Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Shu-Chieh Wu

Publications and source records attributed to Shu-Chieh Wu.

10 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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

NASA Exploration Systems Maintainability Standards for Artemis and Beyond

This assessment was requested by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), which, based on findings from the NESC study “Safe Human Expeditions Beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO)” (Valinia et al., 2022), determined its topic to be an underrecognized critical and urgent Agency need, due to impending Artemis vehicle procurements. The principal objective of this assessment was to review and update current Agency-level maintainability requirements for space systems to support crew on expeditions beyond LEO in both preventive and corrective maintenance. This report contains the results of the NESC assessment.

Orbital Replacement Units↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Extreme Problem Solving II: How Can 4 Astronauts do the Jobs of 80 Experts?

On past and present space missions, resilience is largely dependent on the problem-solving expertise of flight controllers at Mission Control on the ground. Missions to Mars will instead experience long communication delays and blackouts that require a small crew to detect, diagnose, and respond to critical events with only intermittent and limited real-time ground support. Our 2021 SpaceCHI paper “Extreme Problem Solving: The New Challenges of Deep Space Exploration” introduced the paradigm shift of increasingly Earth-independent mission operations and identified the capabilities that are not currently available on-board but will be needed to enable safe exploration beyond low-Earth orbit [1]. This paper investigates how the ground team achieves resilience today to inform what will be needed to achieve human-systems resilience on future long duration exploration missions – how can a crew of four generalists achieve the same outcomes as a team of 80+ experts? An actual ISS anomaly is analyzed and then reimagined under Mars transit conditions, to reveal critical decision-points and the onboard capabilities that will be needed for successful resolution. This paper also presents criteria for what makes urgent, unanticipated events so challenging to resolve.

human-systems integration architecture↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Impact of Delayed Communication on NASA’s Human-Systems Operations: Preliminary Results of a Systematic Review

Throughout the history of human spaceflight, NASA has relied on a team of ground-based experts on Earth to manage its missions, vehicles, and crews to ensure crew safety and mission success. However, as missions progress beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), this paradigm of dependence on ground must evolve. Beyond LEO, in missions to the moon and Mars, crews will confront new challenges: limited evacuation options, reduced resupply capabilities, and significant communication delays that impede real-time support from experts on the ground. This reduction in ground support amplifies the likelihood that crews will be unable to adequately respond to unanticipated, safety-critical events. Understanding the scope of these risks and identifying effective countermeasures hinges on understanding the impact of communication delays on complex operations, especially in urgent, unforeseen events. Real-time communication currently provides the crew with continuous access to a large, extensively resourced ground team skilled in anomaly resolution. However, as communication delays grow, the need to transfer some responsibilities from ground experts to onboard crew becomes evident. NASA has been exploring this shift in operational responsibilities and its effectiveness in managing complex operations for decades. Nevertheless, a comprehensive understanding of the specific challenges posed by communication delays and the necessary countermeasures to mitigate them remains a gap. In this paper, we present an update on our systematic review of the literature on communication delays, the first in-depth review since 2013 (Rader et al.). We introduce a coding taxonomy to capture key constructs from papers of interest and discuss preliminary findings. These preliminary results suggest two significant research gaps: limited studies have been conducted 1) with lunar-like latencies and 2) on problem-solving strategies for the maximum latencies expected in Mars missions. We outline plans and propose recommendations to address these gaps through ongoing and future research.

human-systems integration↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Information Systems for Crew-Led Operations Beyond Low-Earth Orbit

On past and present human space missions, the management of vehicle health and status has primarily been executed from Earth. Missions such as Apollo, Space Shuttle, and ISS have relied on a safety net of ground-based experts with access to real-time telemetry data, broad and deep systems expertise, and powerful analytical and computing capabilities. The ground team monitors and manages the vehicle’s health in real-time and responds quickly to critical situations and malfunctions. Ground operators also provide real-time oversight and verbal guidance to flight crew members, especially during complex procedure execution and high-risk activities like extra-vehicular activities. However, this operational paradigm, in place for 60 years, will not transfer to long duration exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). Lunar and deep-space crewed missions will encounter delayed communications that prohibit real-time operational and medical support. Additionally, there will be infrequent resupply and a diminished capacity to evacuate or rescue crew members. A small crew must operate independently, managing the vehicle’s state, responding to time-critical events, and executing complex procedures, all without the safety net of real-time support.

data representation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Interface Consistency: Phase I Results & Phase II Status

