Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Whitmore, Mihriban.
The study, discovery, and application of information about human abilities, human limitations, and other human characteristics to the design of tools, devices, machines, systems, job tasks and environments for effective human performance.
No abstract available
No abstract available
As NASA plans to send human explorers beyond low Earth orbit, onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system, there will be new challenges to address in terms of HSI. These exploration missions will be quite different from the current and past missions such as Apollo, Shuttle, and International Space Station. The exploration crew will be more autonomous from ground mission control with delayed, and at times, no communication. They will have limited to no resupply for much longer mission durations. Systems to deliver and support extended human habitation at these destinations are extremely complex and unique, presenting new opportunities to employ HSI practices. In order to have an effective and affordable HSI implementation, both research and programmatic efforts are required. Currently, the HSI-related research at NASA is primarily in the area of space human factors and habitability. The purpose is to provide human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and update standards, requirements, and processes to verify and validate these requirements. In addition, HSI teams are actively engaged in technology development and demonstration efforts to influence the mission architecture and next-generation vehicle design. Finally, appropriate HSI references have been added to NASA' s systems engineering documentation, and an HSI Practitioner's Guide has been published to help design engineers consider HSI early and continuously in the acquisition process. These current and planned HSI-related activities at NASA will be discussed in this panel.
No abstract available
As NASA is planning to send humans deeper into space than ever before, adequate crew health and performance will be critical for mission success. Within the NASA Human Research Program (HRP), the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) team is responsible for characterizing the risks associated with human capabilities and limitations with respect to long-duration spaceflight, and for providing mitigations (e.g., guidelines, technologies, and tools) to promote safe, reliable and productive missions. SHFH research includes three domains: Advanced Environmental Health (AEH), Advanced Food Technology (AFT), and Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE). The AEH portfolio focuses on understanding the risk of microbial contamination of the spacecraft and on the development of standards for exposure to potential toxins such as chemicals, bacteria, fungus, and lunar/Martian dust. The two risks that the environmental health project focuses on are adverse health effects due to changes in host-microbe interactions, and risks associated with exposure to dust in planetary surface habitats. This portfolio also proposes countermeasures to these risks by making recommendations that relate to requirements for environmental quality, foods, and crew health on spacecraft and space missions. The AFT portfolio focuses on reducing the mass, volume, and waste of the entire integrated food system to be used in exploration missions, and investigating processing methods to extend the shelf life of food items up to five years, while assuring that exploration crews will have nutritious and palatable foods. The portfolio also delivers improvements in both the food itself and the technologies for storing and preparing it. SHFE sponsors research to establish human factors and habitability standards and guidelines in five risk areas, and provides improved design concepts for advanced crew interfaces and habitability systems. These risk areas include: Incompatible vehicle/habitat design, inadequate human-computer interaction, inadequate critical task design, inadequate human-automation/robotic interaction, and performance errors due to training deficiencies. To address the identified research gaps within each risk, SHFH's research plan includes studies in the laboratory, in analogs, and on International Space Station (ISS). In addition to establishing and maintaining the risk-based research portfolio, SHFH is also implementing a qualitative approach to determine how we at NASA evaluate human performance. Via interviews with experts, such as trainers, flight controllers, and flight surgeons, we are collecting the metrics by which they assess human performance, evidence of performance issues, and potential or actual consequences. The Human Performance Data Project will determine what human performance data have been collected in the past at NASA, and what data should be collected in the future in order to complete our knowledgebase and reduce risks related to human factors and habitability.
