Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Factors Engineering”

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 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1999

Ergonomic Evaluation of the Foot Restraint Equipment Device (FRED)

Within the scope of the Microgravity Workstation and Restraint Evaluation project, funded by the NASA Headquarters Life Sciences Division, evaluations were proposed to be conducted in ground, KC-135, and/or Shuttle environments to investigate the human factors engineering (HFE) issues concerning confined/unique workstations, including crew restraint requirements. As part of these evaluations, KC-135 flights were conducted to investigate user/ workstation/ restraint integration for microgravity use of the FRED with the RMS workstation. This evaluation was a pre-cursor to Detailed Supplementary Objective (DSO) - 904 on STS-88. On that mission, a small-statured astronaut will be using the FRED restraint while working at the Aft RMS workstation. The DSO will collect video for later posture analyses, as well as subjective data in the form of an electronic questionnaire. This report describes the current FRED KC-135 evaluations. The primary objectives were to evaluate the usability of the FRED and to verify the DSO in-flight setup. The restraint interface evaluation consisted of four basic areas of restraint use: 1) adjustability; 2) general usability and comfort; 3) usability at the RMS workstation; and 4) assembly and disassembly.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗
NASA NTRS1995

Capturing the Value: Earth Applications of Space Human Factors Research

This paper details how the Space Human Factors/Life Sciences program at Ames Research Center (ARC) has provided, and continues to provide, a variety of Earth-based benefits. These benefits will be considered under five categories: aeronautics, space-like environments, general applications, human/automation interaction, and methodology. The human factors work at ARC includes a range of activities whose products serve the aerospace community. Some areas of research focus specifically on aeronautical requirements; others are driven by space needs. However, the symbiosis between these two domains allows a sharing of resources, and the insights and experimental results gathered in one domain can often be applied in the other. Aeronautics is an industry whose survival is generally viewed as critical to American competitiveness, and where benefits can result in a very high payoff. The ability to apply space-initiated research to aeronautical requirements represents one example of bringing space benefits down to Earth. The second-order value of space human factors research goes well beyond the aerospace community. Spaceflight shares with a number of other activities certain environmental characteristics that drive human factors engineering design and procedural specification. Spaceflight is an isolated activity, conducted under severely confined conditions, with a high level of risk, and where provisions are restricted and opportunities for outside help are limited. A number of Earth-based activities including submarines and other naval vessels, oil rigs, remote weather stations, and scientific and polar expeditions, share many of these characteristics. These activities serve as testbeds for space-related research and, in turn, space-related research provides beneficial insight to the conduct of these activities.

Connors, Mary M.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Here's a Switch

Through a NASA Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments (AGATE) award, granted through the Langley Research Center, Mod Works, Inc., of Punta Gorda, FL, has applied human factors engineering to an aircraft instrument panel to optimize human/airplane interaction.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

We Have the Spaceship; But Where's the Start Button: Human Engineering Issues in the Age of Long Duration Space Exploration

As long duration space exploration and habitation becomes more commonplace, a number of Human Engineering factors (Gravitational Adaptation, 2-D to 3-D Movement Adaptation, Design Form/Function, and Space Ergonomics to name a few) will become more pronounced. More research and development is needed in these areas or the explorers may find themselves in painful or dangerous situations.

Hamilton, George S.↗
NASA NTRS2008

International Space Station USOS Crew Quarters Development

The International Space Station (ISS) United States Operational Segment (USOS) currently provides a Temporary Sleep Station (TeSS) as crew quarters for one crewmember in the Laboratory Module. The Russian Segment provides permanent crew quarters (Kayutas) for two crewmembers in the Service Module. The TeSS provides limited electrical, communication, and ventilation functionality. A new permanent rack sized USOS ISS Crew Quarters (CQ) is being developed. Up to four CQs can be installed into the Node 2 element to increase the ISS crewmember size to six. The new CQs will provide private crewmember space with enhanced acoustic noise mitigation, integrated radiation reduction material, controllable airflow, communication equipment, redundant electrical systems, and redundant caution and warning systems. The rack sized CQ is a system with multiple crewmember restraints, adjustable lighting, controllable ventilation, and interfaces that allow each crewmember to personalize their CQ workspace. Providing an acoustically quiet and visually isolated environment, while ensuring crewmember safety, is critical for obtaining crewmember rest and comfort to enable long term crewmember performance. The numerous human factor, engineering, and program considerations during the concept, design, and prototyping are outlined in the paper.

