Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “crew roles and responsibilities”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions: A Multi-Team Research Effort to Reduce Risk in the Human-System Integration Architecture for Future Deep-Space Missions

In future exploration missions beyond low earth-orbit, crew will have to execute complex operations and respond to off-nominal events, without real-time support from Mission Control. It is anticipated that increased reliance on automated systems, including human-centric vehicle and information architecture, will need to be designed to support the crew; increased risk to performance, health, and safety may occur if these are not implemented appropriately. The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element (HFBP) in the NASA Human Research Program supports research to characterize and mitigate such human health and performance risks, including the Risk of Adverse Outcome Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA). The HSIA risk addresses the integration of onboard capability and the crew roles and responsibilities necessary to enable the crew to respond effectively and efficiently in the increasingly autonomous mission operations environment. In 2017, HFBP released the “Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions” (HCAAM) research topic to address HSIA related questions. HCAAM is a major NASA research effort that has assembled a multidisciplinary team from seven institutions to work closely with design and engineering efforts on research towards developing and refining human performance standards, guidelines and automation tools. The scientific focus is on quantitative assessment of human capabilities relevant to future deep-space missions during which earth/spacecraft communication is so delayed and intermittent that the crew must be able to function autonomously. The integrated strategy of the HCAAM project characterizes human capabilities and limitations related to potential performance decrements during long duration exploration mission spaceflight as relevant to both routine and complex task performance; defines system characteristics that reduce the likelihood or impact of potential decrements in human performance capabilities; performs integrated assessment of intelligent system responses within the context of an operational environment with relevant NASA tools, systems, and data structures in order to determine positive or negative interactions and validate recommended approaches; and proposes specific updates to existing standards and guidelines for inclusion in NASA handbooks for the design of future spacecraft intelligent systems that provide crew performance assessment/feedback, and to also serve as decision-support aids for the onboard crew (i.e., NASA-STD-3001, and NASA/SP-Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)). The scientific research vectors being addressed by the seven HCAAM teams include: - crew task performance (accuracy, efficiency) (crew + automation) - crew performance (accuracy, efficiency) - crew Situation Awareness - procedure design and multi-modal enhancement - concurrent tasking (mixed manual + some level of autonomy) - task handover - crew self-planning and time-lining - task design - trust in automation, real-time calibration - human multi-sensory feedback and guidance - human trust in on-board software-based intelligent assistants - virtual assistants The presentation will highlight plans and progress made in each of these research areas as well as the methods by which surrogate astronaut crews in the NASA JSC HERA spaceflight analog facility will function as human test subjects for all of the HCAAM research projects.

HCAAM VNSCOR↗
NASA NTRS2024

Determining Simulation Fidelity Necessary for Evaluating Onboard Vehicle Capabilities and Crew Roles on Long Duration Exploration Missions Beyond Low-Earth Orbit

Identification of onboard vehicle capabilities and crew roles and responsibilities necessary for achieving effective human-systems collaboration will require iterative cycles of concept development and empirical evaluation of human performance in complex operations. This report presents the results of an effort to lay the groundwork for determining the level of fidelity of simulated environments most suitable for validating concepts and evaluating implementations of a new Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA) that will support the flight crew on long duration exploration missions beyond low-Earth orbit. To do that, we conducted a literature review on simulation fidelity and surveyed simulation capabilities inside and outside of NASA used in NASA-sponsored research. We also analyzed two International Space Station (ISS) vehicle anomalies to identify the types of scenario events and crew activities that may need to be simulated. Our survey findings reveal that most NASA simulation facilities are designed to achieve high physical fidelity while HSIA risk mitigation requires simulation emphasizing task and functional fidelity aspects. A trade analysis shows that, for standard and requirement development, evaluation conducted using synthetic task environments with inexperienced participants will support testing a wide variety of conditions and yield findings robust enough to be generalized to a wide variety of designs on which developed standards and requirements might be levied while allowing human performance standard measures to be collected using consistent methods across tasks and conditions. For technology/tool development, because findings will only need to be generalized to the actual target environment in which the technology/tool will be used, it is more suitable to evaluate the prototypes in a scaled world that preserves functional relationships present in the actual target environment with intended user populations. To wrap up, we give an overview of a well-known synthetical task environment in the space domain and discuss what it takes to construct a synthetic task environment.

simulation fidelity↗
NASA NTRS2023

Safety Case for Small Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (sUAS) Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Operations at NASA Langley Research Center