No abstract available
NASA-STD-3001 Space Flight Human-System Standard Volume 1, Crew Health, Volume 2, Human Factors, Habitability and Environmental Health, and the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH) have replaced the Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS), NASA-STD-3000. For decades, NASA-STD-3000 was a significant contribution to human spaceflight programs and to human-systems integration. However, with research program and project results being realized, advances in technology, and the availability of new information in a variety of topic areas, the time had arrived to update this extensive suite of standards and design information. NASA-STD-3001, Volume 2 contains the Agency level standards from the human and environmental factors disciplines that ensure human spaceflight operations are performed safely, efficiently, and effectively. The HIDH is organized in the same sequence and serves as the companion document to NASA-STD-3001, Volume 2, providing a compendium of human spaceflight history and knowledge. The HIDH is intended to aid interpretation of NASA-STD-3001, Volume 2 standards and to provide guidance for requirement writers and vehicle and habitat designers. Keywords Human Factors, Standards, Environmental Factors, NASA
Human Systems Integration seeks to design systems around the capabilities and limitations of the humans which use and interact with the system, ensuring greater efficiency of use, reduced error rates, and less rework in the design, manufacturing and operational deployment of hardware and software. One of the primary goals of HSI is to get the human factors practitioner involved early in the design process. In doing so, the aim is to reduce future budget costs and resources in redesign and training. By the preliminary design phase of a project nearly 80% of the total cost of the project is locked in. Potential design changes recommended by evaluations past this point will have little effect due to lack of funding or a huge cost in terms of resources to make changes. Three key concepts define an effective HSI program. First, systems are comprised of hardware, software, and the human, all of which operate within an environment. Too often, engineers and developers fail to consider the human capacity or requirements as part of the system. This leads to poor task allocation within the system. To promote ideal task allocation, it is critical that the human element be considered early in system development. Poor design, or designs that do not adequately consider the human component, could negatively affect physical or mental performance, as well as, social behavior. Second, successful HSI depends upon integration and collaboration of all the domains that represent acquisition efforts. Too often, these domains exist as independent disciplines due to the location of expertise within the service structure. Proper implementation of HSI through participation would help to integrate these domains and disciplines to leverage and apply their interdependencies to attain an optimal design. Via this process domain interests can be integrated to perform effective HSI through trade-offs and collaboration. This provides a common basis upon which to make knowledgeable decisions. Finally, HSI must be considered early in the requirements development phase of system design and acquisition. This will provide the best opportunity to maximize return on investment (ROI) and system performance. HSI requirements must be developed in conjunction with capability ]based requirements generation through functional. HSI requirements will drive HSI metrics and embed HSI issues within the system design. After a system is designed, implementation of HSI oversights can be very expensive. An HSI program should be included as an integral part of a total system approach to vehicle and habitat development. This would include, but not limited to, workstation design, D&C development, volumetric analysis, training, operations, and human -robotic interaction. HSI is a necessary process for Human Space Flight programs to meet the Agency Human ]System standards and thus mitigate human risks to acceptable levels. NASA has been involved in HSI planning, procedures development, process, and implementation for many years, and has been building several internal and publicly accessible products to facilitate HSI fs inclusion in the NASA Systems Engineering Lifecycle. Some of these products include: NASA STD 3001 Volumes 1 and 2, Human Integration Design Handbook, NASA HSI Implementation Plan, NASA HSI Implementation Plan Templates, NASA HSI Implementation Handbook, and a 2 ]hour short course on HSI delivered as part of the NASA Space and Life Sciences Directorate Academy. These products have been created leveraging industry best practices and lessons learned from other Federal Government agencies.
This slide presentation reviews the appropriate NASA standards and Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) standards for human rated spacecraft developed by commercial vendors. Included are the HMTA requirements for the Constellation Program (CxP)
Proper attention to the integration of the human needs in the vehicle displays and controls design process creates a safe and productive environment for crew. Although this integration is critical for all phases of flight, for crew interfaces that are used during dynamic phases (e.g., ascent and entry), the integration is particularly important because of demanding environmental conditions. This panel addresses the process of how human engineering involvement ensures that human-system integration occurs early in the design and development process and continues throughout the lifecycle of a vehicle. This process includes the development of requirements and quantitative metrics to measure design success, research on fundamental design questions, human-in-the-loop evaluations, and iterative design. Processes and results from research on displays and controls; the creation and validation of usability, workload, and consistency metrics; and the design and evaluation of crew interfaces for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle are used as case studies.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Constellation Program is responsible for planning and implementing those programs necessary to send human explorers back to the moon, onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system, and to support missions to the International Space Station. The Constellation Program has the technical management responsibility for all Constellation Projects, including both human rated and non-human rated vehicles such as the Crew Exploration Vehicle, EVA Systems, the Lunar Lander, Lunar Surface Systems, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets. With NASA s new Vision for Space Exploration to send humans beyond Earth orbit, it is critical to consider the human as a system that demands early and continuous user involvement, inclusion in trade offs and analyses, and an iterative "prototype/test/ redesign" process. Personnel at the NASA Johnson Space Center are involved in the Constellation Program at both the Program and Project levels as human system integrators. They ensure that the human is considered as a system, equal to hardware and software vehicle systems. Systems to deliver and support extended human habitation on the moon are extremely complex and unique, presenting new opportunities to employ Human Systems Integration, or HSI practices in the Constellation Program. The purpose of the paper is to show examples of where human systems integration work is successfully employed in the Constellation Program and related Projects, such as in the areas of habitation and early requirements and design concepts.
