Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Litaker, Harry

Publications and source records attributed to Litaker, Harry.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

Deep Space Habitability Design Guidelines Based on the NASA NextSTEP Phase 2 Ground Test Program

This report summarizes habitation design guidelines for deep space habitats, which were derived from the NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Phase 2 Habitat Ground Test Program. All data presented in this document have been contractor-deidentified and approved for public release. The report prioritizes capabilities and recommends allocating those capabilities to either the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) or the International Habitat (I-Hab). A review of the design guidelines is presented in the main body of the report, along with a list of the 170 specific design guidelines with references to the specific data sources from which they were derived.

Gernhardt, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2014

Usability of Operational Performance Support Tools - Findings from Sea Test II

Sea Test II, aka NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations 17(NEEMO 17) took place in the Florida Aquarius undersea habitat. This confined underwater environment provides a excellent analog for space habitation providing similarities to space habitation such as hostile environment, difficult logistics, autonomous operations, and remote communications. This study collected subjective feedback on the usability of two performance support tools during the Sea Test II mission, Sept 10‐14, 2013; Google Glass and iPAD. The two main objectives: - Assess the overall functionality and usability of each performance support tool in a mission analog environment. - Assess the advantages and disadvantages of each tool when performing operational procedures and Just‐In‐Time‐Training (JITT).

Byrne, Vicky↗
NASA NTRS2012

Acoustical and Intelligibility Test of the Vocera(Copyright) B3000 Communication Badge

To communicate with each other or ground support, crew members on board the International Space Station (ISS) currently use the Audio Terminal Units (ATU), which are located in each ISS module. However, to use the ATU, crew members must stop their current activity, travel to a panel, and speak into a wall-mounted microphone, or use either a handheld microphone or a Crew Communication Headset that is connected to a panel. These actions unnecessarily may increase task times, lower productivity, create cable management issues, and thus increase crew frustration. Therefore, the Habitability and Human Factors and Human Interface Branches at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) are currently investigating a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) wireless communication system, Vocera(C), as a near-term solution for ISS communication. The objectives of the acoustics and intelligibility testing of this system were to answer the following questions: 1. How intelligibly can a human hear the transmitted message from a Vocera(c) badge in three different noise environments (Baseline = 20 dB, US Lab Module = 58 dB, Russian Module = 70.6 dB)? 2. How accurate is the Vocera(C) badge at recognizing voice commands in three different noise environments? 3. What body location (chest, upper arm, or shoulder) is optimal for speech intelligibility and voice recognition accuracy of the Vocera(C) badge on a human in three different noise environments?

Archer, Ronald↗
NASA NTRS2009

Techniques and Results for Determining Window Placement and Configuration for the Small Pressurized Rover (SPR)

A natural component to driving any type of vehicle, be it Earth-based or space-based, is visibility. In its simplest form visibility is a measure of the distance at which an object can be seen. With the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS), there are human factors design guidelines for windows. However, for planetary exploration related vehicles, especially land-based vehicles, relatively little has been written on the importance of windows. The goal of the current study was to devise a proper methodology and to obtain preliminary human-in-the-loop data on window placement and location for the small pressurized rover (SPR). Nine participants evaluated multiple areas along the vehicle s front "nose", while actively maneuvering through several lunar driving simulations. Subjective data was collected on seven different aspects measuring areas of necessity, frequency of views, and placement/configuration of windows using questionnaires and composite drawings. Results indicated a desire for a large horizontal field-of-view window spanning the front of the vehicle for most driving situations with slightly reduced window areas for the lower front, lower corners, and side views.

Thompson, Shelby↗
NASA NTRS2009

A Comparison of the Unpressurized Rover and Small Pressurized Rover During a Desert Field Evaluation

To effectively explore the lunar surface, astronauts will need a transportation vehicle which can traverse all types of terrain. Currently, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) is investigating two lunar rover configurations to meet such a requirement. Under the Lunar Electric Rover (LER) project, a comparison study between the unpressurized rover (UPR) and the small pressurized rover (SPR) was conducted at the Black Point Lava Flow in Arizona. The objective of the study was to obtain human-in-the-loop performance data on the vehicles with respect to human-machine interfaces, vehicle impacts on crew productivity, and scientific observations. Four male participants took part in four, one-day field tests using the exact same terrain and scientific sites for an accurate comparison between vehicle configurations. Subjective data was collected using several human factors performance measures. Results indicate either vehicle configuration was generally acceptable for a lunar mission; however, the SPR configuration was preferred over the UPR configuration primarily for the SPR s ability to cause less fatigue and enabling greater crew productivity.

Litaker, Harry↗