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 199 records · Page 11

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2016

Human Mars Landing Site and Impacts on Mars Surface Operations

NASA has begun a process to identify and discuss candidate locations where humans could land, live and work on the Martian surface. These locations are referred to as Exploration Zones (EZs). Given current mission concepts, an EZ is a collection of Regions of Interest (ROIs) that are located within approximately 100 kilometers of a centralized landing site. ROIs are areas that are relevant for scientific investigation and/or development/maturation of capabilities and resources necessary for a sustainable human presence. The EZ also contains a landing site and a habitation site that will be used by multiple human crews during missions to explore and utilize the ROIs within the EZ. These candidate EZs will be used by NASA as part of a multi‐year process of determining where and how humans could explore Mars. In the near term this process includes: (a) identifying locations that would maximize the potential science return from future human exploration missions, (b) identifying locations with the potential for resources required to support humans, (c) developing concepts and engineering systems needed by future human crews to conduct operations within an EZ, and (d) identifying key characteristics of the proposed candidate EZs that cannot be evaluated using existing data sets, thus helping to define precursor measurements needed in advance of human missions. Existing and future robotic spacecraft will be tasked to gather data from specific Mars surface sites within the representative EZs to support these NASA activities. The proposed paper will describe NASA's initial steps for identifying and evaluating candidate EZs and ROIs. This includes plans for the "First Landing Site/Exploration Zone Workshop for Human Missions to the Surface of Mars" to be held in October 2015 at which proposals for EZs and ROIs will be presented and discussed. It will also include a discussion of how these considerations are (or will be) taken into account as future robotic Mars missions are defined and developed. One or more representative EZs, drawn from similar previous studies involving Mars sites, will be used in the proposed paper to illustrate the process NASA envisions for gathering additional data from robotic precursor missions to assist in making a final selection of an EZ for human crews as well as the steps likely to occur during the buildup of a habitation site. Examples of the systems and operations likely to be used by human crews, assisted by robotic vehicles, to explore the scientific ROIs as well as developing the resource ROIs within the example EZs will be discussed.

Bussey, Ben↗

NASA NTRS2016

Cislunar Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit for Human Space Exploration

In order to conduct sustained human exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), spacecraft systems are designed to operate in a series of missions of increasing complexity. Regardless of the destination, Moon, Mars, asteroids or beyond, there is a substantial set of common objectives that must be met. Many orbit characterization studies have endeavored to evaluate the potential locations in cislunar space that are favorable for meeting common human exploration objectives in a stepwise approach. Multiple studies, by both NASA and other international space agencies, have indicated that Earth-‐moon libration point orbits are attractive candidates for staging operations in the proving ground and beyond. In particular, the Near Rectilinear Orbit (NRO) has been demonstrated to meet multi-‐mission and multi-‐destination architectural constraints. However, a human mission to a selected NRO presents a variety of new challenges for mission planning. While a growing number of robotic missions have completed successful operations to various specific libration point orbits, human missions have never been conducted to orbits of this class. Human missions have unique challenges that differ significantly from robotic missions, including a lower tolerance for mission risk and additional operational constraints that are associated only with human spacecraft. In addition, neither robotic nor human missions have been operated in the NRO regime specifically, and NROs exhibit dynamical characteristics that can differ significantly as compared to other halo orbits. Finally, multi-‐body orbits, such as libration point orbits, are identified to exist in a simplified orbit model known as the Circular Restricted Three Body Problem (CRTBP) and must then be re-‐solved in the full ephemeris model. As a result, the behavior of multi-‐body orbits cannot be effectively characterized within the classical two-‐body orbit dynamics framework more familiar to the human spaceflight community. In fact, a given NRO is not identified by a set of Keplerian orbit parameters, and a valid epoch specific state vector must be first obtained from a multi-body dynamical model. In this paper, the significant performance and operational challenges of conducting human missions to the NRO are evaluated. First, a systematic process for generating full ephemeris based ballistic NROs of various families is outlined to demonstrate the relative ease in which a multi-‐revolution orbit can be found for any epoch and for various orbit geometries. In the Earth-‐Moon system, NROs, which are halo orbits with close passage over a lunar pole, can exist with respect to libration point 1 (L1) or libration point 2 (L2) and are either from a North or South family orbit class with respect to the ecliptic. Second, the ability to maintain the orbit over the lifetime of a habitat mission by applying a reliable station-keeping strategy is investigated. The NRO, while similar to the quasi-‐halo orbits that the Artemis mission flew, requires an updated station keeping strategy. This is due to several dynamical differences such as the increased relative stability of the NRO compared to other halo orbits and the close passage over the lunar surface as shown in Figure 1. Multiple station-keeping strategies are being investigated to ensure a human spacecraft remains on a predictable path. As the NRO is not described in simple two-‐body parameters, analysis must determine the best strategy for targeting a reference NRO as well as how closely a future state should be constrained. In addition, costs will be minimized by determining maneuver directionality based on an identified pattern in the optimal station-keeping solutions or an analytically derived relationship. The candidate station-keeping algorithm must be stable and robust to environmental and vehicle uncertainties as well to navigation estimation and flight control execution errors. To that end, navigation accuracies, the impact on the station-keeping execution errors as well as other vehicle uncertainties need to be assessed. Starting with Orion, current navigation accuracies are evaluated and then navigation requirements are derived assuming a desired station-keeping propellant budget. Third, the performance requirements to and from the NRO are evaluated. Important parameters for developing expected propellant costs include epoch of operation, size and type of NRO, Earth departure and return constraints, as well as abort or early-‐return capability. Finally, rendezvous and proximity operations are vital aspects of multi-‐mission human exploration endeavors. The ability to conduct rendezvous and the associated propellant costs are assessed as well as the impacts of various profile assumptions including the location within the NRO the rendezvous is performed. The results of these studies will influence plans for international cooperation on both nearer term proving ground missions and beyond.