The development of a new space vehicle, the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), provides Human Factors engineers an excellent opportunity to have an impact early in the design process. This case study highlights a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) evaluation conducted in a Space Vehicle Mock-Up Facility and will describe the human-centered approach and how the findings are impacting design and operational concepts early in space vehicle design. The focus of this HITL evaluation centered on the activities that astronaut crewmembers would be expected to perform within the functional internal volume of the Crew Module (CM) of the space vehicle. The primary objective was to determine if there are aspects of a baseline vehicle configuration that would limit or prevent the performance of dynamically volume-driving activities (e.g. six crewmembers donning their suits in an evacuation scenario). A second objective was to step through concepts of operations for known systems and evaluate them in integrated scenarios. The functional volume for crewmember activities is closely tied to every aspect of system design (e.g. avionics, safety, stowage, seats, suits, and structural support placement). As this evaluation took place before the Preliminary Design Review of the space vehicle with some designs very early in the development, it was not meant to determine definitely that the crewmembers could complete every activity, but rather to provide inputs that could improve developing designs and concepts of operations definition refinement.
A viewgraph presentation on extravehicular activities in space exploration in collaboration with other NASA centers, industries, and universities is shown. The topics include: 1) Concept of Operations for Future EVA activities; 2) Desert Research and Technology Studies (RATS); 3) Advanced EVA Walkback Test; 4) Walkback Subjective Results; 5) Integrated Suit Test 1; 6) Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS); 7) Flex PLSS Design Process; and 8) EVA Information System; 9)
NASA s Space Exploration vision for humans to venture to the moon and beyond provides interesting human factors opportunities and challenges. The Human Engineering group at NASA has been involved in the initial phases of development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Orion. Getting involved at the ground level, Human Factors engineers are beginning to influence design; this involvement is expected to continue throughout the development lifecycle. The information presented here describes what has been done to date, what is currently going on, and what is expected in the future. During Phase 1, prior to the contract award to Lockheed Martin, the Human Engineering group was involved in generating requirements, conducting preliminary task analyses based on interviews with subject matter experts in all vehicle systems areas, and developing preliminary concepts of operations based on the task analysis results. In addition, some early evaluations to look at CEV net habitable volume were also conducted. The program is currently in Phase 2, which is broken down into design cycles, including System Readiness Review, Preliminary Design Review, and Critical Design Review. Currently, there are ongoing Human Engineering Technical Interchange Meetings being held with both NASA and Lockheed Martin in order to establish processes, desired products, and schedules. Multiple design trades and quick-look evaluations (e.g. display device layout and external window size) are also in progress. Future Human Engineering activities include requirement verification assessments and crew/stakeholder evaluations of increasing fidelity. During actual flights of the CEV, the Human Engineering group is expected to be involved in in-situ testing and lessons learned reporting, in order to benefit human space flight beyond the initial CEV program.
With NASA's new Vision for Exploration to send humans beyond Earth orbit, it is critical to consider the human as a system that demands early and continuous user involvement, and an iterative prototype/test/redesign process. Addressing human-system interface issues early on can be very cost effective even cost reducing when performed early in the design and development cycle. To achieve this goal within Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Project Office, human engineering (HE) team is formed. Key tasks are to apply HE requirements and guidelines to hardware/software, and provide HE design, analysis and evaluation of crew interfaces. Initial activities included many practice-orientated evaluations using low-fidelity CEV mock-ups. What follows is a description of such evaluations that focused on a HE requirement regarding Net Habitable Volume (NHV). NHV is defined as the total remaining pressurized volume available to on-orbit crew after accounting for the loss of volume due to deployed hardware and structural inefficiencies which decrease functional volume. The goal of the NHV evaluations was to develop requirements providing sufficient CEV NHV for crewmembers to live and perform tasks in support of mission goals. Efforts included development of a standard NHV calculation method using computer models and physical mockups, and crew/ stakeholder evaluations. Nine stakeholders and ten crewmembers participated in the unsuited evaluations. Six crewmembers also participated in a suited evaluation. The mock-up was outfitted with volumetric representation of sub-systems such as seats, and stowage bags. Thirteen scenarios were developed to represent mission/crew tasks and considered to be primary volume drivers (e.g., suit donning) for the CEV. Unsuited evaluations included a structured walkthrough of these tasks. Suited evaluations included timed donning of the existing launch and entry suit to simulate a contingency scenario followed by doffing/ stowing of the suits. All mockup evaluations were videotaped. Structured questionnaires were used to document user interface issues and volume impacts of layout configuration. Computer model and physical measures of the NHV agreed within 1 percent. This included measurement of the gross habitable volume, subtraction of intrusive volumes, and other non-habitable spaces. Calculation method developed was validated as a standard means of measuring NHV, and was recommended as a verification method for the NHV requirements. Evaluations confirmed that there was adequate volume for unsuited scenarios and suit donning/ doffing activity. Seats, suit design stowage and waste hygiene system noted to be critical volume drivers. The low-fidelity mock-up evaluations along with human modeling analysis generated discussions that will lead to high-level systems requirements and human-centered design decisions. This approach allowed HE requirements and operational concepts to evolve in parallel with engineering system concepts and design requirements. As the CEV design matures, these evaluations will continue and help with design decisions, and assessment, verification and validation of HE requirements.