This Technical Memorandum (TM) is written to provide for dissemination of the methods and safety considerations for operations of small Uncrewed Aerial Systems (sUAS) Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight (BVLOS)at NASA Langley Research Center. It includes the Safety Case used to acquire a BVLOS Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the FAA and is being published to enable others to benefit from this work. The intended operations, subject to approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), will include a combination of Within Visual Line of Sight (WVLOS) and Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flights, comprising of at most five sUAS operating concurrently, with no more than three operating BVLOS. Flights will occur in a subset of the Langley Air Force Base (LAFB) Class D airspace (KLFI) at a maximum altitude of 400 ft AGL. Most operations within this subset will take place in the City Environment Range Testing for Autonomous Integrated Navigation (CERTAIN) Range. The CERTAIN Range includes airspace inside the borders of NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). Additional airspace over the northern section of CERTAIN will be requested as part of the Certificate of Authorization (COA). NASA LaRC BVLOS operations on the CERTAIN Range can be broken down into five critical components needed to meet the 14 CFR § 91.113 see and avoid requirement: 1) procedural deconfliction with LAFB for UAS operations at or below 400 ft and manned aircraft at or above 900’ AGL; 2) ground equipment for detection of intruder aircraft and to support communications between crewmembers ; 3) sUAS vehicles with advanced onboard automation capable of autonomously maintaining safe separation; 4) BVLOS standardized operating procedures (SOPs); 5) and personnel to execute the flight operations in accordance with the SOPs and respond to airborne contingencies. The introduction of new ground equipment includes the use of the Remote Operations for Autonomous Missions (ROAM) UAS Operations Center, development and use of an Integrated Airspace Display (IAD), use of the L-STAR and GA-9120 radars, and the incorporation of standardized Vertiports. The ROAM Operations Center will be the central point for all BVLOS sUAS operations. All command and control (C2), voice communications and airspace awareness displays will reside inside ROAM. The IAD will provide raw data from ADS-B, FLARM, radar tracks and telemetered GPS vehicle positions for interpretation by an Airspace Monitor. The radars will search the class D airspace around the CERTAIN Range and serve as a backup to procedural deconfliction procedures coordinated with LAFB. In the event of a procedural deconfliction breakdown, radar detections of non-participating aircraft will be available so that the 91.113 see and avoid requirement can still be safely met. Finally, the incorporation of Vertiports will have video and network connectivity that enables large numbers of sUAS launches and recoveries from a single location. This is a continuation of the remote command and control of unpiloted aircraft component focused on evaluating unpiloted aircraft flight crew roles and responsibilities, control interfaces and the associated data links needed to operate a fleet of aircraft within a UAM Ecosystem. This work supports the development of future aviation operational concepts based on an Urban Air Mobility Maturity Level (UML) 4 environment (Patterson, 2020). It is assumed that future airspace will include hundreds of simultaneous aircraft operations within the airspace, therefore scalable operations are essential for enabling this future airspace to become a reality. Follow on work includes envisioned flights that expand operations beyond the CERTAIN range and lead to an effective Maritime Surveillance capability.

Matthew W Coldsnow↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Content and Representation of Information Needed to Support Time-Constrained Problem Solving

