SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Humans”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2004

Human-Robot Planetary Exploration Teams

The EVA Robotic Assistant (ERA) project at NASA Johnson Space Center studies human-robot interaction and robotic assistance for future human planetary exploration. Over the past four years, the ERA project has been performing field tests with one or more four-wheeled robotic platforms and one or more space-suited humans. These tests have provided experience in how robots can assist humans, how robots and humans can communicate in remote environments, and what combination of humans and robots works best for different scenarios. The most efficient way to understand what tasks human explorers will actually perform, and how robots can best assist them, is to have human explorers and scientists go and explore in an outdoor, planetary-relevant environment, with robots to demonstrate what they are capable of, and roboticists to observe the results. It can be difficult to have a human expert itemize all the needed tasks required for exploration while sitting in a lab: humans do not always remember all the details, and experts in one arena may not even recognize that the lower level tasks they take for granted may be essential for a roboticist to know about. Field tests thus create conditions that more accurately reveal missing components and invalid assumptions, as well as allow tests and comparisons of new approaches and demonstrations of working systems. We have performed field tests in our local rock yard, in several locations in the Arizona desert, and in the Utah desert. We have tested multiple exploration scenarios, such as geological traverses, cable or solar panel deployments, and science instrument deployments. The configuration of our robot can be changed, based on what equipment is needed for a given scenario, and the sensor mast can even be placed on one of two robot bases, each with different motion capabilities. The software architecture of our robot is also designed to be as modular as possible, to allow for hardware and configuration changes. Two focus areas of our research are safety and crew time efficiency. For safety, our work involves enabling humans to reliably communicate with a robot while moving in the same workspace, and enabling robots to monitor and advise humans of potential problems. Voice, gesture, remote computer control, and enhanced robot intelligence are methods we are studying. For crew time efficiency, we are investigating the effects of assigning different roles to humans and robots in collaborative exploration scenarios.

Tyree, Kimberly↗

NASA NTRS2014

How Well Does the Latest Anthropomorphic Test Device Mimic Human Impact Responses?

One of the goals of the NASA Occupant Protection Group is to understand the human tolerance to dynamic loading. This knowledge has to come through indirect approaches such as existing human response databases, anthropometric test devices (ATD), animal testing, post‐mortem human subjects, and models. This study investigated the biofidelity of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ATD named the THOR (test device for human occupant restraint). If THOR responds comparably to humans, then it could potentially be used as a human surrogate to help validate space vehicle requirements for occupant protection. The THOR responses to frontal and spinal impacts (ranging from 8 to 12 G with rise times of 40, 70, and 100 ms) were measured and compared to human volunteer responses (95 trials in frontal and 58 in spinal) previously collected by the U. S. Air Force on the same horizontal impact accelerator. The impact acceleration profiles tested are within the expected range of multi‐purpose crew vehicle (MPCV) landing dynamics. A correlation score was calculated for each THOR to human comparison using CORA (CORrelation and Analysis) software. A two‐parameter beta distribution model fit was obtained for each dependent variable using maximum likelihood estimation. For frontal impacts, the THOR head x‐acceleration peak response correlated with the human response at 8 and 10‐G 100 ms but not 10‐G 70 ms. The phase lagged the human response. Head z‐acceleration was not correlated. Chest x‐acceleration was in phase, had a higher peak response, and was well correlated with lighter subjects (Cora = 0.8 for 46 kg vs. Cora = 0.4 for 126 kg). Head x‐displacement had a leading phase. Several subjects responded with the same peak displacement but the mean of the group was lower. The shoulder x‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks than the human response. For spinal impacts, the THOR head x‐acceleration was not well correlated. Head and chest z‐acceleration was in phase but had a higher peak response. Chest z‐acceleration was highly correlated with heavier subjects at lower G pulses (Cora = 0.86 for 125 kg at 8 G). The human response was variable in shoulder z‐displacement but the THOR was in phase and was comparable to the mean peak response. Head xand z‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks. Seat pan forces were well correlated, were in phase, but had a larger peak response than most subjects. The THOR does not respond to frontal and spinal impacts exactly the same way that a human does. Some responses are well matched and others are not. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of this ATD is an important first step in determining its usefulness in occupant protection at NASA

Newby, N.↗

NASA NTRS2014

How Well Does the Latest Anthropomorphic Test Device Mimic Human Impact Responses?