The Respiratory Support Pack (RSP) is a medical pack onboard the International Space Station (ISS) that contains much of the necessary equipment for providing aid to a conscious or unconscious crewmember in respiratory distress. Inside the RSP lid pocket is a 5.5 by 11 inch paper procedural cue card, which is used by a Crew Medical Officer (CMO) to set up the equipment and deliver oxygen to a crewmember. In training, crewmembers expressed concerns about the readability and usability of the cue card; consequently, updating the cue card was prioritized as an activity to be completed. The Usability Testing and Analysis Facility at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) evaluated the original layout of the cue card, and proposed several new cue card designs based on human factors principles. The approach taken for the assessment was an iterative process. First, in order to completely understand the issues with the RSP cue card, crewmember post training comments regarding the RSP cue card were taken into consideration. Over the course of the iterative process, the procedural information was reorganized into a linear flow after the removal of irrelevant (non-emergency) content. Pictures, color coding, and borders were added to highlight key components in the RSP to aid in quickly identifying those components. There were minimal changes to the actual text content. Three studies were conducted using non-medically trained JSC personnel (total of 34 participants). Non-medically trained personnel participated in order to approximate a scenario of limited CMO exposure to the RSP equipment and training (which can occur six months prior to the mission). In each study, participants were asked to perform two respiratory distress scenarios using one of the cue card designs to simulate resuscitation (using a mannequin along with the hardware). Procedure completion time, errors, and subjective ratings were recorded. The last iteration of the cue card featured a schematic of the RSP, colors, borders, and simplification of the flow of information. The time to complete the RSP procedure was reduced by approximately three minutes with the new design. In an emergency situation, three minutes significantly increases the probability of saving a life. In addition, participants showed the highest preference for this design. The results of the studies and the new design were presented to a focus group of astronauts, flight surgeons, medical trainers, and procedures personnel. The final cue card was presented to a medical control board and approved for flight. The revised RSP cue card is currently onboard ISS.
With permanent human presence onboard the International Space Station (ISS), crews will be living and working in microgravity, dealing with the challenges of a weightless environment. In addition, the confined nature of the spacecraft environment results in ergonomic challenges such as limited visibility and access to the activity areas, as well as prolonged periods of unnatural postures. Without optimum restraints, crewmembers may be handicapped for performing some of the on-orbit tasks. Currently, many of the tasks on ISS are performed with the crew restrained merely by hooking their arms or toes around handrails to steady themselves. This is adequate for some tasks, but not all. There have been some reports of discomfort/calluses on the top of the toes. In addition, this type of restraint is simply insufficient for tasks that require a large degree of stability. Glovebox design is a good example of a confined workstation concept requiring stability for successful use. They are widely used in industry, university, and government laboratories, as well as in the space environment, and are known to cause postural limitations and visual restrictions. Although there are numerous guidelines pertaining to ventilation, seals, and glove attachment, most of the data have been gathered in a 1-g environment, or are from studies that were conducted prior to the early 1980 s. Little is known about how best to restrain a crewmember using a glovebox in microgravity. Another ISS task that requires special consideration with respect to restraints is robotic teleoperation. The Robot Systems Technology Branch at the NASA Johnson Space Center is developing a humanoid robot astronaut, or Robonaut. It is being designed to perform extravehicular activities (EVAs) in the hazardous environment of space. An astronaut located inside the ISS will remotely operate Robonaut through a telepresence control system. Essentially, the robot mimics every move the operator makes. This requires the operator to be stable enough to prevent inadvertent movements, while allowing the flexibility to accomplish the controlled movements of the robot. Some type of special purpose restraint will be required to operate Robonaut and similar devices.