strategies.

Watts, Carly↗

NASA NTRS1995

Designing Flight-Deck Procedures

A complex human-machine system consists of more than merely one or more human operators and a collection of hardware components. In order to operate a complex system successfully, the human-machine system must be supported by an organizational infrastructure of operating concepts, rules, guidelines, and documents. The coherency of such operating concepts, in terms of consistency and logic, is vitally important for the efficiency and safety of any complex system. In high-risk endeavors such as aircraft operations, space flight, nuclear power production, manufacturing process control, and military operations, it is essential that such support be flawless, as the price of operational error can be high. When operating rules are not adhered to, or the rules are inadequate for the task at hand, not only will the system's goals be thwarted, but there may also be tragic human and material consequences. To ensure safe and predictable operations, support to the operators, in this case flight crews, often comes in the form of standard operating procedures. These provide the crew with step-by-step guidance for carrying out their operations. Standard procedures do indeed promote uniformity, but they do so at the risk of reducing the role of human operators to a lower level. Management, however, must recognize the danger of over-procedurization, which fails to exploit one of the most valuable assets in the system, the intelligent operator who is "on the scene." The alert system designer and operations manager recognize that there cannot be a procedure for everything, and the time will come in which the operators of a complex system will face a situation for which there is no written procedure. Procedures, whether executed by humans or machines, have their place, but so does human cognition.

Degani, Asaf↗

NASA NTRS1984

Effects of External Loads on Human Head Movement Control Systems

The central and reflexive control strategies underlying movements were elucidated by studying the effects of external loads on human head movement control systems. Some experimental results are presented on dynamic changes weigh the addition of aviation helmet (SPH4) and lead weights (6 kg). Intended time-optimal movements, their dynamics and electromyographic activity of neck muscles in normal movements, and also in movements made with external weights applied to the head were measured. It was observed that, when the external loads were added, the subject went through complex adapting processes and the head movement trajectory and its derivatives reached steady conditions only after transient adapting period. The steady adapted state was reached after 15 to 20 seconds (i.e., 5 to 6 movements).

Nam, M. H.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Human Factors Engineering as a System in the Vision for Exploration

In order to accomplish NASA's Vision for Exploration, while assuring crew safety and productivity, human performance issues must be well integrated into system design from mission conception. To that end, a two-year Technology Development Project (TDP) was funded by NASA Headquarters to develop a systematic method for including the human as a system in NASA's Vision for Exploration. The specific goals of this project are to review current Human Systems Integration (HSI) standards (i.e., industry, military, NASA) and tailor them to selected NASA Exploration activities. Once the methods are proven in the selected domains, a plan will be developed to expand the effort to a wider scope of Exploration activities. The methods will be documented for inclusion in NASA-specific documents (such as the Human Systems Integration Standards, NASA-STD-3000) to be used in future space systems. The current project builds on a previous TDP dealing with Human Factors Engineering processes. That project identified the key phases of the current NASA design lifecycle, and outlined the recommended HFE activities that should be incorporated at each phase. The project also resulted in a prototype of a webbased HFE process tool that could be used to support an ideal HFE development process at NASA. This will help to augment the limited human factors resources available by providing a web-based tool that explains the importance of human factors, teaches a recommended process, and then provides the instructions, templates and examples to carry out the process steps. The HFE activities identified by the previous TDP are being tested in situ for the current effort through support to a specific NASA Exploration activity. Currently, HFE personnel are working with systems engineering personnel to identify HSI impacts for lunar exploration by facilitating the generation of system-level Concepts of Operations (ConOps). For example, medical operations scenarios have been generated for lunar habitation in order to identify HSI requirements for the lunar communications architecture. Throughout these ConOps exercises, HFE personnel are testing various tools and methodologies that have been identified in the literature. A key part of the effort is the identification of optimal processes, methods, and tools for these early development phase activities, such as ConOps, requirements development, and early conceptual design. An overview of the activities completed thus far, as well as the tools and methods investigated will be presented.