One of the goals of the NASA Occupant Protection Group is to understand the human tolerance to dynamic loading. This knowledge has to come through indirect approaches such as existing human response databases, anthropometric test devices (ATD), animal testing, post-‐mortem human subjects, and models. This study investigated the biofidelity of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ATD named the THOR (test device for human occupant restraint). If THOR responds comparably to humans, then it could potentially be used as a human surrogate to help validate space vehicle requirements for occupant protection. The THOR responses to frontal and spinal impacts (ranging from 8 to 12 G with rise times of 40, 70, and 100 ms) were measured and compared to human volunteer responses (95 trials in frontal and 58 in spinal) previously collected by the U. S. Air Force on the same horizontal impact accelerator. The impact acceleration profiles tested are within the expected range of multi-‐purpose crew vehicle (MPCV) landing dynamics. A correlation score was calculated for each THOR to human comparison using CORA (CORrelation and Analysis) software. A two-‐parameter beta distribution model fit was obtained for each dependent variable using maximum likelihood estimation. For frontal impacts, the THOR head x-‐acceleration peak response correlated with the human response at 8 and 10-‐G 100 ms but not 10-‐G 70 ms. The phase lagged the human response. Head z-‐acceleration was not correlated. Chest x-‐acceleration was in phase, had a higher peak response, and was well correlated with lighter subjects (Cora = 0.8 for 46 kg vs. Cora = 0.4 for 126 kg). Head x-‐displacement had a leading phase. Several subjects responded with the same peak displacement but the mean of the group was lower. The shoulder x-‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks than the human response. For spinal impacts, the THOR head x-‐acceleration was not well correlated. Head and chest z-‐acceleration was in phase but had a higher peak response. Chest z-‐acceleration was highly correlated with heavier subjects at lower G pulses (Cora = 0.86 for 125 kg at 8 G). The human response was variable in shoulder z-‐displacement but the THOR was in phase and was comparable to the mean peak response. Head x-‐ and z-‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks. Seat pan forces were well correlated, were in phase, but had a larger peak response than most subjects. The THOR does not respond to frontal and spinal impacts exactly the same way that a human does. Some responses are well matched and others are not. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of this ATD is an important first step in determining its usefulness in occupant protection at NASA

Newby, Nate↗

NASA NTRS2015

Human Factors and Habitability Challenges for Mars Missions

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.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗

NASA NTRS2016

Tailoring a Human Reliability Analysis to Your Industry Needs

Companies at risk of accidents caused by human error that result in catastrophic consequences include: airline industry mishaps, medical malpractice, medication mistakes, aerospace failures, major oil spills, transportation mishaps, power production failures and manufacturing facility incidents. Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) is used to analyze the inherent risk of human behavior or actions introducing errors into the operation of a system or process. These assessments can be used to identify where errors are most likely to arise and the potential risks involved if they do occur. Using the basic concepts of HRA, an evolving group of methodologies are used to meet various industry needs. Determining which methodology or combination of techniques will provide a quality human reliability assessment is a key element to developing effective strategies for understanding and dealing with risks caused by human errors. There are a number of concerns and difficulties in "tailoring" a Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) for different industries. Although a variety of HRA methodologies are available to analyze human error events, determining the most appropriate tools to provide the most useful results can depend on industry specific cultures and requirements. Methodology selection may be based on a variety of factors that include: 1) how people act and react in different industries, 2) expectations based on industry standards, 3) factors that influence how the human errors could occur such as tasks, tools, environment, workplace, support, training and procedure, 4) type and availability of data, 5) how the industry views risk & reliability, and 6) types of emergencies, contingencies and routine tasks. Other considerations for methodology selection should be based on what information is needed from the assessment. If the principal concern is determination of the primary risk factors contributing to the potential human error, a more detailed analysis method may be employed versus a requirement to provide a numerical value as part of a probabilistic risk assessment. Industries involved with humans operating large equipment or transport systems (ex. railroads or airlines) would have more need to address the man machine interface than medical workers administering medications. Human error occurs in every industry; in most cases the consequences are relatively benign and occasionally beneficial. In cases where the results can have disastrous consequences, the use of Human Reliability techniques to identify and classify the risk of human errors allows a company more opportunities to mitigate or eliminate these types of risks and prevent costly tragedies.

