Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Crew Performance”

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 991 records · Page 55
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2013

NASA's Commercial Crew Program, the Next Step in U.S. Space Transportation

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is leading NASA's efforts to develop the next U.S. capability for crew transportation and rescue services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) by the middecade timeframe. The outcome of this capability is expected to stimulate and expand the U.S. space transportation industry. NASA is relying on its decades of human space flight experience to certify U.S. crewed vehicles to the ISS and is doing so in a two phase certification approach. NASA certification will cover all aspects of a crew transportation system, including: Development, test, evaluation, and verification. Program management and control. Flight readiness certification. Launch, landing, recovery, and mission operations. Sustaining engineering and maintenance/upgrades. To ensure NASA crew safety, NASA certification will validate technical and performance requirements, verify compliance with NASA requirements, validate that the crew transportation system operates in the appropriate environments, and quantify residual risks. The Commercial Crew Program will present progress to date and how it manages safety and reduces risk.

Mango, Edward J., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Human Spaceflight Safety for the Next Generation on Orbital Space Systems

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Commercial Crew Program (CCP) has been chartered to facilitate the development of a United States (U.S.) commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, and cost effective access to and from low Earth orbit (LEO) and the International Space Station (ISS) as soon as possible. Once the capability is matured and is available to the Government and other customers, NASA expects to purchase commercial services to meet its ISS crew rotation and emergency return objectives. The primary role of the CCP is to enable and ensure safe human spaceflight and processes for the next generation of earth orbital space systems. The architecture of the Program delineates the process for investment performance in safe orbital systems, Crew Transportation System (CTS) certification, and CTS Flight Readiness. A series of six technical documents build up the architecture to address the top-level CTS requirements and standards. They include Design Reference Missions, with the near term focus on ISS crew services, Certification and Service Requirements, Technical Management Processes, and Technical and Operations Standards Evaluation Processes.

Mango, Edward J.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Plant Atrium System for Food Production in NASA's Deep Space Habitat Tests

Future human space exploration missions will need functional habitat systems. Possible concepts are assessed for integration issues, power requirements, crew operations, technology, and system performance. A food production system concept was analyzed at NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) in 2011, and at NASA JSC in 2012. System utilizes fresh foods (vegetables and small fruits) which are harvested on a continuous basis. Designed to improve crew's diet and quality of life without interfering with other components or operations.

Massa, Gioia D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
DOE OSTI2018

Toward a Synthetic Model for Distribution System Restoration and Crew Dispatch

Distribution service restoration (DSR) is critical for improving the resilience and reliability of modern distribution systems by strategically and sequentially energizing the system components and customer loads. Restoring electricity service to affected customers also requires multiple crews with different skill sets to perform multiple tasks that are procedurally interdependent with safety guaranteed. However, in existing DSR practices, switch operations and crew dispatch are scheduled separately, and their interdependence is not fully considered. As advanced technologies are enabling remote communication, control, and dispatch, utilities now desire an integrated DSR framework to achieve seamless coordination among multiple DSR tasks such as switch operation, crew dispatch, and component repair. In this paper, we introduce a synthetic model that integrates the service restoration model and the crew dispatch model based on a universal routing model. The proposed model can provide the estimated time of restoration for each load, the switching sequence for safely operating remotely/manually operated switches, and dispatch solutions for crews with different skill sets. The proposed synthetic model is formulated as a mixed-integer linear programming model, and its effectiveness is evaluated via the IEEE 123 bus test feeder and several large-scale test feeders (EPRI Ckt5, Ckt7, Ckt24, and IEEE 8500 node test feeder.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1993

A simulation system for Space Station extravehicular activity

America's next major step into space will be the construction of a permanently manned Space Station which is currently under development and scheduled for full operation in the mid-1990's. Most of the construction of the Space Station will be performed over several flights by suited crew members during an extravehicular activity (EVA) from the Space Shuttle. Once fully operational, EVA's will be performed from the Space Station on a routine basis to provide, among other services, maintenance and repair operations of satellites currently in Earth orbit. Both voice recognition and helmet-mounted display technologies can improve the productivity of workers in space by potentially reducing the time, risk, and cost involved in performing EVA. NASA has recognized this potential and is currently developing a voice-controlled information system for Space Station EVA. Two bench-model helmet-mounted displays and an EVA simulation program have been developed to demonstrate the functionality and practicality of the system.