Mihriban Whitmore↗

NASA NTRS2026

Designing a Propylene-Glycol Coolant Servicer System for Gateway’s Internal Active Thermal Control System

A human spacecraft ATCS—especially one using single-phase coolant loops exposed to cabin atmospheric conditions—requires periodic degassing and refilling to support long-duration missions of 15 to 30 years. During initial fill operations, system maintenance, gas permeation, and quick-disconnect mating or de-mating, small amounts of gas can gradually enter the coolant system over time. This can lead to degraded heat transfer performance, pump cavitation, and potentially pump vapor lock if a significant gas volume accumulates over time. Additionally, system leaks and routine fluid sampling can gradually reduce accumulator volumes to unacceptable levels, requiring periodic refills. In more severe cases, catastrophic changes in fluid composition may necessitate emergency draining, refilling, and degassing to ensure continued system functionality. These risks were identified and mitigated on the ISS ITCS through the development of a dual-membrane degasser ORU and a Fluid Servicer System ORU for coolant refilling. These systems were developed for the fully water-based ISS ITCS Coolant[1]. The Gateway space station, the first permanent human habitat in lunar orbit, uses a propylene-glycol/water coolant mixture, which has significantly different fluid properties compared to pure water. Because microgravity degassing technologies are sensitive to fluid surface tension and viscosity, existing ISS hardware is not suitable for servicing a propylene-glycol-based TCS. Unlike the ISS, the Gateway will operate in a higher-radiation environment and must meet stricter mass constraints due to its location outside of low earth orbit. This Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) flight hardware project aims to develop a lightweight, radiation-resistant Coolant Servicer System (CSS) capable of degassing and refilling Gateway’s propylene-glycol water-based IATCS.

Propylene Glycol Water↗

NASA NTRS2026

Designing a Propylene-Glycol Coolant Servicer System for Gateway’s Internal Active Thermal Control System

A human spacecraft ATCS—especially one using single-phase coolant loops exposed to cabin atmospheric conditions—requires periodic degassing and refilling to support long-duration missions of 15 to 30 years. During initial fill operations, system maintenance, gas permeation, and quick-disconnect mating or de-mating, small amounts of gas can gradually enter the coolant system over time. This can lead to degraded heat transfer performance, pump cavitation, and potentially pump vapor lock if a significant gas volume accumulates over time. Additionally, system leaks and routine fluid sampling can gradually reduce accumulator volumes to unacceptable levels, requiring periodic refills. In more severe cases, catastrophic changes in fluid composition may necessitate emergency draining, refilling, and degassing to ensure continued system functionality. These risks were identified and mitigated on the ISS ITCS through the development of a dual-membrane degasser ORU and a Fluid Servicer System ORU for coolant refilling. These systems were developed for the fully water-based ISS ITCS Coolant[1]. The Gateway space station, the first permanent human habitat in lunar orbit, uses a propylene-glycol/water coolant mixture, which has significantly different fluid properties compared to pure water. Because microgravity degassing technologies are sensitive to fluid surface tension and viscosity, existing ISS hardware is not suitable for servicing a propylene-glycol-based TCS. Unlike the ISS, the Gateway will operate in a higher-radiation environment and must meet stricter mass constraints due to its location outside of low earth orbit. This Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) flight hardware project aims to develop a lightweight, radiation-resistant Coolant Servicer System (CSS) capable of degassing and refilling Gateway’s propylene-glycol water-based IATCS.

Propylene Glycol Water↗

NASA NTRS2019

Challenges Using Linux as a Real-Time Operating System

Human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation groups at NASA and the Air Force Research Lab have been using Linux as a real-time operating system (RTOS) for over a decade. More recently, SpaceX has revealed that it is using Linux as an RTOS for its Falcon launch vehicles and Dragon capsules. As Linux makes its way from ground facilities to flight critical systems, it is necessary to recognize that the real-time capabilities in Linux are cobbled onto a kernel architecture designed for general purpose computing. The Linux kernel contain numerous design decisions that favor throughput over determinism and latency. These decisions often require workarounds in the application or customization of the kernel to restore a high probability that Linux will achieve deadlines.