DeMott, D. L.↗

NASA NTRS2016

NASA Human System Risk Assessment Process

NASA utilizes an evidence based system to perform risk assessments for the human system for spaceflight missions. The center of this process is the multi-disciplinary Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The HSRB is chartered from the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) at NASA Headquarters. The HSRB reviews all human system risks via an established comprehensive risk and configuration management plan based on a project management approach. The HSRB facilitates the integration of human research (terrestrial and spaceflight), medical operations, occupational surveillance, systems engineering and many other disciplines in a comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB considers all factors that influence human risk. These factors include pre-mission considerations such as screening criteria, training, age, sex, and physiological condition. In mission factors such as available countermeasures, mission duration and location and post mission factors such as time to return to baseline (reconditioning), post mission health screening, and available treatments. All of the factors influence the total risk assessment for each human risk. The HSRB performed a comprehensive review of all potential inflight medical conditions and events and over the course of several reviews consolidated the number of human system risks to 30, where the greatest emphasis is placed for investing program dollars for risk mitigation. The HSRB considers all available evidence from human research and, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit for 6 and 12 months, deep space for 30 days and 1 year, a lunar mission for 1 year, and a planetary mission for 3 years) are considered as human system risks are modified by the hazards associated with space flight such as microgravity, exposure to radiation, distance from the earth, isolation and a closed environment. Each risk has a summary two-page assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence of that risk, available risk mitigations, traceability to the Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS) and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the Human Research Program, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets to provide the most economical and timely mitigations. The risk assessments were completed for the 6 DRMs and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB reviews each risk at least annually or when new evidence/information is available that adds to the body of evidence. The current status of each risk can be reported to program management for operations, budget reviews and general oversight of the human system risk management program.

Francisco, D.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Digital Human Modeling

The development of models to represent human characteristics and behaviors in human factors is broad and general. The term "model" can refer to any metaphor to represent any aspect of the human; it is generally used in research to mean a mathematical tool for the simulation (often in software, which makes the simulation digital) of some aspect of human performance and for the prediction of future outcomes. This section is restricted to the application of human models in physical design, e.g., in human factors engineering. This design effort is typically human interface design, and the digital models used are anthropometric. That is, they are visual models that are the physical shape of humans and that have the capabilities and constraints of humans of a selected population. They are distinct from the avatars used in the entertainment industry (movies, video games, and the like) in precisely that regard: as models, they are created through the application of data on humans, and they are used to predict human response; body stresses workspaces. DHM enable iterative evaluation of a large number of concepts and support rapid analysis, as compared with use of physical mockups. They can be used to evaluate feasibility of escape of a suited astronaut from a damaged vehicle, before launch or after an abort (England, et al., 2012). Throughout most of human spaceflight, little attention has been paid to worksite design for ground workers. As a result of repeated damage to the Space Shuttle which adversely affected flight safety, DHM analyses of ground assembly and maintenance have been developed over the last five years for the design of new flight systems (Stambolian, 2012, Dischinger and Dunn Jackson, 2014). The intent of these analyses is to assure the design supports the work of the ground crew personnel and thereby protect the launch vehicle. They help the analyst address basic human factors engineering questions: can a worker reach the task site from the work platform provided; can she or he see the task site; can she or he control tools, which, if dropped, might damage the system? Figure 7.3.1 provides an example of such analysis for a future NASA launch vehicle. [figure 7.3.1 here] In-space systems for operation by astronauts have long been targets for DHM analysis, given the focus on mission success and concerns for astronaut safety. Figure 7.3.2 illustrates the analysis of the design to support astronaut tasks for an International Space Station glovebox. [Figure 7.3.2 here] Use by

Dischinger, H. Charles, Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2024

Alignment of NASA’s Human System Risks with Technological Capability Gaps to Enable Integrated Research and Technology Development Strategic Planning

