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 1,405 records · Page 78
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

A Closed Mars Analog Simulation: The Approach of Crew 5 At the Mars Desert Research Station

For twelve days in April 2002 we performed a closed simulation in the Mars Desert Research Station, isolated from other people, as on Mars, while performing systematic surface exploration and life support chores. Email provided our only means of contact; no phone or radio conversations were possible. All mission-related messages were mediated by a remote mission support team. This protocol enabled a systematic and controlled study of crew activities, scheduling, and use of space. The analysis presented here focuses on two questions: Where did the time go-why did people feel rushed and unable to complete their work? How can we measure and model productivity, to compare habitat designs, schedules, roles, and tools? Analysis suggests that a simple scheduling change-having lunch and dinner earlier, plus eliminating afternoon meetings-increased the available productive time by 41%.

Clancey, William J.↗
NASA NTRS1997

STS-83 Day 01

On this first day of the STS-83 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. James D. Halsell Jr., Pilot Susan L. Still, Payload Cmdr. Janice E. Voss, Mission Specialists Michael L. Gernhardt and Donald A. Thomas, and Payload Specialists Gregory T. Linteris and Roger K. Crouch can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew can be seen being readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2018

Pre-Flight Training of Autonomic Responses for Mitigating the Effects of Spatial Disorientation During Spaceflight

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has identified a potential risk of spatial disorientation, motion sickness, and degraded performance to astronauts during re-entry and landing of the proposed Orion crew vehicle. The purpose of this study was to determine if a physiological training procedure, Autogenic-Feedback Training Exercise (AFTE), can mitigate these adverse effects. Fourteen men and six women were assigned to two groups (AFTE, no-treatment Control) matched for motion sickness susceptibility and gender. All subjects received a standard rotating chair test to determine motion sickness susceptibility; three training sessions on a manual performance task; and four exposures in the rotating chair (Orion tests) simulating angular accelerations of the crew vehicle during re-entry. AFTE subjects received 2 hours of training before Orion tests 2, 3, and 4. Motion sickness symptoms, task performance, and physiological measures were recorded on all subjects. Results showed that the AFTE group had significantly lower symptom scores when compared to Controls on test 2 (p=.05), test 3 (p=.03), and test 4 (p=.02). Although there were no significant group differences on task performance, trends showed that AFTE subjects were less impaired than Controls. Heart rate change scores (20 revolutions per minute minus baseline) of AFTE subjects indicated significantly less reactivity on Test 4 compared to Test 1 (10.09 versus 16.59, p=.02), while Controls did not change significantly across tests. Results of this study indicate that AFTE may be an effective countermeasure for mitigating spatial dis-orientation and motion sickness in astronauts.

Orion↗
NASA NTRS2007

NASA CEV On-Orbit GN&C Analysis

The Orion spacecraft orbit GN&C system will be required to perform both ISS servicing missions and Lunar sortie and outpost crew transportation. While certain aspects of these two missions are complementary, the two missions are also distinct in many ways. Common between the missions is a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) rendezvous, one with the ISS And the other with the LSAM/EDS stack prior to trans-lunar insertion. The lunar missions will additionally require Orion to perform orbit maintenance in LLO, perform contingency lunar orbit operations including RPOD with the LSAM, perform the TEI maneuver sequence, and execute the trans-Earth cruise. The NASA-led team developed a reference configuration orbit GN&C system capable of executing all of these activities with the same navigation sensor suite and control effectors while fully meeting the requirements being developed for System Requirements Review in advance of prime contractor selection. This paper will present an overview of the analyses performed to support system trade studies, demonstrate the feasibility of the NASA reference configuration, and validate the Orion system requirements. These analyses include linear covariance techniques, 3-DOF Monte Carlo simulations, 6-DOF Monte Carlo simulations, and analytical evaluations of GN&C systems performed by the NASA-led Orion team to characterize the sensitivities of Orion s various missions and assess the unique challenges of each. The first part of this paper will describe the trade studies that were performed in order to characterize the RPOD system performance for both the ISS and the lunar missions including development of an RPOD operations concept, RPOD trajectories, contingency scenarios, docking mechanism and associated contact conditions, post-contact thrust issues, relative navigation sensors, relative navigation sensor target infrastructure. The paper will also discuss concepts for both manually-piloted and automatically executed scenarios, as well as the remotely-piloted contingency scenario in LLO. The second part of the paper will discuss the analyses performed for lunar and cislunar GN&C performance including the accuracy of the post-insertion lunar orbit, the ability of Orion to hit a particular Earth return entry corridor, attitude control solutions for long-duration surface operations, and autonomous navigation in support of TEI without ground tracking.