Broyan, James Lee, Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Instrument Display Visual Angles for Conventional Aircraft and the MQ-9 Ground Control Station

Aircraft instrument panels should be designed such that primary displays are in optimal viewing location to minimize pilot perception and response time. Human Factors engineers define three zones (i.e. "cones") of visual location: 1) "Easy Eye Movement" (foveal vision); 2) "Maximum Eye Movement" (peripheral vision with saccades), and 3) "Head Movement" (head movement required). Instrument display visual angles were measured to determine how well conventional aircraft (T-34, T-38, F- 15B, F-16XL, F/A-18A, U-2D, ER-2, King Air, G-III, B-52H, DC-10, B747-SCA) and the MQ-9 ground control station (GCS) complied with these standards, and how they compared with each other. Methods: Selected instrument parameters included: attitude, pitch, bank, power, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, heading, turn rate, slip/skid, AOA, flight path, latitude, longitude, course, bearing, range and time. Vertical and horizontal visual angles for each component were measured from the pilot s eye position in each system. Results: The vertical visual angles of displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement" for all but three of the parameters measured, and almost all of the horizontal visual angles fell within this range. All conventional vertical and horizontal visual angles lay within the cone of "Maximum Eye Movement". However, most instrument vertical visual angles of the MQ-9 GCS lay outside the cone of "Easy Eye Movement", though all were within the cone of "Maximum Eye Movement". All the horizontal visual angles for the MQ-9 GCS were within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement". Discussion: Most instrument displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement", though mission-critical instruments sometimes displaced less important instruments outside this area. Many of the MQ-9 GCS systems lay outside this area. Specific training for MQ-9 pilots may be needed to avoid increased response time and potential error during flight.

Bendrick, Gregg A.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Instrument Display Visual Angles for Conventional Aircraft and the MQ-9 Ground Control Station

Aircraft instrument panels should be designed such that primary displays are in optimal viewing location to minimize pilot perception and response time. Human Factors engineers define three zones (i.e. cones ) of visual location: 1) "Easy Eye Movement" (foveal vision); 2) "Maximum Eye Movement" (peripheral vision with saccades), and 3) "Head Movement (head movement required). Instrument display visual angles were measured to determine how well conventional aircraft (T-34, T-38, F- 15B, F-16XL, F/A-18A, U-2D, ER-2, King Air, G-III, B-52H, DC-10, B747-SCA) and the MQ-9 ground control station (GCS) complied with these standards, and how they compared with each other. Selected instrument parameters included: attitude, pitch, bank, power, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, heading, turn rate, slip/skid, AOA, flight path, latitude, longitude, course, bearing, range and time. Vertical and horizontal visual angles for each component were measured from the pilot s eye position in each system. The vertical visual angles of displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement" for all but three of the parameters measured, and almost all of the horizontal visual angles fell within this range. All conventional vertical and horizontal visual angles lay within the cone of Maximum Eye Movement. However, most instrument vertical visual angles of the MQ-9 GCS lay outside the cone of Easy Eye Movement, though all were within the cone of Maximum Eye Movement. All the horizontal visual angles for the MQ-9 GCS were within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement". Most instrument displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of Easy Eye Movement, though mission-critical instruments sometimes displaced less important instruments outside this area. Many of the MQ-9 GCS systems lay outside this area. Specific training for MQ-9 pilots may be needed to avoid increased response time and potential error during flight. The learning objectives include: 1) Know three physiologic cones of eye/head movement; 2) Understand how instrument displays comply with these design principles in conventional aircraft and an uninhabited aerial vehicle system. Which of the following is NOT a recognized physiologic principle of instrument display design? Cone of Easy Eye Movement 2) Cone of Binocular Eye Movement 3) Cone of Maximum Eye Movement 4) Cone of Head Movement 5) None of the above. Answer: # 2) Cone of Binocular Eye Movement

Kamine, Tovy Haber↗
NASA NTRS2009

Proceedings of the First NASA Formal Methods Symposium

Topics covered include: Model Checking - My 27-Year Quest to Overcome the State Explosion Problem; Applying Formal Methods to NASA Projects: Transition from Research to Practice; TLA+: Whence, Wherefore, and Whither; Formal Methods Applications in Air Transportation; Theorem Proving in Intel Hardware Design; Building a Formal Model of a Human-Interactive System: Insights into the Integration of Formal Methods and Human Factors Engineering; Model Checking for Autonomic Systems Specified with ASSL; A Game-Theoretic Approach to Branching Time Abstract-Check-Refine Process; Software Model Checking Without Source Code; Generalized Abstract Symbolic Summaries; A Comparative Study of Randomized Constraint Solvers for Random-Symbolic Testing; Component-Oriented Behavior Extraction for Autonomic System Design; Automated Verification of Design Patterns with LePUS3; A Module Language for Typing by Contracts; From Goal-Oriented Requirements to Event-B Specifications; Introduction of Virtualization Technology to Multi-Process Model Checking; Comparing Techniques for Certified Static Analysis; Towards a Framework for Generating Tests to Satisfy Complex Code Coverage in Java Pathfinder; jFuzz: A Concolic Whitebox Fuzzer for Java; Machine-Checkable Timed CSP; Stochastic Formal Correctness of Numerical Algorithms; Deductive Verification of Cryptographic Software; Coloured Petri Net Refinement Specification and Correctness Proof with Coq; Modeling Guidelines for Code Generation in the Railway Signaling Context; Tactical Synthesis Of Efficient Global Search Algorithms; Towards Co-Engineering Communicating Autonomous Cyber-Physical Systems; and Formal Methods for Automated Diagnosis of Autosub 6000.