BACKGROUND: Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains a set of twenty-nine different Human System Risks with subject matter experts from across the agency providing regular updates to the estimated likelihood and consequence associated with each risk. The Human Research Program (HRP) has historically used these risk classifications as a primary basis for identifying and prioritizing human research investments aimed at characterizing and/or mitigating the respective human system risks. In many cases, technology development is required to mature and validate risk mitigation strategies, however, NASA’s primary technology development programs have not typically used Human System Risks as a basis for strategic planning. A primary function of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is to continually identify, review, and update technological capability gaps and to establish and oversee multiyear strategic roadmaps aimed at guiding NASA’s technology development priorities in these areas. These roadmaps are intended to be agency-wide and independent of any program, directorate, or other organization within NASA. DESCRIPTION: The SCLT and HRP collaborated to establish a set of Human System Capability Gaps, which establish a formal linkage between the capability gaps used to prioritize investments across much of NASA, and the Human System Risks that are primarily used to inform and prioritize human research. This set of twenty-eight gaps was developed by subject matter experts, and each gap mapped to the primary associated Human System Risks. The gaps and risk mapping were then reviewed and approved via the HSRB, thereby formally aligning the research-focused Human System Risks with the technology-focused capability gaps. DISCUSSION: This effort has enabled development of integrated roadmaps and budget coordination with research and technology development activities that are formally linked to agency-recognized capability gaps and Human System Risks. Close and ongoing coordination between the SCLT, HRP, Mars Campaign Office, and the Health & Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) is essential to ensure alignment and prioritization of CHP-related research and technology development to enable NASA’s future exploration missions.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗

NASA NTRS2004

Perceptual learning through optimization of attentional weighting: human versus optimal Bayesian learner

Human performance in visual detection, discrimination, identification, and search tasks typically improves with practice. Psychophysical studies suggest that perceptual learning is mediated by an enhancement in the coding of the signal, and physiological studies suggest that it might be related to the plasticity in the weighting or selection of sensory units coding task relevant information (learning through attention optimization). We propose an experimental paradigm (optimal perceptual learning paradigm) to systematically study the dynamics of perceptual learning in humans by allowing comparisons to that of an optimal Bayesian algorithm and a number of suboptimal learning models. We measured improvement in human localization (eight-alternative forced-choice with feedback) performance of a target randomly sampled from four elongated Gaussian targets with different orientations and polarities and kept as a target for a block of four trials. The results suggest that the human perceptual learning can occur within a lapse of four trials (<1 min) but that human learning is slower and incomplete with respect to the optimal algorithm (23.3% reduction in human efficiency from the 1st-to-4th learning trials). The greatest improvement in human performance, occurring from the 1st-to-2nd learning trial, was also present in the optimal observer, and, thus reflects a property inherent to the visual task and not a property particular to the human perceptual learning mechanism. One notable source of human inefficiency is that, unlike the ideal observer, human learning relies more heavily on previous decisions than on the provided feedback, resulting in no human learning on trials following a previous incorrect localization decision. Finally, the proposed theory and paradigm provide a flexible framework for future studies to evaluate the optimality of human learning of other visual cues and/or sensory modalities.