DSouza, Chris↗
NASA NTRS2000

Toxicological Assessment of the International Space Station Atmosphere

Space-faring crews must have safe breathing air throughout their missions to ensure adequate performance and good health. Toxicological assessment of air quality depends on the standards that define acceptable air quality, measurements of pollutant levels during the flight, and reports from the crew on their in-flight perceptions of air quality. Air samples from ISS flight 2A showed that contaminants in the Zarya module were at higher concentrations than the Unity module. At the crew's first entry, the amount of non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) in Zarya was 23 Mg/cubic meter, whereas in the amount of NMVOCs in Unity was 5.3 mg/cubic meter. Approximately 26 hours later at egress from the modules, the NMVOCs were comparable indicating good mixing of the atmospheres. The 2A crew reported no adverse health effects related to air pollution during their flight. Ingress air samples from 2A.1, which was flown more than 5 months after 2A, again showed that the Zarya had accumulated more unscrubbed pollutants than Unity. The NMVOCs in Unity were 3.5 mg/cubic meter, whereas the were 20 mg/cubic meter in Zarya. After almost 80 hours of ISS operations, the NMVOCs were 7.5 and 12 mg/cubic meter in Unity and Zarya, respectively. This suggests that the atmospheres in the modules were not mixing very well. The 2A.1 crew felt that the air quality in Zarya deteriorated when they were working in a group at close quarters, when the panels had been removed, and after they had worked in an area for some time. The weight of evidence suggests that human metabolic products (carbon dioxide, water vapor, heat) were not being effectively removed from the crew's work area, and these caused their symptoms. Additional local measurements of pollutants are planned for the 2A.2 mission to the ISS.

James, John T.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Toxicological Assessment of the International Space Station Atmosphere with Emphasis on Metox Canister Regeneration

Space-faring crews must have safe breathing air throughout their missions to ensure adequate performance and good health. Toxicological assessment of air quality depends on the standards that define acceptable air quality, measurements of pollutant levels during the flight, and reports from the crew on their in-flight perceptions of air quality. Air samples returned from ISS on flights 8A, UF2, 9A, and 11A were analyzed for trace pollutants. On average, the air during this period of operations was safe for human respiration. However, about 3 hours into the regeneration of 2 Metox canisters in the U.S. airlock on 20 February 2002 the crew reported an intolerable odor that caused them to stop the regeneration, take refuge in the Russian segment, and scrub air in the U.S. segment for 30 hours. Analytical data from grab samples taken during the incident showed that the pollutants released were characteristic of nominal air pollutants, but were present in much higher concentrations. The odors reported by the crew were due to relatively high concentrations of n-butanol, and possibly other pollutants in the mixture. Later data taken during regeneration of Metox canisters that had not been subject to long-term flows showed minimal effects on air quality. Long-term trending data suggest that a disruption in atmospheric mixing between the Service Module and the U.S. Laboratory has occurred and that formaldehyde concentrations are gradually increasing in the U.S. Laboratory. Trending data also show that the releases of octafluoropropane (OFP) have subsided.

