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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,297 records · Page 72

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1991

User modeling techniques for enhanced usability of OPSMODEL operations simulation software

The PC based OPSMODEL operations software for modeling and simulation of space station crew activities supports engineering and cost analyses and operations planning. Using top-down modeling, the level of detail required in the data base can be limited to being commensurate with the results required of any particular analysis. To perform a simulation, a resource environment consisting of locations, crew definition, equipment, and consumables is first defined. Activities to be simulated are then defined as operations and scheduled as desired. These operations are defined within a 1000 level priority structure. The simulation on OPSMODEL, then, consists of the following: user defined, user scheduled operations executing within an environment of user defined resource and priority constraints. Techniques for prioritizing operations to realistically model a representative daily scenario of on-orbit space station crew activities are discussed. The large number of priority levels allows priorities to be assigned commensurate with the detail necessary for a given simulation. Several techniques for realistic modeling of day-to-day work carryover are also addressed.

Davis, William T.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS: Teams Risk

BACKGROUNDThe Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogsof the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.METHODSWe followed best practices for data harmonization. Characteristics of each research setting were assessed for harmonization potential, and we deemed NEK-SIRIUS 17 as inappropriate due to study aims, length, and data quality. Common variables of interest were identified. Study characteristics and key variables with which datafiles could be merged were defined as “meta-data.” HFBP-EM data from all settings were processed under a common format. We then created a harmonized team-level database designed to facilitate analyses that address HRP research gaps related to HRP’s Team risk. In this database, team cohesion, processes, performance, psychological safety, and group living were operationalized as the team mean of the crew responses for each data collection (e.g., on mission day 7). Data collected on the International Space Station (ISS) included a subset of scale items administered to participants. Data collected from ISS team members within +/- 7 days of the first data collection and every following 30 +/-4 days were aggregated to the team level. We generated figures that display the mean and variability of team constructs across research settings. We also generated plots of changes in team constructs with mission day and with percentage of the mission completed. Where possible, we compared data from spaceflight analogs with data from astronauts aboard the ISS. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe team-level harmonized database was structured such that each row represents data for a team on a specific mission day. Team constructs (e.g., team cohesion) were included as columns (i.e., wide format) with repeated measures across mission days given in rows (i.e., long format). The database included data from 18 crews: five, 4-person American crews in HERA C4, four 4-person American crews in HERA C5, one 6-person multinational crew in NEK-SIRIUS 19, and eight, 2–11-person multinational crews aboard the ISS. Results provide insights into mission and campaign differences in team functioning and performance. For example, between campaign differences were observed for team processes—the interdependent team actions that orchestrate taskwork in pursuit of the team’s goals [1]. Greater between-team variability on team processes was detected during HERA C4 than during C5, and a downward trend was observed over the duration of C4, but not C5 or SIRIUS 19. This may be due to the campaign-level differences such as the sleep deprivation implemented during C4. Responses on the subset of team process items administered on the ISS indicate between-crew variability more like those observed in C4 than C5 and NEK, with some, but not all ISS crews demonstrating a downward trend over time. Additional findings will be presented. REFERENCESMarks, M. A., et al (2001) Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

S T Bell↗

NASA NTRS1996

STS-78 Flight Day 8

On this eighth day of the STS-78 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Terence T. Henricks, Pilot Kevin R. Kregel, Payload Cmdr. Susan J. Helms, Mission Specialists Richard M. Linnehan, Charles E. Brady, Jr., and Payload Specialists Jean-Jacques Favier, Ph.D. and Robert B. Thirsk, M.D., continue to conduct experiments primarily focusing on the effects of weightlessness on human physiology. Results from the studies of muscle activity, task performance, and sleep will help future mission planners organize crew schedules for greater efficiency and productivity. For a second consecutive day, Henricks, Kregel, Thirsk, and Favier continue to enter responses to a battery of problem-solving tasks on the Performance Assessment Work Station, a laptop computer.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2003

Development and Demonstration of a Prototype Free Flight Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

Two versions of a prototype Free Flight cockpit situational display (Basic and Enhanced) were examined in a simulation at the NASA Ames Research Center. Both displays presented a display of traffic out to a range of 120 NM, and an alert when the automation detected a substantial danger of losing separation with another aircraft. The task for the crews was to detect and resolve threats to separation posed by intruder aircraft. An Enhanced version of the display was also examined. It incorporated two additional conflict alerting levels and tools to aid in trajectory prediction and path planning. Ten crews from a major airline participated in the study. Performance analyses and pilot debriefings showed that the Enhanced display was preferred, and that minimal separation between the intruder and the ownship was larger with the Enhanced display. In addition, the additional information on the Enhanced display did not lead crews to engage in more maneuvering. Instead an opposite trend was indicated. Finally, crews using the Enhanced display responded more proactively, tending to resolve alerts earlier.