Non-NASA Center↗

DOE OSTI2024

Proteomics Analysis of Human Contaminant Proteins

Complete characterization of unknowns via proteomics remains challenging. There exist regions of mass spectrometry-based proteomics data where empirical measurements are not attributed to peptides, and/or sequenced peptides from mass spectra are not attributed to any source. These uncharacterized regions are known as the “dark” proteome. Many proteomics tools rely on some a priori knowledge of sample composition; few tools allow for investigation of unknowns without relying on composition assumptions. Further, the potential low abundance of minor traces in these uncharacterized regions can make elucidation of the “dark” proteome challenging. Herein, we describe the development and evaluation of approaches to study the “dark” proteome and move towards an untargeted approach for more complete characterization, namely by studying minor human protein traces in non-human samples and combining that approach with non-human source organism identification without relying on assumptions. Human protein markers, in the form of genetically variant peptides, have been extensively examined in a variety of human matrices, including blood, plasma, and hair, but have yet to be investigated in non-human samples, such as cell cultures, as human contaminant traces. Genetically variant peptides are those that are found in proteins carrying single nucleotide polymorphisms. In this work, we aimed to (1) investigate the feasibility of detecting human contaminant genetically variant peptides (GVPs) in a diverse set of non-human organisms using public proteomics data and a computational pipeline, as well as to (2) develop a combined capability for untargeted source organism characterization and GVP detection. To our knowledge, this is the first report of applying these approaches towards a more complete proteomic characterization of unknowns. We successfully demonstrate the feasibility of broad human contaminant GVP detection in proteomics data, develop a better understanding of GVP detectability, characterize the sample-to-sample variability in GVP detection, and identify a core set of GVPs that can potentially be used as markers indicative of the human contaminant traces portion of the “dark” proteome. Further, we developed and evaluated a combined pipeline, MARLOWE-GVP, that enables both untargeted source organism characterization and GVP detection. We show high accuracy of correct source organism characterization and high degree of similarity of human contaminant GVP detection compared to the conventional approach. Success on both these efforts have allowed us to advance our understanding and characterization of the “dark” proteome.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS1989

Human machine interaction via the transfer of power and information signals

Robot manipulators are designed to perform tasks which would otherwise be executed by a human operator. No manipulator can even approach the speed and accuracy with which humans execute these tasks. But manipulators have the capability to exceed human ability in one particular area: strength. Through any reasonable observation and experience, the human's ability to perform a variety of physical tasks is limited not by his intelligence, but by his physical strength. If, in the appropriate environment, we can more closely integrate the mechanical power of a machine with intellectually driven human hand under the supervisory control of the human's intellect, we will then have a system which is superior to a loosely-integrated combination of a human and his fully automated robot as in the present day robotic systems. We must therefore develop a fundamental approach to the problem of this extending human mechanical power in certain environments. Extenders will be a class of robots worn by humans to increase human mechanical ability, while the wearer's intellect remains the central intelligent control system for manipulating the extender. The human body, in physical contact with the extender, exchanges information signals and power with the extender. Commands are transferred to the extender via the contact forces between the wearer and the extender as opposed to use of joystick (master arm), push-button or key-board to execute such commands that were used in previous man amplifiers. Instead, the operator becomes an integral part of the extender while executing the task. In this unique configuration the mechanical power transfer between the human and extender occurs in addition to information signal transfer. When the wearer uses the extender to touch and manipulate an object, the extender transfers to the wearer's hand, in feedback fashion, a scaled-down value of the actual external load which the extender is manipulating. This natural feedback force on the wearer's hand allows him to feel the scaled-down value of the external forces in the manipulations. Extenders can be utilized to maneuver very heavy loads in factories, shipyards, airports, and construction sites. In some instances, for example, extenders can replace forklifts. The experimental results for a prototype extender are discussed.

Kazerooni, H.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Thermodynamic Modeling and Analysis of Human Stress Response

A novel approach based on the second law of thermodynamics is developed to investigate the psychophysiology and quantify human stress level. Two types of stresses (thermal and mental) are examined. A Unified Stress Response Theory (USRT) is developed under the new proposed field of study called Engineering Psychophysiology. The USRT is used to investigate both thermal and mental stresses from a holistic (human body as a whole) and thermodynamic viewpoint. The original concepts and definitions are established as postulates which form the basis for thermodynamic approach to quantify human stress level. An Objective Thermal Stress Index (OTSI) is developed by applying the second law of thermodynamics to the human thermal system to quantify thermal stress or dis- comfort in the human body. The human thermal model based on finite element method is implemented. It is utilized as a "Computational Environmental Chamber" to conduct series of simulations to examine the human thermal stress responses under different environmental conditions. An innovative hybrid technique is developed to analyze human thermal behavior based on series of human-environment interaction simulations. Continuous monitoring of thermal stress is demonstrated with the help of OTSI. It is well established that the human thermal system obeys the second law of thermodynamics. Further, the OTSI is validated against the experimental data. Regarding mental stress, an Objective Mental Stress Index (OMSI) is developed by applying the Maxwell relations of thermodynamics to the combined thermal and cardiovascular system in the human body. The OMSI is utilized to demonstrate the technique of monitoring mental stress continuously and is validated with the help of series of experimental studies. Although the OMSI indicates the level of mental stress, it provides a strong thermodynamic and mathematical relationship between activities of thermal and cardiovascular systems of the human body.