James, John T.↗
NASA NTRS2011

An Overview of STS-132 MRM1 Cargo Element Thermal Model Development and Analyses

STS-132 was launched in May 2010 and delivered the Russian Mini Research Module 1 (MRM1) cargo element to the International Space Station as part of the ULF-4 assembly flight. The cargo element consisted of the module outfitted with externally mounted Multi-purpose Laboratory Module (MLM) Airlock, MLM radiator, Portable Work Platform (PWP), and a European Robotic Arm (ERA) spare elbow. Prior to every Shuttle flight, hardware developers are required to determine compatibility of their hardware to thermal environments experienced during the Shuttle mission and once the element is integrated with the ISS. Thermal models are provided to the Shuttle program to determine the impact of the payload on the Orbiter hardware, as well as the ISS program to determine impacts on other ISS payloads in the Orbiter. Historically the Russian International Partner (IP) develops models in formats not compatible with software used by Space Shuttle or ISS programs. This prompted NASA and Lockheed Martin to develop a unique set of thermal models for the MRM1 cargo element. Subsequent ULF-4 mission analyses performed with the models assessed the launch to activation response, identified operational criteria documented in flight rules, and ensured compliance with the mission timeline and no hazards to the crew, orbiter, or ISS. This presentation provides an overview of the work performed, depicts unique approaches in model development, discusses lessons learned, and issue resolution approaches. Though development and analysis efforts spanned over four years and presented various integration challenges it provided an example of successful collaboration with our International Partners.

Perez, Miguel Fernando↗
NASA NTRS1995

STS-84 Day 01 Highlights

On this first day of the STS-84 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Charles J. Precourt, Pilot Eileen M. Collins, Payload Cmdr, Jean-Francois Clervoy (ESA), Mission Specialists Edward T. Lu, Carlos I. Noriega, Elena V. Kondakova, Jerry M. Linenger (download), and C. Michael Foale (upload) can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew can be seen being readied in the "white room" for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1998

STS-87 Post Flight Presentation

The flight crew, Cmdr. Kevin R. Kregel, Pilot Steven W. Lindsey, Mission Specialists Winston E. Scott, Kalpana Chawla, and Takao Doi, and Payload Specialist Leonid K. Kadenyuk present an overview of their mission. In the first part they can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew is seen being readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters. In the second part of the video the crew turn their attention to a variety of experiments inside the Shuttle's cabin. These experiments include the processing of several samples of materials in the glovebox facility in Columbia's middeck; the experiment called PEP, which involves heating samples and then recording the mixture as it resolidifies; and the study of plant growth in space.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Precision Landing Navigation Performance of Human-Scale Lunar and Mars Landers

To meet the unique challenges of crewed Lunar and Mars precision landings, NASA’s Safe and Precise Landing Integrated Capabilities Evolution project has worked to advance autonomous spacecraft navigation by increasing the technology readiness level of key deorbit, entry, descent, and landing systems, including navigation sensors. Different sensors and their effects on overall system performance are evaluated using six-degree-of-freedom simulations with physics-based engineering models that capture the relevant vehicle systems and environmental effects. Building on an existing simulation framework, this work demonstrates how improved modeling fidelity enables rapid and detailed assessment of various navigation sensors on human-scale Lunar and Mars landing vehicles using NASA reference architectures.

navigation↗
NASA NTRS1998

STS-90 Post Flight Presentation

The flight crew of the STS-90 mission, Cmdr. Richard A. Searfoss, Pilot Scott D. Altman, and Mission Specialists Richard M. Linnehan, Dafydd Rhys Williams and Kathryn P. Hire, and Payload Specialists Jay C. Buckey and James A. Pawelczyk can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew is readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters. In the second part of the video the crew turns its attention to a variety of experiments inside the Shuttle's cabin. These experiments include the processing of several samples of materials in the glovebox facility in Columbia's middeck; the experiment called PEP, which involves heating samples as they resolidify; and the study of plant growth in space.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1998