Johnson, Walter W.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Orion GN and C Overview and Architecture

The Crew Exploration Vehicle, named Orion, is a critical element in the Constellation Program to develop the transportation system needed to send humans back to the moon and then beyond. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the Orion spacecraft, which is managed by the Johnson Space Center. The Orion GN&C sub-system is being jointly developed by NASA and Lockheed Martin through a mode team approach. The GN&C is a critical element of the Orion mission to carry astronauts to low earth orbit to service the International Space Station and then on later flights to transfer and return a crew of four to the moon. The Orion GN&C system must perform monitoring and abort functions during ascent, rendezvous and docking in both low earth and lunar orbits, perform uncrewed lunar loiter operations, perform trans earth injection and atmospheric entry and landing. The Orion also must be integrated with the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle, the Earth Departure Stage of the Ares V and the Lunar Surface Access Module. This paper provides an overview of the Orion GN&C system. The functional capabilities of the Orion GN&C will be provided in the context of Constellation architecture, the key GN&C requirements will be summarized, the GN&C architecture will be presented, the development schedule and plans will summarized and finally conclusions will be presented.

Hu, Howard↗

NASA NTRS1997

Habitability and Performance Issues for Long Duration Space Flights

Advancing technology, coupled with the desire to explore space has resulted in increasingly longer manned space missions. Although the Long Duration Space Flights (LDSF) have provided a considerable amount of scientific research on human ability to function in extreme environments, findings indicate long duration missions take a toll on the individual, both physiologically and psychologically. These physiological and psychological issues manifest themselves in performance decrements; and could lead to serious errors endangering the mission, spacecraft and crew. The purpose of this paper is to document existing knowledge of the effects of LDSF on performance, habitability, and workload and to identify and assess potential tools designed to address these decrements as well as propose an implementation plan to address the habitability, performance and workload issues.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗

NASA NTRS1999

STS-96 FD Highlights and Crew Activities Report: Flight Day 04

On this fourth day of the STS-96 Discovery mission, the flight crew, Commander Kent V. Rominger, Pilot Rick D. Husband, and Mission Specialists Ellen Ochoa, Tamara E. Jernigan, Daniel T. Barry, Julie Payette, and Valery Ivanovich Tokarev are seen performing final preparations for their space walk. Views of the crew helping Barry and Jernigan suit up for their mission is also presented. Ochoa uses the robot arm to maneuver Jernigan up to the space station module. During the space walk Barry and Jernigan move two cranes, and three bags containing handrails and tools to the outside of the Unity module. They also install a thermal cover on a Unity trunnion pin, inspect peeling paint on Zarya and one of the two Early Communications System antennas on Unity.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations For Developing Space Suit Integrated Food Systems and Delivering Nutrition Before, During, and After Lunar Eva

INTRODUCTION Artemis missions will include a higher tempo and frequency of extravehicular activities (EVAs) than any previous space program. Because of the physical demands expected from the crew, future space suit designs are required to incorporate nutritional support to the astronauts during lunar surface EVAs lasting longer than 4 hours. The purpose of this project was to provide recommendations to aid the development of an in-suit system that can adequately, safely, and acceptably deliver nutrition to a crewmember while confined to a space suit during EVA. METHODS Physiological, logistical, and engineering aspects of potential in-suit nutrition approaches were assessed through literature reviews, assessments of commercial off the shelf (COTS) foods, suit volumetric modeling, and feedback from subject matter experts and crewmembers. Key driving factors in the development of in-suit nutrition requirements included how much and what type of nutrition should be included, what food formulations are appropriate and safe, what are inherent limitations of space suits, what are the potential risks to the crewmember in the suit, and what practices and preferences from astronauts should be considered. Design references were conceptualized and assessed for strengths and limitations as potential in-suit nutrition systems for surface EVA. RESULTS Acute exogenous energy demands vary greatly depending on activity intensity and duration, and partial energy replenishment (i.e., 60–80 kcal∙hr-1 of EVA, or 460–680 kcal for EVAs lasting up to 8 hours) during activities could improve performance, safety, and recovery. COTS foods capable of providing these energy requirements exist; however, no COTS foods have been identified that pass NASA flight standards for microbiological safety and stability. In-suit nutrition delivery design references that were considered included in-suit concepts for a prefilled drink bag, a hydratable drink bag, and a solid food stick. In addition, a helmet feed port concept was considered for use with drink bags external to the suit. Volumetric models of the in-suit drink bag concepts, based on xEMU dimensions, indicate challenges of fitting formulations > 200 ml (equating to approximately 200 kcal). Astronaut feedback on the four concepts indicated that despite some individual preferences for inclusion of solid foods and helmet port designs, the prefilled drink bag concept was the most preferred. A prefilled drink bag can only be used if food safety and stability can be ensured, possibly requiring advancements in food delivery hardware. CONCLUSION The ability to meet the increased need for nutrition during surface EVAs through provision of nutrients in the suited configuration would benefit overall crew health, performance, and morale, and thus increase the likelihood of mission success. It is recommended that in-suit nutrition capabilities provide at least 400–600 kcal within the suit during EVAs lasting > 4 hours and that suit designs include a dedicated volume for food grade nutrition systems. The developed food system should either allow for 1) installation of prefilled (sealed sterile) liquid nutrition in the suit and provide a mechanism to break the seal at the time that consumption is desired or 2) demonstrate that the unsealed food product shelf life allows for safe consumption after at least 12 hours of EVA.