Future exploration missions will rely on designing and developing vehicles and complex systems from within NASA and through multiple external commercial partners to meet mission goals. Despite existing consistency-related agency requirements, NASA’s approach to commercial spaceflight development encourages providers’ flexibility and innovation. This strategy is resulting in significant design diversity across Artemis vehicles. Design best practices and guidelines champion interface consistency to promote mental model development and knowledge transfer. However, research investigating the benefits of consistency is mixed, and little is known about its role in complex systems. Determining the level of risk that system diversity presents is difficult, as there is no established method for quantifying the degree of consistency within and across interfaces, nor is there information about the differential impacts of different types of inconsistency. Phase I of this project (Characterization and Measurement) served as a starting point to better understand the construct of consistency, its application, and the range of studies and methods for measuring it. The project team created a taxonomy of consistency to apply to interfaces as a framework to guide the development of tools to assess intersystem consistency. Checklist and cognitive walkthrough methods were developed for use by human factors (HF) and human-computer interaction (HCI) experts. The Intersystem Consistency Scale (ICS) was developed for interface evaluations with crew. A pilot study evaluated the methods’ ability to distinguish differences between Artemis-like prototype pairs exhibiting either high or low design consistency. In addition, click errors and time on task were collected within the ICS (crew-like) group. Results from our exploratory analysis and lessons learned from the pilot study will be discussed. The project team will also present the status of Phase II (Risk Assessment, Standards and Guidelines). This includes incorporating feedback to redesign the assessment tools, and inputs from displays and training Subject Matter Experts to update tasks and prototype designs. The team will present the risk assessment study design to identify the types and levels of inconsistency that pose the greatest risk to performance. Plans to apply these results toward agency standards and guideline recommendations will also be discussed.

Human-Computer Interaction↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessment of the State of Communication Delay Research in Preparation for Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit

NASA’s mission-operations paradigm, established during Project Mercury and minimally evolving through the Apollo Program, Space Shuttle Program, and ISS missions, has primarily depended on real-time support from a ground team of experts. This ground team has served as the safety net for crewed spaceflight missions over the past 60 years, managing the combined state of the mission, vehicle, and crew. However, this operational paradigm, which has seen little change in its Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA), will face challenges during long-duration exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. Lunar missions may experience one-way communication latencies ranging from 3 to 14 seconds, while Mars missions will encounter up to a 44-minute round-trip latency at a maximum distance from Earth. Communication delays negatively impact the behavioral health and performance of individuals and crews operating across the multi-team space-to-ground system. Previous research indicates that increased isolation and the challenges posed by delayed communication lead to heightened stress, frustration, adverse behavioral symptoms, and reduced individual performance. NASA has investigated the nature and effectiveness of managing this shift in complex operations since early 2000, but additional research is necessary to assess the issues associated with communication latencies and identify effective countermeasures. This work aimed to examine the evidence from 20 years of research on comm delays. We systematically reviewed the past 20 years of communication delay literature, focusing on how this research aligns with relevant, high-priority needs in the HSIA, Team, and BMed Risks. This type of panoramic review has not been done since 2013; a current, aggregated picture of what has been studied and how is needed to inform additional studies and mitigation development. Additional perspectives were gained from interviews with the research participants, operations experts, and communication delay researchers. Results from this effort will help characterize the risk posed by communication latency for upcoming Artemis missions and point toward potential mitigations. The final results will be presented. For the literature review, we formed a search term seed set drawing from languages used in two papers representative of the previous state of knowledge and supplemented it with additional search terms. We conducted literature searches on Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science and searched NASA project archives for output from NASA-sponsored research. This search yielded 150 papers, of which 48 were relevant. SME interviews provided perspective on key communication delay issues and concerns and what is being worked on to mitigate those issues. Preliminary results of the literature review have been presented. Final results to be presented include the results of the literature review and findings from the interviews.

literature review↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Extended Reality Mockups for Use in Verification: Phase 2

NASA commercial providers are increasing their use of Virtual Reality (VR) and Hybrid Reality (HR) technologies in their system development process. The use of these technologies, collectively referred to as Extended Reality (XR) technologies, has been limited to the development phase, but there have been requests to integrate VR and HR mockups into verifications. Verifications require, at minimum, a high-fidelity mockup for activities involving human participation (tests, demonstrations, inspections). HR technology shares many of the strengths but may not share some of the critical shortcomings of VR. Specifically, HR allows for integrating physical objects, such as a suit, which may be critical to evaluating a system. Adopting HR technology still has many of the same challenges as VR. Namely, there is little to no data about the validity of evaluations conducted with HR mockups, an established process, or criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of HR mockups. Because verifications are final and only need to happen once, HR mockups must be adequately vetted before being approved for use in verifications. Further hindering the adoption of these technologies is the lack of consensus on what constitutes a high-fidelity XR mockup. Even for physical mockups, there are guidelines and common criteria, but nothing has been formalized. Discussion about when an XR mockup can be used would be greatly helped by clearly defining what a high-fidelity XR mockup is and how it might be measured. The team will engage with relevant stakeholders to learn more about the benefits and challenges of adopting hybrid reality mockups for verification. The team will build upon work from Phase 1 by maturing a framework to guide decisions for evaluating XR mockups for use in verifications. The team will also conduct experimental studies to evaluate advantages and tradeoffs of hybrid/mixed reality relative to physical and virtual reality mockups. Finally, data from Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be synthesized into a set of best practices for developing and validating XR mockups for verification. We will highlight the work conducted to date in Phase 2. We will present the status of the XR for Verification Framework, a summary of best practices identified thus far, and give a synopsis of future work.

verification testing↗