Boregowda, S. C.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Human Rating Requirements for NASA's Constellation Program

NASA s Constellation Program (CxP) will conduct a series of human space expeditions of increasing scope, starting with missions supporting the International Space Station and expanding to encompass the Moon and Mars. Although human-rating is an integral part of all CxP activities throughout their life cycle, NASA Procedural Requirements document NPR 8705.2B, Human-Rating Requirements (HRR) for Space Flight Systems, defines the additional processes, procedures, and requirements necessary to produce human-rated space systems that protect the safety of crew members and passengers on these NASA missions. In order to be in compliance with 8705.2B the CxP must show appropriate implementation or progression toward the HRR, or justification for an exception. Compliance includes an explanation of how the CxP intends to meet the HRR, analyses to be performed to determine implementation; and a matrix to trace the HRR to CxP requirements. The HRR requires the CxP to establish a human system integration team (HSIT), consisting of astronauts, mission operations personnel, training personnel, ground processing personnel, human factors personnel, and human engineering experts, with clearly defined authority, responsibility, and accountability to lead the human-system integration. For example, per the HRR the HSIT is involved in the evaluation of crew workload, human-in-the-loop usability evaluations, determining associated criteria, and in assessment of how these activities influenced system design. In essence, the HSIT is invaluable in CxP s ability to meet the three fundamental tenets of human rating: the process of designing, evaluating, and assuring that the total system can safely conduct the required human missions; the incorporation of design features and capabilities that accommodate human interaction with the system to enhance overall safety and mission success; and the incorporation of design features and capabilities to enable safe recovery of the crew from hazardous situations.

Berdich, Debbie↗

NASA NTRS2009

Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan

The Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes the portfolio of Human Research Program (HRP) research and technology tasks. The IRP is the HRP strategic and tactical plan for research necessary to meet HRP requirements. The need to produce an IRP is established in HRP-47052, Human Research Program - Program Plan, and is under configuration management control of the Human Research Program Control Board (HRPCB). Crew health and performance is critical to successful human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The Human Research Program (HRP) is essential to enabling extended periods of space exploration because it provides knowledge and tools to mitigate risks to human health and performance. Risks include physiological and behavioral effects from radiation and hypogravity environments, as well as unique challenges in medical support, human factors, and behavioral or psychological factors. The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. Without HRP results, NASA will face unknown and unacceptable risks for mission success and post-mission crew health. This Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes HRP s approach and research activities that are intended to address the needs of human space exploration and serve HRP customers and how they are integrated to provide a risk mitigation tool. The scope of the IRP is limited to the activities that can be conducted with the resources available to the HRP; it does not contain activities that would be performed if additional resources were available. The timescale of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illustrates the program s research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of extended duration.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors Research for Space Exploration: Measurement, Modeling, and Mitigation

As part of NASA's Human Research Program, the Space Human Factors Engineering Project serves as the bridge between Human Factors research and Human Spaceflight applications. Our goal is to be responsive to the operational community while addressing issues at a sufficient level of abstraction to ensure that our tools and solutions generalize beyond the point design. In this panel, representatives from four of our research domains will discuss the challenges they face in solving current problems while also enabling future capabilities. Historically, engineering-dominated organizations have tended to view good Human Factors (HF) as a desire rather than a requirement in system design and development. Our field has made significant gains in the past decade, however; the Department of Defense, for example, now recognizes Human-System Integration (HSI), of which HF is a component, as an integral part of their divisions hardware acquisition processes. And our own agency was far more accepting of HF/HSI requirements during the most recent vehicle systems definition than in any prior cycle. Nonetheless, HF subject matter experts at NASA often find themselves in catch up mode... coping with legacy systems (hardware and software) and procedures that were designed with little regard for the human element, and too often with an attitude of we can deal with any operator issues during training. Our challenge, then, is to segregate the true knowledge gaps in Space Human Factors from the prior failures to incorporate best (or even good) HF design principles. Further, we strive to extract the overarching core HF issues from the point-design-specific concerns that capture the operators (and managers) attention. Generally, our approach embraces a 3M approach to Human Factors: Measurement, Modeling, and Mitigation. Our first step is to measure human performance, to move from subjective anecdotes to objective, quantified data. Next we model the phenomenon, using appropriate methods in our field, modifying them to suit the unique aspects of the space environment. Finally, we develop technologies, tools, and procedures to mitigate the decrements in human performance and capabilities that occur in space environments. When successful, we decrease risks to crew safety and to mission success. When extremely successful (or lucky), we devise generalizable solutions that advance the state of our practice. Our panel is composed of researchers from diverse domains of our project... from different boxes, if you will, of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS).