E L Dillon↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations for Developing Space Suit Integrated Food Systems and Delivering Nutrition Before, During, and After Lunar EVA

space suit↗

NASA NTRS2018

External Contamination Integration of Visiting Vehicles on the International Space Station

The International Space Station (ISS) is an on-orbit platform for science utilization in low Earth orbit. The induced contamination environment can impact performance, mission success, and science utilization. Cargo and crew vehicles visiting the ISS represent significant sources of contamination. The Space Environments Team of the ISS Program Office has developed visiting vehicle requirements and methodologies to address the increasingly complex challenge of integrating multiple visiting vehicles while maintaining overall ISS contamination control requirements. The external contamination control requirements are summarized and the integration and verification process is described along with required data deliverables. Contamination characterization data deliverables address vacuum-exposed materials, thrusters, vacuum venting, and particulate releases. Visiting vehicle external contamination analyses are conducted by the ISS Space Environments Team to certify compliance with external contamination control requirements. Unpressurized cargo contamination analyses are also performed to characterize induced contamination to payloads while in transit to ISS. Efforts to confirm the visiting vehicle contamination modeling and analysis process based on on-orbit data are discussed.

outgassing↗

NASA NTRS1985

Space crew productivity: A driving factor in space station design

The criteria of performance, cost, and mission success probability (program confidence) are the principal factors that program or project managers and system engineers use in selecting the optimum design approach for meeting mission objectives. A frame of reference is discussed in which the interrelationships of these pertinent parameters can be made visible, and from which rational or informed decisions can be derived regarding the potential impact of adjustments in crew productivity on total Space Station System effectiveness.

Wolbers, H. L.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Simulation for STS flight crew training

Training activities for flights of the Space Shuttle Orbiter are performed in the most complicated flight simulation facility yet assembled. The Shuttle Mission Simulator (SMS) provides training for the entire mission from prelaunch to postlanding. An extensive pilot-cues environment is provided in which visual, aural, and motion cues are presented. The planning and execution of training on the simulator must take into account the complexity of the Shuttle systems, the complexity of the procedures and crew interface on the Shuttle, and the complexity of the mission, itself. The major points of this training program are highlighted.

Hughes, F. E.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Vehicle processing operations database

The Vehicle Processing Operations Data base (VPOD) has been designed and constructed to enable the collection and preliminary analysis of data relative to the processing of planetary exploration vehicles in low Earth orbit. VPOD has the capability to hierarchically store the events, assemblies, and equipment data needed for performing vehicle processing analysis, to whatever level of detail available. This permits some analysis to be performed even during the very early phases of vehicle and mission design. As more data about the events, assemblies, or equipment become available, the analysis can then be refined using the increased level of detail. VPOD output is based on a mission defined by selecting from the VPOD Events data base the events that are required to perform the desired tasks. The outputs available include total crew time, crew skill requirements, equipment needed, assemblies worked per event, to any available level of detail. The VPOD design is structured to interface with an operations simulation capability which is currently in the requirements definition phase. The simulator will use information from the VPOD to perform operations analysis for missions being conducted in low Earth orbit. VPOD information, along with information from the science missions operations data base and a Space Station configuration data base, will be used by the simulator to provide a capability to study total system operations and resources requirements.