NASA’s current mission-operations paradigm originated with Project Mercury and endured with minimum evolution through the Apollo Program, Space Shuttle Program, and ISS missions. At its foundation is a near-complete real-time dependence on a ground team to manage the combined state of the mission, vehicle, and crew. Utilizing many engineers and operators with broad and deep expertise; large, distributed datasets including extensive telemetry; and expansive analytical and computing power, this ground team has served as the safety net for crewed spaceflight missions over the past 60 years. This approach must change to address challenges associated with missions beyond low Earth orbit (BLEO), including infrequent resupply, reduced ability to evacuate, and delayed communications that prohibit real-time operational support. We anticipate that a necessary part of this change will be increased independence for the crew, as roles and responsibilities traditionally performed by ground teams move on board the vehicle. While many risks are associated with Earth-independent operations, one particular concern is ensuring that the crew will have adequate onboard support to perform urgent problem solving when communication with the ground is delayed or intermittent. A key resource that enables the ground team to respond to anomalies quickly and effectively is the extraordinary expertise and experience it possesses. It is comprised of 80+ experts on at any given time, with a combined 600+ years of system-specific experience across 22 unique console disciplines. A small crew will face the unprecedented challenge of independently responding to anomalies that have historically been handled by a team 20 times their size. Another important resource upon which the ground heavily relies to support procedure execution and anomaly response is data. The amount of telemetry data that each flight controller monitors is extensive. In addition, as the ground team works to further assess impacts, trouble shoot, identify workarounds, and oversee procedure execution, it accesses and synthesizes engineering and procedure information, as well as system build, test, and configuration documentation. It is not feasible nor useful to put all these data onboard as crews become more Earth independent. Each member of a small Mars mission small crew will have multiple roles beyond monitoring telemetry and data gathering, and multiple roles within anomaly resolution processes, thereby limiting their capacity for copious amounts of information. Moreover, while access is necessary, it alone is insufficient. Information will need to be compiled, refined, and represented appropriately to support the crew’s reduced attention and expertise. This work seeks to understand the content and representation of information needed to support time-constrained problem solving and decision making by the crew without real-time ground support. To build this understanding, we first surveyed the literature, focusing on how expert problem solvers construct and manipulate their mental models. Next, we interviewed expert problem solvers in spaceflight and analogous domains and surveyed industry solutions for data presentation. Finally, we analyzed current spaceflight operations by investigating flight controller anomaly resolution processes during ISS training simulations and real operational events. These methods led to creating a problem-solving framework that details common themes and features of attending to, assessing, analyzing, and acting on problems in complex, time-constrained domains. Using this framework and the results of our analysis, we identified conceptual data representations needed for crew-led problem-solving. Preliminary onboard user interface concepts to meet identified needs will be presented.

anomaly response↗
NASA NTRS2006

Advanced Technologies for Future Spacecraft Cockpits and Space-based Control Centers

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a new era of Space Exploration, aimed at sending crewed spacecraft beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), in medium and long duration missions to the Lunar surface, Mars and beyond. The challenges of such missions are significant and will require new technologies and paradigms in vehicle design and mission operations. Current roles and responsibilities of spacecraft systems, crew and the flight control team, for example, may not be sustainable when real-time support is not assured due to distance-induced communication lags, radio blackouts, equipment failures, or other unexpected factors. Therefore, technologies and applications that enable greater Systems and Mission Management capabilities on-board the space-based system will be necessary to reduce the dependency on real-time critical Earth-based support. The focus of this paper is in such technologies that will be required to bring advance Systems and Mission Management capabilities to space-based environments where the crew will be required to manage both the systems performance and mission execution without dependence on the ground. We refer to this concept as autonomy. Environments that require high levels of autonomy include the cockpits of future spacecraft such as the Mars Exploration Vehicle, and space-based control centers such as a Lunar Base Command and Control Center. Furthermore, this paper will evaluate the requirements, available technology, and roadmap to enable full operational implementation of onboard System Health Management, Mission Planning/re-planning, Autonomous Task/Command Execution, and Human Computer Interface applications. The technology topics covered by the paper include enabling technology to perform Intelligent Caution and Warning, where the systems provides directly actionable data for human understanding and response to failures, task automation applications that automate nominal and Off-nominal task execution based on human input or integrated health state-derived conditions. Shifting from Systems to Mission Management functions, we discuss the role of automated planning applications (tactical planning) on-board, which receive data from the other cockpit automation systems and evaluate the mission plan against the dynamic systems and mission states and events, to provide the crew with capabilities that enable them to understand, change, and manage the timeline of their mission. Lastly, we discuss the role of advanced human interface technologies that organize and provide the system md mission information to the crew in ways that maximize their situational awareness and ability to provide oversight and control of aLl the automated data and functions.

Garcia-Galan, Carlos↗
NASA NTRS1989

Enroute flight-path planning - Cooperative performance of flight crews and knowledge-based systems

Interface design issues associated with the introduction of knowledge-based systems into the cockpit are discussed. Such issues include not only questions about display and control design, they also include deeper system design issues such as questions about the alternative roles and responsibilities of the flight crew and the computer system. In addition, the feasibility of using enroute flight path planning as a context for exploring such research questions is considered. In particular, the development of a prototyping shell that allows rapid design and study of alternative interfaces and system designs is discussed.

Smith, Philip J.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Airborne Tactical Intent-Based Conflict Resolution Capability

Trajectory-based operations with self-separation involve the aircraft taking the primary role in the management of its own trajectory in the presence of other traffic. In this role, the flight crew assumes the responsibility for ensuring that the aircraft remains separated from all other aircraft by at least a minimum separation standard. These operations are enabled by cooperative airborne surveillance and by airborne automation systems that provide essential monitoring and decision support functions for the flight crew. An airborne automation system developed and used by NASA for research investigations of required functionality is the Autonomous Operations Planner. It supports the flight crew in managing their trajectory when responsible for self-separation by providing monitoring and decision support functions for both strategic and tactical flight modes. The paper focuses on the latter of these modes by describing a capability for tactical intent-based conflict resolution and its role in a comprehensive suite of automation functions supporting trajectory-based operations with self-separation.