Denney, Ewen↗
NASA NTRS2010

Modified Universal Design Survey: Enhancing Operability of Launch Vehicle Ground Crew Worksites

Operability is a driving requirement for next generation space launch vehicles. Launch site ground operations include numerous operator tasks to prepare the vehicle for launch or to perform preflight maintenance. Ensuring that components requiring operator interaction at the launch site are designed for optimal human use is a high priority for operability. To promote operability, a Design Quality Evaluation Survey based on Universal Design framework was developed to support Human Factors Engineering (HFE) evaluation for NASA s launch vehicles. Universal Design per se is not a priority for launch vehicle processing however; applying principles of Universal Design will increase the probability of an error free and efficient design which promotes operability. The Design Quality Evaluation Survey incorporates and tailors the seven Universal Design Principles and adds new measures for Safety and Efficiency. Adapting an approach proven to measure Universal Design Performance in Product, each principle is associated with multiple performance measures which are rated with the degree to which the statement is true. The Design Quality Evaluation Survey was employed for several launch vehicle ground processing worksite analyses. The tool was found to be most useful for comparative judgments as opposed to an assessment of a single design option. It provided a useful piece of additional data when assessing possible operator interfaces or worksites for operability.

Blume, Jennifer L.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Application of a Modified Universal Design Survey for Evaluation of Ares 1 Ground Crew Worksites

Operability is a driving requirement for NASA's Ares 1 launch vehicle. Launch site ground operations include several operator tasks to prepare the vehicle for launch or to perform maintenance. Ensuring that components requiring operator interaction at the launch site are designed for optimal human use is a high priority for operability. To support design evaluation, the Ares 1 Upper Stage (US) element Human Factors Engineering (HFE) group developed a survey based on the Universal Design approach. Universal Design is a process to create products that can be used effectively by as many people as possible. Universal Design per se is not a priority for Ares 1 because launch vehicle processing is a specialized skill and not akin to a consumer product that should be used by all people of all abilities. However, applying principles of Universal Design will increase the probability of an error free and efficient design which is a priority for Ares 1. The Design Quality Evaluation Survey centers on the following seven principles: (1) Equitable use, (2) Flexibility in use, (3) Simple and intuitive use, (4) Perceptible information, (5) Tolerance for error, (6) Low physical effort, (7) Size and space for approach and use. Each principle is associated with multiple evaluation criteria which were rated with the degree to which the statement is true. All statements are phrased in the utmost positive, or the design goal so that the degree to which judgments tend toward "completely agree" directly reflects the degree to which the design is good. The Design Quality Evaluation Survey was employed for several US analyses. The tool was found to be most useful for comparative judgments as opposed to an assessment of a single design option. It provided a useful piece of additional data when assessing possible operator interfaces or worksites for operability

Blume, Jennifer L.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Multipurpose Crew Restraints for Long Duration Space Flights

With permanent human presence onboard the International Space Station (ISS), a crew will be living and working in microgravity, interfacing with their physical environment. Without optimum restraints and mobility aids (R&MA' s), the crewmembers may be handicapped for perfonning some of the on-orbit tasks. In addition to weightlessness, the confined nature of a spacecraft environment results in ergonomic challenges such as limited visibility and access to the activity area and may cause prolonged periods of unnatural postures. Thus, determining the right set of human factors requirements and providing an ergonomically designed environment are crucial to astronauts' well-being and productivity. The purpose of this project is to develop requirements and guidelines, and conceptual designs, for an ergonomically designed multi-purpose crew restraint. In order to achieve this goal, the project would involve development of functional and human factors requirements, design concept prototype development, analytical and computer modeling evaluations of concepts, two sets of micro gravity evaluations and preparation of an implementation plan. It is anticipated that developing functional and design requirements for a multi-purpose restraint would facilitate development of ergonomically designed restraints to accommodate the off-nominal but repetitive tasks, and minimize the performance degradation due to lack of optimum setup for onboard task performance. In addition, development of an ergonomically designed restraint concept prototype would allow verification and validation of the requirements defined. To date, we have identified "unique" tasks and areas of need, determine characteristics of "ideal" restraints, and solicit ideas for restraint and mobility aid concepts. Focus group meetings with representatives from training, safety, crew, human factors, engineering, payload developers, and analog environment representatives were key to assist in the development of a restraint concept based on previous flight experiences, the needs of future tasks, and crewmembers' preferences. Also, a catalog with existing IVA/EVA restraint and mobility aids has been developed. Other efforts included the ISS crew debrief data on restraints, compilation of data from MIR, Skylab and ISS on restraints, and investigating possibility of an in-flight evaluation of current restraint systems. Preliminary restraint concepts were developed and presented to long duration crewmembers and focus groups for feedback. Currently, a selection criterion is being refined for prioritizing the candidate concepts. Next steps include analytical and computer modeling evaluations of the selected candidate concepts, prototype development, and microgravity evaluations.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗
NASA NTRS2012