Kaiser, Mary K.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Development of Human System Integration at 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.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗

NASA NTRS2023

Technological and Medical Human Health and Well-Being Options in Deep Space

Zeroth order, maintenance of human health requires supportive protection from the hazards of space, including supplying breathable air, comfortable temperatures, a supportive diet/nutrition, radiation protection, and sufficient gravity to avoid the combinatorial impacts of such effecting human operability and health. Spacecraft operability must be “fail-safe” to ensure these basic human life support conditions are maintained throughout the mission and the mission(s) must be affordable. There are known effects and unknowns effects regarding aspects of human health for Mars duration missions. Mars has the order of a third g. We have no data regarding the health impacts of this on humans or the combinatorial effects associated with 45% GCR on the Martian surface over time. There is a suspicion that if humans survive such conditions over long times they will evolve to living at reduced g and become “Martians”. Cascading failures and subcritical degradations in systems of systems causing an overall unrecoverable failure are a potential issue. There are two exremely complex systems associated with humans-Mars missions: the technical, engineering, and architectural system of systems that enable the mission and the humans. Both need to be mutually configured and operated to mitigate the overall risks and hazards of the mission. Regarding the humans that mitigation includes both the mission risks and supporting-to-increasing the human immune and other concomitant physiological systems. This report will summarize the risks, current mitigation approaches, and putative approaches including lifestyle, nutrition, and “wellness” approaches to possibly improve the human capacity to withstand the large number of combinatorial human physiological rigors of the missions. The wellness observations also apply to and are derived from Earth terrestrial applicable research.

Dennis M Bushnell↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Human-In-The-Loop Simulation for Urban Air Mobility in the Terminal Area

In this paper researchers propose a human-in-the-loop experiment to study human performance when tasked with tactical deconfliction in terminal area air taxi operations. The air taxi operations being considered herein are an advanced air transportation concept called Urban Air Mobility (UAM). The UAM concept aims to support not only air taxi operations, but also package delivery and emergency response among other use cases. The key innovation over current air transportation lies with the introduction of highly automated aircraft and air traffic management systems. Development of the UAM system will include transitional midterm phases where some operational services will be provided by a mixture of automation and human actors. Midterm operations present a unique challenge, since the scope of responsibility of automated systems is largely undefined, suggesting the need for direct human participation with little to inform how much human intervention is necessary. Here it is assumed that traffic management responsibilities require coordination between human actors and automated systems and focus on arrival flows for midterm operations. In the proposed human-in-the-loop simulation, virtual UAM traffic is strategically deconflicted by a Provider of Services for UAM at departure, then tactically managed by a human at the arrival facility. Generated traffic consists of UAM participants flying in UAM exclusive airspace structures, thus isolated from traditional traffic. The human operator is tasked with managing spacing of arrival traffic and executing speed adjustments as deemed necessary. Researchers propose the investigation of three levels of automation assistance: 1) no assistance; 2) spacing violation detection; 3) spacing violation detection and speed adjustment recommendations. Quantitative measures like throughput and delay are used to assess the human's capacity for accommodating airborne delays. Qualitative evaluations such as surveys and open-ended feedback are used to gain insight into human factors. These factors could introduce additional capacity constraints on traffic, independent of physical or technical constraints. Although findings for this study will not be reported as the study has not yet been executed, the authors conclude with potential outcomes informed by previous simulations in the literature and suggestions for the structure and procedures of midterm human-automation air traffic management.

UAM↗