Wing, David J.↗
NASA NTRS2015

A Validated Task Analysis of the Single Pilot Operations Concept

The current day flight deck operational environment consists of a two-person Captain/First Officer crew. A concept of operations (ConOps) to reduce the commercial cockpit to a single pilot from the current two pilot crew is termed Single Pilot Operations (SPO). This concept has been under study by researchers in the Flight Deck Display Research Laboratory (FDDRL) at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Ames (Johnson, Comerford, Lachter, Battiste, Feary, and Mogford, 2012) and researchers from Langley Research Centers (Schutte et al., 2007). Transitioning from a two pilot crew to a single pilot crew will undoubtedly require changes in operational procedures, crew coordination, use of automation, and in how the roles and responsibilities of the flight deck and ATC are conceptualized in order to maintain the high levels of safety expected of the US National Airspace System. These modifications will affect the roles and the subsequent tasks that are required of the various operators in the NextGen environment. The current report outlines the process taken to identify and document the tasks required by the crew according to a number of operational scenarios studied by the FDDRL between the years 2012-2014. A baseline task decomposition has been refined to represent the tasks consistent with a new set of entities, tasks, roles, and responsibilities being explored by the FDDRL as the move is made towards SPO. Information from Subject Matter Expert interviews, participation in FDDRL experimental design meetings, and study observation was used to populate and refine task sets that were developed as part of the SPO task analyses. The task analysis is based upon the proposed ConOps for the third FDDRL SPO study. This experiment possessed nine different entities operating in six scenarios using a variety of SPO-related automation and procedural activities required to guide safe and efficient aircraft operations. The task analysis presents the roles and responsibilities in a manner that can facilitate testing future scenarios. Measures of task count and workload were defined and analyzed to assess the impact of transitioning to a SPO environment.

task analysis↗
NASA NTRS2011

Flight Planning Branch Space Shuttle Lessons Learned

Planning products and procedures that allow the mission flight control teams and the astronaut crews to plan, train and fly every Space Shuttle mission have been developed by the Flight Planning Branch at the NASA Johnson Space Center. As the Space Shuttle Program ends, lessons learned have been collected from each phase of the successful execution of these Shuttle missions. Specific examples of how roles and responsibilities of console positions that develop the crew and vehicle attitude timelines will be discussed, as well as techniques and methods used to solve complex spacecraft and instrument orientation problems. Additionally, the relationships and procedural hurdles experienced through international collaboration have molded operations. These facets will be explored and related to current and future operations with the International Space Station and future vehicles. Along with these important aspects, the evolution of technology and continual improvement of data transfer tools between the shuttle and ground team has also defined specific lessons used in the improving the control teams effectiveness. Methodologies to communicate and transmit messages, images, and files from Mission Control to the Orbiter evolved over several years. These lessons have been vital in shaping the effectiveness of safe and successful mission planning that have been applied to current mission planning work in addition to being incorporated into future space flight planning. The critical lessons from all aspects of previous plan, train, and fly phases of shuttle flight missions are not only documented in this paper, but are also discussed as how they pertain to changes in process and consideration for future space flight planning.

Price, Jennifer B.↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Flight Planning Branch Space Shuttle Lessons Learned

Planning products and procedures that allowed the mission Flight Control Teams and the Astronaut crews to plan, train and fly every Space Shuttle mission were developed by the Flight Planning Branch at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. As the Space Shuttle Program came to a close, lessons learned were collected from each phase of the successful execution of these Space Shuttle missions. Specific examples of how roles and responsibilities of console positions that develop the crew and vehicle attitude timelines have been analyzed and will be discussed. Additionally, the relationships and procedural hurdles experienced through international collaboration have molded operations. These facets will be explored and related to current and future operations with the International Space Station and future vehicles. Along with these important aspects, the evolution of technology and continual improvement of data transfer tools between the Space Shuttle and ground team has also defined specific lessons used in improving the control team s effectiveness. Methodologies to communicate and transmit messages, images, and files from the Mission Control Center to the Orbiter evolved over several years. These lessons were vital in shaping the effectiveness of safe and successful mission planning and have been applied to current mission planning work in addition to being incorporated into future space flight planning. The critical lessons from all aspects of previous plan, train, and fly phases of Space Shuttle flight missions are not only documented in this paper, but are also discussed regarding how they pertain to changes in process and consideration for future space flight planning.