Unmanned Aircraft: A Pilot's Perspective

Conference presentation sharing aspects of basic human factors engineering applied to aviation and unmanned aircraft systems from the pilot's perspective

Pestana, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2014

Space Mission Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Project

The purpose of the Space Mission Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Project is to extend current ground-based HRA risk prediction techniques to a long-duration, space-based tool. Ground-based HRA methodology has been shown to be a reasonable tool for short-duration space missions, such as Space Shuttle and lunar fly-bys. However, longer-duration deep-space missions, such as asteroid and Mars missions, will require the crew to be in space for as long as 400 to 900 day missions with periods of extended autonomy and self-sufficiency. Current indications show higher risk due to fatigue, physiological effects due to extended low gravity environments, and others, may impact HRA predictions. For this project, Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) will work with Human Health & Performance (HH&P) to establish what is currently used to assess human reliabiilty for human space programs, identify human performance factors that may be sensitive to long duration space flight, collect available historical data, and update current tools to account for performance shaping factors believed to be important to such missions. This effort will also contribute data to the Human Performance Data Repository and influence the Space Human Factors Engineering research risks and gaps (part of the HRP Program). An accurate risk predictor mitigates Loss of Crew (LOC) and Loss of Mission (LOM).The end result will be an updated HRA model that can effectively predict risk on long-duration missions.

Boyer, Roger↗
NASA NTRS2018

Marrying Social Media Approaches and Space Flight Control: Eight Years at SpaceOps

Three previous SpaceOps papers [1-3] - published in 2010, 2012 (honored by the Conference as a "Best Paper"), and 2014 - have discussed paths to using social media concepts and techniques to enhance space flight controller effectiveness by a) reducing clutter of nonverbal communications (e.g., visual flow with minimal headers and shared content instead of multiple copies), b) moving some voice communication to non-verbal transmission (virtually eliminating "say again" requests because non-verbal comm can be re-read), thus making remaining voice comm easier to focus on, and c) reducing short-term and long-term flight stress on flight control personnel. This paper shows how Marshall Space Flight Center's (MSFC) ISS Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) is realizing the above goals via the Communications Dashboard (CommDash) software suite deployed in 2017 (including enhancements to the Console Log Tool (CoLT) discussed in earlier papers). Two larger-scope benefits spawned by CommDash evolution are also chronicled: a) emergence of an Agile Software Development (ASD) process adapted to the not-always-nimble environment of government projects, and b) the sprouting of a Human Factors Engineering (HF or HFE) community of practice within MSFC's Payload and Mission Operations Division (PMOD).

Scott, David W.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Using Virtual Reality for Worksite Analysis

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Human Factors Engineering (HFE) Team is implementing virtual reality (VR) and motion capture (MoCap) into HFE analyses of various projects through its Virtual Environments Lab (VEL). This complements the long history of analyses completed using mockups. These techniques are being implemented for; (1) Concept of development of Deep Space Habitats (DSH), (2) Design and analyses for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS). VR utilization in the VEL will push the design to be better formulated before mockups are constructed, saving budget and time.

Andrews, Tanya↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Clinical Decision Support For Exploration Space Flight: Software Augmentation To Enhance Progressively Earth-Independent Medical Operations

This panel identifies the challenges of supporting medical events in deep space using integrated systems software to augment existing capabilities during increasingly Earth-independent missions where an asynchronous communication environment becomes routine. An interdisciplinary team of software designers, physicians, human factors engineers, and computational modelers applied their respective expertise to develop a roadmap for supporting the crew making medical decisions in more autonomous fashion with time-delayed ground support. The first presentation describes predictive modeling implemented to assist medical system design and address risk reduction using robust clinical decision support software. The second presentation details how operational and environmental challenges guide assumptions and, in turn, by what means requirements for medical decision-making in deep space are derived. The third presentation describes and defines the skills and capabilities an exploration spaceflight medical officer will need to perform effectively during extended-duration spaceflight missions. The fourth presentation covers the potential models and function of the software element for supporting clinical decisions. The final presentation covers how these elements may work together with ground support to provide comprehensive care despite deep space travel's extreme challenges and limitations.

Dana Levin↗