Ganoe, George G.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Vehicle and Mission Design Options for the Human Exploration of Mars/Phobos Using "Bimodal" NTR and LANTR Propulsion

The nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) is one of the leading propulsion options for future human missions to Mars because of its high specific impulse (lsp~850-1000 s) capability and its attractive engine thrust-to-weight ratio (~3-10). To stay within the available mass and payload volume limits of a “Magnum” heavy lift vehicle, a high performance propulsion system is required for trans-Mars injection (TMI). An expendable TMI stage, powered by three 15 thousand pounds force (klbf) NTR engines is currently under consideration by NASA for its Design Reference Mission (DRM). However, because of the miniscule burnup of enriched uranium-235 during the Earth departure phase (~10 grams out of 33 kilograms in each NTR core), disposal of the TMI stage and its engines after a single use is a costly and inefficient use of this high performance stage. By reconfiguring the engines for both propulsive thrust and modest power generation (referred to as “bimodal” operation), a robust, multiple burn, “power-rich” stage with propulsive Mars capture and reuse capability is possible. A family of modular “bimodal” NTR (BNTR) vehicles are described which utilize a common “core” stage powered by three 15 klbf BNTRs that produce 50 kWe of total electrical power for crew life support, an active refrigeration / reliquification system for long term, zero-boiloff liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) storage, and high data rate communications. An innovative, spine-like “saddle truss” design connects the core stage and payload element and is open underneath to allow supplemental “in-line” propellant tanks and contingency crew consumables to be easily jettisoned to improve vehicle performance. A “modified” DRM using BNTR transfer vehicles requires fewer transportation system elements, reduces IMLEO and mission risk, and simplifies space operations. By taking the next logical step—use of the BNTR for propulsive capture of all payload elements into Mars orbit—the power available in Mars orbit grows to 150 kWe compared to 30 kWe for the DRM. Propulsive capture also eliminates the complex, higher risk aerobraking and capture maneuver which is replaced by a simpler reentry using a standardized, lower mass “aerodescent” shell. The attractiveness of the “all BNTR” option is further increased by the substitution of the lightweight, inflatable “TransHab” module in place of the heavier, hard-shell hab module. Use of TransHab introduces the potential for propulsive recovery and reuse of the BNTR / Earth return vehicle (ERV). It also allows the crew to travel to and from Mars on the same BNTR transfer vehicle thereby cutting the duration of the ERV mission in half—from ~4.7 to 2.5 years. Finally, for difficult Mars options, such as Phobos rendezvous and sample return missions, volume (not mass) constraints limit the performance of the “all LH 2 ” BNTR stage. The use of “LOX-augmented” NTR (LANTR) engines, operating at a modest oxygen-to-hydrogen mixture ratio (MR) of 0.5, helps to increase “bulk” propellant density and total thrust during the TMI burn. On all subsequent burns, the bimodal LANTR engines operate on LH 2 only (MR=0) to maximize vehicle performance while staying within the mass limits of two Magnum launches.

Nuclear thermal rocket↗

NASA NTRS1998

Vehicle and Mission Design Options for the Human Exploration of Mars/Phobos Using "Bimodal" NTR and LANTR Propulsion

The nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) is one of the leading propulsion options for future human missions to Mars because of its high specific impulse (Isp-850-1000 s) capability and its attractive engine thrust-to-weight ratio (approximately equal 3-10). To stay within the available mass and payload volume limits of a "Magnum" heavy lift vehicle, a high performance propulsion system is required for trans-Mars injection (TMI). An expendable TMI stage, powered by three 15 thousand pounds force (klbf) NTR engines is currently under consideration by NASA for its Design Reference Mission (DRM). However, because of the miniscule burnup of enriched uranium-235 during the Earth departure phase (approximately 10 grams out of 33 kilograms in each NTR core), disposal of the TMI stage and its engines after a single use is a costly and inefficient use of this high performance stage. By reconfiguring the engines for both propulsive thrust and modest power generation (referred to as "bimodal" operation), a robust, multiple burn, "power-rich" stage with propulsive Mars capture and reuse capability is possible, A family of modular "bimodal" NTR (BNTR) vehicles are described which utilize a common "core" stage powered by three 15 klbf BNTRs that produce 50 kWe of total electrical power for crew life support, an active refrigeration / reliquification system for long term, "zero-boiloff" liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) storage, and high data rate communications. An innovative, spine-like "saddle truss" design connects the core stage and payload element and is open underneath to allow supplemental "in-line" propellant tanks and contingency crew consumables to be easily jettisoned to improve vehicle performance. A "modified" DRM using BNTR transfer vehicles requires fewer transportation system elements, reduces IMLEO and mission risk, and simplifies space operations. By taking the next logical step--use of the BNTR for propulsive capture of all payload elements into Mars orbit--the power available in Mars orbit grows to 150 kWe compared to 30 kWe for the DRM. Propulsive capture also eliminates the complex, higher risk aerobraking and capture maneuver which is replaced by a simpler reentry using a standardized, lower mass "aerodescent" shell. The attractiveness of the "all BNTR" option is further increased by the substitution of the lightweight, inflatable "TransHab" module in place of the heavier, hard-shell hab module. Use of TransHab introduces the potential for propulsive recovery and reuse of the BNTR/ERV. It also allows the crew to travel to and from Mar on the same BNTR transfer vehicle thereby cutting the duration of the ERV mission in half--from approximately 4.7 to 2.5 years. Finally, for difficult Mars options, such as Phobos rendezvous and sample return missions, volume (not mass) constraints limit the performance of the "all LH 2 " BNTR stage. The use of "LOX-augmented" NTR (LANTR) engines, operating at a modest oxygen-to-hydrogen mixutre ratio (MR) of 0.5, helps to increase "bulk" propellant density and total thrust during the TMI burn. On all subsequent burns, the bimodal LANTR engines operate on LH 2 only (MR=0) to maximize vehicle performance while staying within the lift capability of two Magnum launches.