Clevenger, Jennifer D.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Expedition 4 Crew Interviews: Yury I. Onufrienko

Expedition 4 Commander Yury Onufrienko is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 4 crew in place of the Expedition 3 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)), the day-to-day life on an extended stay mission, the experiments he will be conducting on board, and what the S0 truss will mean to ISS. Onufrienko ends with his thoughts on the short-term and long-term future of the International Space Station.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2001

Expedition 4 Crew Interviews: Dan Bursch

Expedition 4 Flight Engineer Dan Bursch is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 4 crew in place of the Expedition 3 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)), the day-to-day life on an extended stay mission, the experiments he will be conducting on board, and what the S0 truss will mean to ISS. Bursch ends with his thoughts on the short-term and long-term future of the International Space Station.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2001

Expedition 4 Crew Interviews: Carl Walz

Expedition 4 Flight Engineer Carl Walz is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 4 crew in place of the Expedition 3 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)), the day-to-day life on an extended stay mission, the experiments he will be conducting on board, and what the S0 truss will mean to ISS. Walz ends with his thoughts on the short-term and long-term future of the International Space Station.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

Expedition 5 Crew Interviews: Peggy Whitson

Expedition 5 Flight Engineer Peggy Whitson is seen during a prelaunch interview. She gives details on the mission's goals and significance, her role in the mission, what her responsibilities will be, what the crew activities will be like (docking and undocking of two Progress unpiloted supply vehicles, normal space station maintenance tasks, conducting science experiments, installing the CETA (Crew and Equipment Translation) cart, and supporting the installation of the International Truss Structure S1 segment), the day-to-day life on an extended stay mission, the experiments she will be conducting on board, and what the S1 truss will mean to the International Space Station (ISS). Whitson ends with her thoughts on the short-term and long-term future of the ISS.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

Expedition 6 Crew Interviews: Nikolai Budarin FEI (Flight Engineer 1)

Expedition 6 Flight Engineer Nikolai Budarin is seen during a prelaunch interview. He provides details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be, what the crew activities will be like (docking of a Progress unpiloted supply vehicle, maintaining the space station, conducting science experiments and performing one spacewalk), the day-to-day life on an extended stay mission, and the experiments he will be conducting on board. Budarin also discusses how his previous experiences on mir space missions will help him and ends his thoughts on how valuable the International Space Station has proven.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

STS-113 Crew Interviews: Jim Wetherbee, Commander

STS-113 Commander Jim Wetherbee is seen during this preflight interview where he gives a quick overview of the mission before answering questions about his inspiration to become an astronaut and his career path. Wetherbee outlines his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 6 crew in place of the Expedition 5 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)) and what the importance of the primary payload (the P1 truss) will be. He also provides a detailed account of the three planned extravehicular activities (EVAs) and additional transfer duties. He ends by offering his thoughts on the success of the ISS as the second anniversary of continuous human occupation of the ISS approaches.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

Expedition 6 Crew Interviews: Ken Bowersox CDR

Expedition 6 Commander Ken Bowersox is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be as commander, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 6 crew in place of the Expedition 5 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)) and what day-to-day life on an extended stay mission is like. Bowersox also discusses in some detail the planned extravehicular activities (EVAs), the anticipated use of the robot arms in installing the P1 truss and the on-going science experiments which will be conducted by the Expedition 6 crew. He touches on challenges posed by a late change in the crew roster. Bowersox ends with his thoughts on the value on the ISS in fostering international cooperation.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

Expedition 5 Crew Interviews: Valery Korzun, Commander

Expedition 5 Commander Valery Kozun is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission and what his responsibilities will be as commander, what the crew exchange will be like (the Expedition 5 crew will replace the Expedition 4 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)), the daily life on an extended stay mission, the loading operations that will take place, the experiments he will be conducting on board, and the planned extravehicular activities (EVAs) scheduled for the mission. Kozun discusses the EVAs in greater detail and explains the significance of the Mobile Base System and the Crew Equipment Translation Aid (CETA) cart for the ISS. He also explains at some length the science experiments which will be conducted on board by the Expedition 5 crew members. Korzun also touches on how his previous space experience on Mir (including dealing with a very serious fire) will benefit the Expedition 5 mission.

Source record↗