SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “data processing automation”

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.

1,496 records · Page 84

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Supervisory Control with Dual Tasking in Post G-Transition Vehicle Landings

BACKGROUND Landing during exploration spaceflight may consist of both planned automated supervisory control and unplanned crew override. Supervisory control, particularly when performed under cognitive load with additional monitoring tasks, is essential for ensuring overall mission success during landing contingencies. Evaluating performance in a relevant Human Landing System (HLS) supervisory landing task after long-duration microgravity exposure can help identify potential risks from human error and sensorimotor alterations. Adaptive changes in the sensorimotor system can manifest during g-transitions as spatial disorientation. Although training and landing aids facilitate successful landings despite disorientation, these adaptive changes may heighten cognitive demand, which must be considered in the landing strategy. It is important to characterize these effects as soon as possible following the G-transition while the sensorimotor system remains in a state of adaptive flux to inform appropriate countermeasures. METHODS A Multi-attribute Lunar Table Battery (MALTB) task was developed for an iOS tablet device to provide flexible crew testing and training capabilities in-flight and on the ground. Elements of the tablet task were derived from the Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB, Cegarra et al. 2020). The task requires crew members to study a map of a planned landing site and memorizing the terrain and surface landmarks to inform potential divert maneuvers during landing. The user will oversee a series of approaches through touchdown simulations on the tablet with an external camera view of the Lunar surface. The primary responsibility of the crew member will be to execute a divert if the guidance recommended site is erroneous (e.g., the guidance projected landing target is not within 10m of the planned landing site center), or the projected landing site is no longer suitable due to surface obstacles. Considering vehicle maneuverability and fuel reserves, the divert capabilities will diminish as the task progresses. In cases where a divert is initiated, a new landing target will need to be designated by the user and will be evaluated for the proximity to the original pre-planned site. A secondary operational monitoring task will challenge the user's cognitive reserve by requiring the user to maintain several gauges within acceptable limits and respond to a visual indicator while completing the landing approach. Outcome measures include distance from the planned landing site to the user-initiate divert landing location, ground slope at the new landing site, time to divert, the ability to accomplish the secondary monitoring tasks, and perceived workload. The tablet task is being evaluated in a ground-based study to determine the learning effect of first-time users. The tablet task will be utilized in a flight study to test performance multiple times postflight. Future potential testing in-flight have been identified for capsules with iOS tablet devices. Multi-attribute Lunar Table Battery Task MALTB comprises video footage of thirty distinct landing conditions. The landing scenarios feature various landing sites (n = 3), hazardous object sizes (n = 6), sun azimuth degrees (n = 4), camera modes (i.e., fixed or gimbaled), and navigation bias (i.e., true or false). Each seventy second trial uses a sixty-degree constant glideslope trajectory. The application architecture and layout include user identification setup and data storing, a guided walkthrough of the task and interface components, practice mode for task familiarization, and a modified Bedford workload scale administered following task completion. The time-based dependent measures are saved locally to the iOS Files application and post-processing scripts have been developed to evaluate the remaining measures of performance. RELEVANCE This project will deliver an operational demonstration of crew monitoring capability following spaceflight and identify potential deficits that may require remediation. Comparison of individual vestibular and cognitive changes with crew performance will help better characterize the landing risks associated with sensorimotor alterations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This project is funded by NASA’s Human Research Program Human Health Countermeasures Element. REFERENCES Cegarra J, Valery B, Avril E, Calmettes C, Navarro J (2020) OpenMATB: A Multi-Attribute Task Battery promoting task customization, software extensibility and experiment replicability. Behav Res Methods 52:1980-1990 doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01364-w

Matthew McDonnell↗

NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