Marmolejo, Jose A.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Quantifying Pilot Contribution to Flight Safety during Drive Shaft Failure

Accident statistics cite the flight crew as a causal factor in over 60% of large transport aircraft fatal accidents. Yet, a well-trained and well-qualified pilot is acknowledged as the critical center point of aircraft systems safety and an integral safety component of the entire commercial aviation system. The latter statement, while generally accepted, cannot be verified because little or no quantitative data exists on how and how many accidents/incidents are averted by crew actions. A joint NASA/FAA high-fidelity motion-base simulation experiment specifically addressed this void by collecting data to quantify the human (pilot) contribution to safety-of-flight and the methods they use in today's National Airspace System. A human-in-the-loop test was conducted using the FAA's Oklahoma City Flight Simulation Branch Level D-certified B-737-800 simulator to evaluate the pilot's contribution to safety-of-flight during routine air carrier flight operations and in response to aircraft system failures. These data are fundamental to and critical for the design and development of future increasingly autonomous systems that can better support the human in the cockpit. Eighteen U.S. airline crews flew various normal and non-normal procedures over a two-day period and their actions were recorded in response to failures. To quantify the human's contribution to safety of flight, crew complement was used as the experiment independent variable in a between-subjects design. Pilot actions and performance during single pilot and reduced crew operations were measured for comparison against the normal two-crew complement during normal and non-normal situations. This paper details the crew's actions, including decision-making, and responses while dealing with a drive shaft failure - one of 6 non-normal events that were simulated in this experiment.

Kramer, Lynda J.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Quantifying Pilot Contribution to Flight Safety During Dual Generator Failure

Accident statistics cite flight crew error in over 60% of accidents involving transport category aircraft. Yet, a well-trained and well-qualified pilot is acknowledged as the critical center point of aircraft systems safety and an integral safety component of the entire commercial aviation system. No data currently exists that quantifies the contribution of the flight crew in this role. Neither does data exist for how often the flight crew handles non-normal procedures or system failures on a daily basis in the National Airspace System. A pilot-in-the-loop high fidelity motion simulation study was conducted by the NASA Langley Research Center in partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to evaluate the pilot's contribution to flight safety during normal flight and in response to aircraft system failures. Eighteen crews flew various normal and non-normal procedures over a two-day period and their actions were recorded in response to failures. To quantify the human's contribution, crew complement was used as the experiment independent variable in a between-subjects design. Pilot actions and performance when one of the flight crew was unavailable were also recorded for comparison against the nominal two-crew operations. This paper details diversion decisions, perceived safety of flight, workload, time to complete pertinent checklists, and approach and landing results while dealing with a complete loss of electrical generators. Loss of electrical power requires pilots to complete the flight without automation support of autopilots, flight directors, or auto throttles. For reduced crew complements, the additional workload and perceived safety of flight was considered unacceptable.

Etherington, Timothy J.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Manned versus unmanned rendezvous and capture

Rendezvous and capture (docking) operations may be performed either automatically or under manual control. In cases where humans are far from the mission site, or high-bandwidth communications lines are not in place, automation is the only option. Such might be the case with unmanned missions to the moon or Mars that involve orbital docking or cargo transfer. In crewed situations where sensors, computation capabilities, and other necessary instrumentation are unavailable, manual control is the only alternative. Power, mass, cost, or other restrictions may limit the availability of the machinery required for an automated rendezvous and capture. The only occasions for which there is a choice about whether to use automated or manual control are those where the vehicle(s) have both the crew and instrumentation necessary to perform the mission either way. The following discussion will focus on the final approach or capture (docking) maneuver. The maneuvers required for long-range rendezvous operations are calculated by computers. It is almost irrelevant whether it is an astronaut, watching a count-down timer who pushes the button firing the thruster or whether the computer keeps track of the time and fires with the astronaut monitoring. The actual manual workload associated with a mission that may take as long as hours or days to perform is small. The workload per unit time increases tremendously during the final approach (docking) phase and this is where the issue of manual versus automatic is more important.