STS-90 Mission Highlights Resource Tape

The flight crew of the STS-90 mission, Cmdr. Richard A. Searfoss, Pilot Scott D. Altman, and Mission Specialists Richard M. Linnehan, Dafydd Rhys Williams and Kathryn P. Hire, and Payload Specialists Jay C. Buckey and James A. Pawelczyk can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew is readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters. In the second part of the video the crew turn their attention to a variety of experiments inside the Shuttle's cabin. These experiments include the processing of several samples of materials in the glovebox facility in Shuttle's middeck; the experiment called PEP, which involves heating samples and then recording the mixture as it resolidifies; and the study of plant growth in space.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1999

STS-95 Mission Highlights Resources Tape

The STS-95 flight crew, Commander Curtis L. Brown, Pilot Steven W. Lindsey, Mission Specialists Scott E. Parazynski, Stephen K. Robinson, and Pedro Duque, and Payload Specialists Chiaki Mukai and John H. Glenn present a video overview of their space flight. They are seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew is readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters. Once on-orbit the primary objectives include conducting a variety of science experiments in the pressurized SPACEHAB module, the deployment and retrieval of the Spartan free-flyer payload, and operations with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Orbiting Systems Test (HOST) and the International Extreme Ultraviolet Hitchhiker (IEH) payloads being carried in the payload bay. Throughout the presentation, the astronauts take turns narrating particular aspects of the mission with which they were involved.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2007

Parametric Study of Biconic Re-Entry Vehicles

An optimization based on hypersonic aerodynamic performance and volumetric efficiency was accomplished for a range of biconic configurations. Both axisymmetric and quasi-axisymmetric geometries (bent and flattened) were analyzed. The aerodynamic optimization wag based on hypersonic simple Incidence angle analysis tools. The range of configurations included those suitable for r lunar return trajectory with a lifting aerocapture at Earth and an overall volume that could support a nominal crew. The results yielded five configurations that had acceptable aerodynamic performance and met overall geometry and size limitations

Steele, Bryan↗
NASA NTRS1995

STS-94 Day 01 Highlights

On this first day of the STS-94 mission, the flight crew (the orginial crew of mission STS-83), Cmdr. James D. Halsell, Jr., Pilot Susan L. Still, Payload Cmdr. Janice E. Voss, Mission Specialists Michael L. Gernhardt and Donald A. Thomas, and Payload Specialists Gregory T. Linteris and Roger K. Crouch can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew can be seen being readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2012

Comparative Ergonomic Evaluation of Spacesuit and Space Vehicle Design

With the advent of the latest human spaceflight objectives, a series of prototype architectures for a new launch and reentry spacesuit that would be suited to the new mission goals. Four prototype suits were evaluated to compare their performance and enable the selection of the preferred suit components and designs. A consolidated approach to testing was taken: concurrently collecting suit mobility data, seat-suit-vehicle interface clearances, and qualitative assessments of suit performance within the volume of a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle mockup. It was necessary to maintain high fidelity in a mockup and use advanced motion-capture technologies in order to achieve the objectives of the study. These seemingly mutually exclusive goals were accommodated with the construction of an optically transparent and fully adjustable frame mockup. The construction of the mockup was such that it could be dimensionally validated rapidly with the motioncapture system. This paper describes the method used to create a space vehicle mockup compatible with use of an optical motion-capture system, the consolidated approach for evaluating spacesuits in action, and a way to use the complex data set resulting from a limited number of test subjects to generate hardware requirements for an entire population. Kinematics, hardware clearance, anthropometry (suited and unsuited), and subjective feedback data were recorded on 15 unsuited and 5 suited subjects. Unsuited subjects were selected chiefly based on their anthropometry in an attempt to find subjects who fell within predefined criteria for medium male, large male, and small female subjects. The suited subjects were selected as a subset of the unsuited medium male subjects and were tested in both unpressurized and pressurized conditions. The prototype spacesuits were each fabricated in a single size to accommodate an approximately average-sized male, so select findings from the suit testing were systematically extrapolated to the extremes of the population to anticipate likely problem areas. This extrapolation was achieved by first comparing suited subjects performance with their unsuited performance, and then applying the results to the entire range of the population. The use of a transparent space vehicle mockup enabled the collection of large amounts of data during human-in-the-loop testing. Mobility data revealed that most of the tested spacesuits had sufficient ranges of motion for the selected tasks to be performed successfully. A suited subject's inability to perform a task most often stemmed from a combination of poor field of view in a seated position, poor dexterity of the pressurized gloves, or from suit/vehicle interface issues. Seat ingress and egress testing showed that problems with anthropometric accommodation did not exclusively occur with the largest or smallest subjects, but also with specific combinations of measurements that led to narrower seat ingress/egress clearance.

