Brett Dylan Montoya | Search NASA

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Rapid Assessment of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module

Johnson Space Center is piloting an innovation team known as the Forge to perform rapid turnaround, concurrent engineering studies. The Forge is intended to be able to pull together a team of strategically selected domain experts to innovatively solve a specified problem within a short period of time. The Forge’s inaugural project being the development of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module concept. The lab module is intended as an option for the Artemis program’s Lunar Architecture Team. The lab module may allow for increased science productivity and return on investment than a surface architecture with only the habitat. This paper will discuss the configuration of the Lunar Laboratory module, including the pressure vessel, its placement relative to the Surface Habitat and Pressurized Rover, and internal architecture. In order to determine the suitability of such a design, a human factors evaluation is conducted. Historically, a human factors evaluation of a habitable volume could require a month or longer, including time needed to prepare a test plan, conduct the evaluation, compile the data, and produce a report. The entire Forge effort will only last for five weeks, forcing the creation of a rapid assessment process. This rapid assessment includes three evaluation studies, all conducted and processed in the space of a single day, to determine the acceptability of the resulting design. The first evaluation is a card sort evaluation of the laboratory instruments. A brief discussion of the card sort evaluation is provided. This card sort is focused on the relative positioning of the laboratory instruments, determining whether a given instrument should be adjacent to, or separated from, another. It will use human factors personnel and both life and physical scientists as subject matter experts. The second evaluation is a science productivity tabletop evaluation. This evaluation focuses on the selection of instruments and the number of instruments, attempting to assess the amount of work the crew will be able to use the facility to do. It uses life and physical science personnel as subject matter experts. The third evaluation is a CAD or Virtual Reality human factors walkthrough evaluation. This evaluation focuses on the layout of the lab module and its connectivity to the basecamp’s pressurized elements. If possible, astronauts will be used as subject matter experts. Each of these evaluations will focus primarily on objective data with limited subjective comments, reducing the time required for processing responses. The results of each evaluation and their implications will be discussed. Based on the evaluation data, an overall acceptability of the Lunar Surface Laboratory Module produced by the Forge study can be determined. Lessons learned and recommendations for future use of the human factors rapid assessment process in early design trades will also be provided.

Lunar Laboratory↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Evaluation of Extended Reality Technologies for Use in Verification Testing at NASA 2024 HRP IWS Abstract

BACKGROUND At NASA, verification testing is the formal process of ensuring that a product conforms to requirements set by a project or program. Some verification methods, such as Demonstrations and Test, require either the end product or a mockup of the product with sufficient fidelity to stand-in for the product during the test. Traditionally, these mockups have been physical (e.g., foam-core and wood) but there is growing interest in exploring new methods for testing with these mockups. These methods include virtual reality (VR), mixed reality, and augmented reality which are collectively referred to as eXtended Reality (XR) technologies. VR has already been adopted and used by many in the aerospace industry as a tool for use in early design phases (e.g., developmental testing) and may have the most potential for use in verification tests. Benefits of using VR mockups offer cost effectiveness, ease of iteration, simulation of hazardous conditions (e.g., an egress through a hatch with smoke obscuring vision), and the ability to simulate microgravity conditions, which are challenging to do with physical mockups. However, the validity of test results obtained from VR mockup demonstrations or testing, compared to the current gold standard of physical mockups, remains uncertain. It is unlikely that there is one clean answer as there are many different types of verification outcomes and each XR technology must be evaluated on its own merits. This is not an issue during developmental testing as the design is still in flux and the total success of the design is not dependent upon the results of a developmental test. Verification tests, however, only happen once, assuming no change to the design, and the results are used to certify the product. Therefore, establishing the validity of XR mockup-based verification outcomes is essential before considering them for any use in verification tests. OBJECTIVE AND METHOD To address this concern, the Human Research Program has funded a project to explore and qualify how XR technologies might be used in verification demonstration and testing at NASA. Currently, we are conducting a review of the literature on the utilization of XR mockups for design activities, prototyping, and user testing. We are employing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis method to identify the pros, cons, and barriers to adoption of XR technologies for verification testing at NASA. Additionally, we are developing a framework to guide the deployment of XR mockups for verification tests. Building upon available evidence from the literature and subject-matter expert feedback, our goal for the framework is to provide guidelines for which forms of XR mockups are suitable for a given verification test, when only physical mockups should be employed and to highlight areas for which more evidence is needed. To further refine our framework and to contribute to the body of evidence, we are planning a lab-based experiment comparing a VR mockup to a physical twin for a set of select verification outcomes. ANTICIPATED RESULTS In this presentation, we will present the work we conducted to evaluate XR technologies for use in verification tests at NASA. We will summarize and report our findings from the SWOT analysis and our lab-based study, and we will present the current state of the XR Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project. Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project.

Extended Reality↗