Brody, Adam R.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Effects of checklist interface on non-verbal crew communications

The investigation looked at the effects of the spatial layout and functionality of cockpit displays and controls on crew communication. Specifically, the study focused on the intra-cockpit crew interaction, and subsequent task performance, of airline pilots flying different configurations of a new electronic checklist, designed and tested in a high-fidelity simulator at NASA Ames Research Center. The first part of this proposal establishes the theoretical background for the assumptions underlying the research, suggesting that in the context of the interaction between a multi-operator crew and a machine, the design and configuration of the interface will affect interactions between individual operators and the machine, and subsequently, the interaction between operators. In view of the latest trends in cockpit interface design and flight-deck technology, in particular, the centralization of displays and controls, the introduction identifies certain problems associated with these modern designs and suggests specific design issues to which the expected results could be applied. A detailed research program and methodology is outlined and the results are described and discussed. Overall, differences in cockpit design were shown to impact the activity within the cockpit, including interactions between pilots and aircraft and the cooperative interactions between pilots.

Segal, Leon D.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Constellation Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA): Design Consideration for the Crew Exploration Vehicle

Managed by NASA's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, a pilot probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) of the NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) was performed in early 2006. The PRA methods used follow the general guidance provided in the NASA PRA Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners'. Phased-mission based event trees and fault trees are used to model a lunar sortie mission of the CEV - involving the following phases: launch of a cargo vessel and a crew vessel; rendezvous of these two vessels in low Earth orbit; transit to th$: moon; lunar surface activities; ascension &om the lunar surface; and return to Earth. The analysis is based upon assumptions, preliminary system diagrams, and failure data that may involve large uncertainties or may lack formal validation. Furthermore, some of the data used were based upon expert judgment or extrapolated from similar components~systemsT. his paper includes a discussion of the system-level models and provides an overview of the analysis results used to identify insights into CEV risk drivers, and trade and sensitivity studies. Lastly, the PRA model was used to determine changes in risk as the system configurations or key parameters are modified.

Prassinos, Peter G.↗
NASA NTRS2013

An Onboard ISS Virtual Reality Trainer

Prior to the retirement of the Space Shuttle, many exterior repairs on the International Space Station (ISS) were carried out by shuttle astronauts, trained on the ground and flown to the Station to perform these specific repairs. With the retirement of the shuttle, this is no longer an available option. As such, the need for ISS crew members to review scenarios while on flight, either for tasks they already trained for on the ground or for contingency operations has become a very critical issue. NASA astronauts prepare for Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVA) or Spacewalks through numerous training media, such as: self-study, part task training, underwater training in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL), hands-on hardware reviews and training at the Virtual Reality Laboratory (VRLab). In many situations, the time between the last session of a training and an EVA task might be 6 to 8 months. EVA tasks are critical for a mission and as time passes the crew members may lose proficiency on previously trained tasks and their options to refresh or learn a new skill while on flight are limited to reading training materials and watching videos. In addition, there is an increased need for unplanned contingency repairs to fix problems arising as the Station ages. In order to help the ISS crew members maintain EVA proficiency or train for contingency repairs during their mission, the Johnson Space Center's VRLab designed an immersive ISS Virtual Reality Trainer (VRT). The VRT incorporates a unique optical system that makes use of the already successful Dynamic On-board Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) software to assist crew members with procedure reviews and contingency EVAs while on board the Station. The need to train and re-train crew members for EVAs and contingency scenarios is crucial and extremely demanding. ISS crew members are now asked to perform EVA tasks for which they have not been trained and potentially have never seen before. The Virtual Reality Trainer (VRT) provides an immersive 3D environment similar to the one experienced at the VRLab crew training facility at the NASA Johnson Space Center. VRT bridges the gap by allowing crew members to experience an interactive, 3D environment to reinforce skills already learned and to explore new work sites and repair procedures outside the Station.