England, Scott↗
NASA NTRS1991

Lunar mission aerobrake performance study

Nine lunar mission scenarios were developed to show the transfer vehicle performance benefits of aerobraking into low Earth orbit (LEO) upon Earth return as opposed to an all-propulsive maneuver. The initial mass in LEO (IMLEO) of the lunar transfer vehicle is considered the measure of vehicle performance. Four types of mission profiles in conjunction with two vehicle concepts were used to construct the scenarios. These nine scenarios were designed to represent a broad range of possible lunar missions so that a general knowledge base of aerobraking and lunar transfer vehicle performance levels could be obtained. Also discussed are the mass sensitivities of each transfer vehicle to changes in the selected design parameters: Isp, crew module mass, payload to surface, and aerobrake mass fraction. A parametric study was performed on two of the mission scenarios to help quantify the performance benefits by adding a set of drop tanks to the vehicle. The parametric study also provides partial derivatives which show the sensitivities of IMLEO to the four design parameters listed. A ranking is given based on vehicle performance.

Mulqueen, J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sleep Obtained by Cabin Crewmembers during a Long-haul Flight

Sleep loss and circadian disruption pose a significant risk in safety-sensitive occupations. In aviation, many studies have demonstrated how inflight rest locations influence alertness and performance among pilots, but few studies have evaluated cabin crew. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate sleep outcomes among cabin crewmembers sleeping in a bunk compared to a jump seat during one long-haul route. Thirty-one (6 male) cabin crewmembers (age M = 30, SD = +/-13) flew the same long-haul route (outbound and return) with a flight duration of 10:41 (± 0:14) hours. Participants were randomly assigned to fly on an aircraft with a bunk or a jump seat for their sleep opportunity. Participants wore an Actiwatch (Phillips-Respironics Spectrum) throughout the entire study and completed a sleep diary at bedtime and upon waking. During flight they completed a nap diary entering the start time of the inflight sleep (if any) and the duration. Sixty-five flights (32 outbound and 33 return) were included in the analyses. Seventy-seven percent of the flights had a bunk and 23% had a jump seat. Crewmembers obtained M = 146.46 (± 67.20) minutes of rest out of which they slept M = 125.33 (± 64.91) minutes in the bunk. While using the jump seat, crewmembers obtained M = 169.53 (± 133.30) minutes of rest out of which they slept M = 142.92 (± 149.72) minutes. When crewmembers slept in the bunk, sleep latency was shorter (M = 13.69 ± 12.64 minutes) and efficiency was better (M = 76.16 ± 16.09 %) compared to the jump seat (sleep onset: M = 16.77 ± 13.89 minutes; sleep efficiency: M = 60.64 ± 17.42 %). We found that cabin crewmembers slept for longer time when they used the jump seat. They fell asleep faster and their sleep efficiency was better when using the bunk compared to the jump seat. Further research is needed to understand how sleep quality and subsequent performance are influenced by sleep opportunity in a bunk compared to a jump seat.

cabin crewmembers↗