Madden, Michael M.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Robotics

Lunar robotic functions include: 1. Transport of crew and payloads on the surface of the moon; 2. Offloading payloads from a lunar lander; 3. Handling the deployment of surface systems; with 4. Human commanding of these functions from inside a lunar vehicle, habitat, or extravehicular (space walk), with Earth-based supervision. The systems that will perform these functions may not look like robots from science fiction. In fact, robotic functions may be automated trucks, cranes and winches. Use of this equipment prior to the crew s arrival or in the potentially long periods without crews on the surface, will require that these systems be computer controlled machines. The public release of NASA's Exploration plans at the 2nd Space Exploration Conference (Houston, December 2006) included a lunar outpost with as many as four unique mobility chassis designs. The sequence of lander offloading tasks involved as many as ten payloads, each with a unique set of geometry, mass and interface requirements. This plan was refined during a second phase study concluded in August 2007. Among the many improvements to the exploration plan were a reduction in the number of unique mobility chassis designs and a reduction in unique payload specifications. As the lunar surface system payloads have matured, so have the mobility and offloading functional requirements. While the architecture work continues, the community can expect to see functional requirements in the areas of surface mobility, surface handling, and human-systems interaction as follows: Surface Mobility 1. Transport crew on the lunar surface, accelerating construction tasks, expanding the crew s sphere of influence for scientific exploration, and providing a rapid return to an ascent module in an emergency. The crew transport can be with an un-pressurized rover, a small pressurized rover, or a larger mobile habitat. 2. Transport Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) equipment and construction payloads. 3. Transport habitats and power modules over long distances, pre-positioning them for the arrival of crew on a subsequent lander. Surface Handling 1. Offload surface system payloads from the lander, breaking launch restraints and power/data connections. Payloads may be offloaded to a wheeled vehicle for transport. 2. Deploy payloads from a wheeled vehicle at a field site, placing the payloads in their final use site on the ground or mating them with existing surface systems. 3. Support regolith collection, site preparation, berm construction, or other civil engineering tasks using tools and implements attached to rovers. Human-Systems Interaction 1. Provide a safe command and control interface for suited EVA to ride on and drive the vehicles, making sure that the systems are also safe for working near dismounted crew. 2. Provide an effective control system for IV crew to tele-operate vehicles, cranes and other equipment from inside the surface habitats with evolving independence from Earth. .. Provide a supervisory system that allows machines to be commanded from the ground, working across the Earth-Lunar time delays on the order of 5-10 seconds (round trip) to support operations when crew are not resident on the surface. Technology Development Needs 1. Surface vehicles that can dock, align and mate with outpost equipment such as landers, habitats and fluid/power interfaces. 2. Long life motors, drive trains, seals, motor electronics, sensors, processors, cable harnesses, and dash board displays. 3. Active suspension control, localization, high speed obstacle avoidance, and safety systems for operating near dismounted crew. 4. High specific energy and specific power batteries that are safe, rechargeable, and long lived.

Ambrose, Robert O.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Relating Standardized Visual Perception Measures to Simulator Visual System Performance

Human vision is quantified through the use of standardized clinical vision measurements. These measurements typically include visual acuity (near and far), contrast sensitivity, color vision, stereopsis (a.k.a. stereo acuity), and visual field periphery. Simulator visual system performance is specified in terms such as brightness, contrast, color depth, color gamut, gamma, resolution, and field-of-view. How do these simulator performance characteristics relate to the perceptual experience of the pilot in the simulator? In this paper, visual acuity and contrast sensitivity will be related to simulator visual system resolution, contrast, and dynamic range; similarly, color vision will be related to color depth/color gamut. Finally, we will consider how some characteristics of human vision not typically included in current clinical assessments could be used to better inform simulator requirements (e.g., relating dynamic characteristics of human vision to update rate and other temporal display characteristics).

Kaiser, Mary K.↗