Miralles, Evelyn↗
NASA NTRS2000

Medical Training Issues and Skill Mix for Exploration Missions

The approach for treating in-flight medical events during exploration-class missions must reflect the need for an autonomous crew, and cannot be compared to current space flight therapeutic protocols. An exploration mission exposes the crew to periods of galactic cosmic radiation, isolation, confinement, and microgravity deconditioning far exceeding the low-Earth orbital missions performed to date. In addition, exploration crews will not be able to return to Earth at the onset of a medical event and will need to control the situation in-flight. Medical consultations with Earth-based physicians will be delayed as much as 40 minutes, dictating the need for a highly-trained medical team on board. This presentation will address the mix of crew medical skills and the training required for crew health care providers for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. Both low- and high-risk options for medical skill mix and preflight training will be compared.

Janney, R. P.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Next Gen One Portal Usability Evaluation

Each exercise device on the International Space Station (ISS) has a unique, customized software system interface with unique layouts / hierarchy, and operational principles that require significant crew training. Furthermore, the software programs are not adaptable and provide no real-time feedback or motivation to enhance the exercise experience and/or prevent injuries. Additionally, the graphical user interfaces (GUI) of these systems present information through multiple layers resulting in difficulty navigating to the desired screens and functions. These limitations of current exercise device GUI's lead to increased crew time spent on initiating, loading, performing exercises, logging data and exiting the system. To address these limitations a Next Generation One Portal (NextGen One Portal) Crew Countermeasure System (CMS) was developed, which utilizes the latest industry guidelines in GUI designs to provide an intuitive ease of use approach (i.e., 80% of the functionality gained within 5-10 minutes of initial use without/limited formal training required). This is accomplished by providing a consistent interface using common software to reduce crew training, increase efficiency & user satisfaction while also reducing development & maintenance costs. Results from the usability evaluations showed the NextGen One Portal UI having greater efficiency, learnability, memorability, usability and overall user experience than the current Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED) UI used by astronauts on ISS. Specifically, the design of the One-Portal UI as an app interface similar to those found on the Apple and Google's App Store, assisted many of the participants in grasping the concepts of the interface with minimum training. Although the NextGen One-Portal UI was shown to be an overall better interface, observations by the test facilitators noted specific exercise tasks appeared to have a significant impact on the NextGen One-Portal UI efficiency. Future updates to the NextGen One Portal UI will address these inefficiencies.

Cross, E. V., III↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Process Model of Interpersonal Relationship Formation in Isolated and Confined Environments

Future space crews will face several challenges such as living and working in a confined environment, isolated from others. These circumstances increase the importance of interpersonal compatibility, teamwork, and team performance. The interpersonal compatibility of space crews has been and continues to be of interest to both NASA and the Institute of Biomedical Problems (IBMP), whose research informs operations for Roscosmos. In NASA-sponsored research, interpersonal compatibility has been examined in terms of how the combination of team members’ personality traits, values, and demographics shape team member relationships and team performance overtime. IBMP-sponsored research mostly has moved away from trait-based approaches toward an idiographic (in-depth, heavily descriptive) approach to researching crew interpersonal relations. This research uses software such as Personal Self-Perception and Attitudes (PSPA), network approaches to team member relations, and content analysis of interactions to assess interpersonal compatibility, and infer states and team dynamics. Our research program integrated these ideas. Our primary research aim was to develop and empirically test a process model of interpersonal relationship formation in isolated and confinement environments. We created a model, collected data from teams in an isolated and confined environment, and applied a novel analytical strategy that combines trait, state, and interaction data (i.e., relational events). We focused specifically on the formation of strained relationships in isolation and confinement—or with whom fellow crewmembers find it difficult to work.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRS2009

Human Factors Assessment of Vibration Effects on Visual Performance During Launch

The Human Factors Assessment of Vibration Effects on Visual Performance During Launch (Visual Performance) investigation will determine visual performance limits during operational vibration and g-loads on the Space Shuttle, specifically through the determination of minimum readable font size during ascent using planned Orion display formats. Research Summary: The aim of the Human Factors Assessment of Vibration Effects on Visual Performance during Launch (Visual Performance) investigation is to provide supplementary data to that collected by the Thrust Oscillation Seat Detailed Technical Objective (DTO) 695 (Crew Seat DTO) which will measure seat acceleration and vibration from one flight deck and two middeck seats during ascent. While the Crew Seat DTO data alone are important in terms of providing a measure of vibration and g-loading, human performance data are required to fully interpret the operational consequences of the vibration values collected during Space Shuttle ascent. During launch, crewmembers will be requested to view placards with varying font sizes and indicate the minimum readable size. In combination with the Crew Seat DTO, the Visual Performance investigation will: Provide flight-validated evidence that will be used to establish vibration limits for visual performance during combined vibration and linear g-loading. o Provide flight data as inputs to ongoing ground-based simulations, which will further validate crew visual performance under vibration loading in a controlled environment. o Provide vibration and performance metrics to help validate procedures for ground tests and analyses of seats, suits, displays and controls, and human-in-the-loop performance.