Nuclear thermal rocket↗

NASA NTRS2005

Integrated Systems Health Management for Space Exploration

Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) is a system engineering discipline that addresses the design, development, operation, and lifecycle management of components, subsystems, vehicles, and other operational systems with the purpose of maintaining nominal system behavior and function and assuring mission safety and effectiveness under off-nominal conditions. NASA missions are often conducted in extreme, unfamiliar environments of space, using unique experimental spacecraft. In these environments, off-nominal conditions can develop with the potential to rapidly escalate into mission- or life-threatening situations. Further, the high visibility of NASA missions means they are always characterized by extraordinary attention to safety. ISHM is a critical element of risk mitigation, mission safety, and mission assurance for exploration. ISHM enables: In-space maintenance and repair; a) Autonomous (and automated) launch abort and crew escape capability; b) Efficient testing and checkout of ground and flight systems; c) Monitoring and trending of ground and flight system operations and performance; d) Enhanced situational awareness and control for ground personnel and crew; e) Vehicle autonomy (self-sufficiency) in responding to off-nominal conditions during long-duration and distant exploration missions; f) In-space maintenance and repair; and g) Efficient ground processing of reusable systems. ISHM concepts and technologies may be applied to any complex engineered system such as transportation systems, orbital or planetary habitats, observatories, command and control systems, life support systems, safety-critical software, and even the health of flight crews. As an overarching design and operational principle implemented at the system-of-systems level, ISHM holds substantial promise in terms of affordability, safety, reliability, and effectiveness of space exploration missions.

Uckun, Serdar↗

NASA NTRS1995

At the intersection of automation and culture

The crash of an automated passenger jet at Nagoya, Japan, in 1995, is used as an example of crew error in using automatic systems. Automation provides pilots with the ability to perform tasks in various ways. National culture is cited as a factor that affects how a pilot and crew interact with each other and equipment.

NASA Discipline Space Human Factors↗

NASA NTRS2019

Artificial Intelligence: Powering Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a growing field of computa- tional science techniques designed to mimic functions per- formed by people. Advancements in autonomy will depend on a portfolio of AI technologies. Automated planning and scheduling is a venerable field of study in AI, and is needed for a variety of mission planning functions. Plan execution technology is less well studied, but important for auton- omy and robotics. Specialized forms of automated reason- ing and machine learning are key technologies to enable fault management. Over the past decade, the NASA Au- tonomous Systems and Operations (ASO) project has devel- oped and demonstrated numerous autonomy enabling tech- nologies employing AI techniques. Our work has employed AI in three distinct ways to enable autonomous mission op- erations capabilities. Crew Autonomy gives astronauts tools to assist in the performance of each of these mission oper-ations functions. Vehicle System Management uses AI tech- niques to turn the astronaut's spacecraft into a robot, allow- ing it to operate when astronauts are not present, or to reduce astronaut workload. AI technology also enables Autonomous Robots as crew assistants or proxies when the crew are not present. When these capabilities are used to enable astro- nauts to operate autonomously, they must be integrated with user interfaces, introducing numerous human factors con- siderations; when these capabilities are used to enable vehi- cle system management, they must be integrated with flight software, and run on embedded processors under the control of real-time operating systems.We first describe human spaceflight mission operations capabilities. The remainder of the paper will describe the ASO project, and the development and demonstration per- formed by ASO since 2011. We will describe the AI tech- niques behind each of these demonstrations, which include a variety of symbolic automated reasoning and machine learn- ing based approaches. Finally, we conclude with an assess- ment of future development needs for AI to enable NASA's future Exploration missions.

Mission Operations↗