Kritina Holden↗
NASA NTRS1995

STS-35: Mission Highlights Resource Tape

Live footage shows the crewmembers of STS-35, Commander Vance D. Brand, Pilot Guy S. Gardner, Mission Specialists Jeffrey A. Hoffman, John M. Lounge, and Robert A. Parker, and Payload Specialists Samuel T. Durrance, and Ronald A. Parise, participating in the traditional breakfast prior to launch. The crew is seen suiting up, and walking out to the Astro-Van for their 1 a.m. launch. Also shown are some beautiful panoramic shots of the shuttle on the launch pad, main engine start, ignition, liftoff, and various shots of the Launch Control Center (LCC). The crew is also shown during flight performing some routine functions such as operating the trash compactor, eating, and getting into and out of their sleeping quarters. The crew is seen taking part in a conversation with the Secretary of State, and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. Footage also includes the landing of Columbia, its rollout on the runway, and its crew as they depart from the vehicle.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2015

Critical Team Composition Issues for Long-Distance and Long-Duration Space Exploration: A Literature Review, an Operational Assessment, and Recommendations for Practice and Research

Prevailing team effectiveness models suggest that teams are best positioned for success when certain enabling conditions are in place (Hackman, 1987; Hackman, 2012; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Wageman, Hackman, & Lehman, 2005). Team composition, or the configuration of member attributes, is an enabling structure key to fostering competent teamwork (Hackman, 2002; Wageman et al., 2005). A vast body of research supports the importance of team composition in team design (Bell, 2007). For example, team composition is empirically linked to outcomes such as cooperation (Eby & Dobbins, 1997), social integration (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002), shared cognition (Fisher, Bell, Dierdorff, & Belohlav, 2012), information sharing (Randall, Resick, & DeChurch, 2011), adaptability (LePine, 2005), and team performance (e.g., Bell, 2007). As such, NASA has identified team composition as a potentially powerful means for mitigating the risk of performance decrements due to inadequate crew cooperation, coordination, communication, and psychosocial adaptation in future space exploration missions. Much of what is known about effective team composition is drawn from research conducted in conventional workplaces (e.g., corporate offices, production plants). Quantitative reviews of the team composition literature (e.g., Bell, 2007; Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011) are based primarily on traditional teams. Less is known about how composition affects teams operating in extreme environments such as those that will be experienced by crews of future space exploration missions. For example, long-distance and long-duration space exploration (LDSE) crews are expected to live and work in isolated and confined environments (ICEs) for up to 30 months. Crews will also experience communication time delays from mission control, which will require crews to work more autonomously (see Appendix A for more detailed information regarding the LDSE context). Given the unique context within which LDSE crews will operate, NASA identified both a gap in knowledge related to the effective composition of autonomous, LDSE crews, and the need to identify psychological and psychosocial factors, measures, and combinations thereof that can be used to compose highly effective crews (Team Gap 8). As an initial step to address Team Gap 8, we conducted a focused literature review and operational assessment related to team composition issues for LDSE. The objectives of our research were to: (1) identify critical team composition issues and their effects on team functioning in LDSE-analogous environments with a focus on key composition factors that will most likely have the strongest influence on team performance and well-being, and 1 Astronaut diary entry in regards to group interaction aboard the ISS (p.22; Stuster, 2010) 2 (2) identify and evaluate methods used to compose teams with a focus on methods used in analogous environments. The remainder of the report includes the following components: (a) literature review methodology, (b) review of team composition theory and research, (c) methods for composing teams, (d) operational assessment results, and (e) recommendations.

Bell, Suzanne T.↗