Whitley, Ryan↗

NASA NTRS2019

Inserting New Technologies into Human-Computer Interfaces for Future Lunar and Mars Missions

Plans call for human cislunar operations and lunar surface access, to prepare for eventual Mars missions. NASA will also develop new opportunities in lunar orbit that provide the foundation and act as a gateway for human exploration deeper into the solar system. Current human spaceflight is complex and requires as many as fifty people to support the International Space Station (ISS) Mission Control Center (MCC) in Houston, Texas. These flight controllers in the front and back rooms of the MCC, serve as an extra pair of eyes overseeing the numerous station systems. Deep space missions - to the moon, Mars, and beyond - will be more complex and place challenging mission constraints on the crew. As the round-trip communication delays increase in deep space exploration, more on-board systems autonomy and functionality will be needed to maintain and control the vehicle. These mission constraints will change the Earth-based ground control approach and will demand efficient and effective human-computer interfaces (HCI) to control a highly complex vehicle or habitat system. All of this necessitates a different approach to designing and developing spacecraft and habitats. In the beginning of new human spaceflight programs, focus is typically on launch vehicle and uncrewed spacecraft design and development. The reasoning behind this focus to enable flight testing of an integrated launch vehicle and spacecraft system to ensure it will be safe enough to allow humans on board. This is an essential process for new spacecraft, however, the practical effect is a lack of funding for the spacecraft’s human interfaces development. It can be many years before the human interface development begins, putting it late in the spacecraft lifecycle, when almost all other spacecraft systems and subsystems are already in place. This forces the usage of existing and proven technologies for the HCI interfaces. We posit that putting the human first in a spacecraft design process will yield a more effective spacecraft for exploration and long duration missions. NASA Human Research Program (HRP) has identified inadequate HCI as a risk for future missions. New tools and procedures to aid the crew in operating a complex spacecraft will be required. This paper discusses ongoing activities in the development of the next generation HCI components and systems, and a new approach toward human interfaces for spacecraft.

Salazar, George A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Integrated human-robotic missions to the Moon and Mars : mission operations design implications

For most of the history of space exploration, human and robotic programs have been independent, and have responded to distinct requirements. The NASA Vision for Space Exploration calls for the return of humans to the Moon, and the eventual human exploration of Mars; the complexity of this range of missions will require an unprecedented use of automation and robotics in support of human crews. The challenges of human Mars missions, including roundtrip communications time delays of 6 to 40 minutes, interplanetary transit times of many months, and the need to manage lifecycle costs, will require the evolution of a new mission operations paradigm far less dependent on real-time monitoring and response by an Earthbound operations team. Robotic systems and automation will augment human capability, increase human safety by providing means to perform many tasks without requiring immediate human presence, and enable the transfer of traditional mission control tasks from the ground to crews. Developing and validating the new paradigm and its associated infrastructure may place requirements on operations design for nearer-term lunar missions. The authors, representing both the human and robotic mission operations communities, assess human lunar and Mars mission challenges, and consider how human-robot operations may be integrated to enable efficient joint operations, with the eventual emergence of a unified exploration operations culture.

Lee, Young↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Updated Human Mars Ascent Vehicle Concept in Support of NASA’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021

The NASA Artemis program has brought significant change to the agency’s human exploration strategy over the last several years. The human exploration of Mars remains an ultimate objective of the overall human exploration strategy. However, how the agency intends to execute initial human exploration of Mars has shifted to better align with current policy. These changes find their way into the design of key architecture elements, such as the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). Of the numerous changes in the conceptual human Mars architecture, two in particular have had significant impact on the design of the human MAV: the desire for minimal surface infrastructure for initial human Mars missions, and technology investment timelines in support of initial human missions to Mars. The first leads to a surface mission architecture targeting a 30-day surface duration with two crewmembers. The second drives out in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) from the initial sortie. As a result, the reference MAV design for initial human Mars missions in the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21) is based around supporting the return of 2 crew from the surface of Mars, without surface ISRU. This has led to several design changes since 2019, when details of a reference human MAV were last published. The MAV concept for SAC21 consists of a two-stage vehicle capable of supporting two crew for 84 hours. This duration is derived from a baseline ascent trajectory targeting an apoapsis rendezvous with the habitation element in a nominal 5-sol Mars aggregation orbit. With the goal of minimizing technology investments for the initial surface sortie removing ISRU from the trade space, the MAV must now be landed either fully loaded with propellant, or with some portion of the propellant off-loaded. Landing a partially-fueled MAV will require additional surface assets to perform robotic propellant transfer on the surface of Mars from a pre-emplaced propellant depot. Furthermore, cryogenic fluid management and storage for extended duration with no losses represents additional technology investment that would have to be made to support cryogenic-based propellant concepts that have been the baseline in past architectures. As a result, the SAC21 architecture utilizes a storable propellant-based MAV propulsion system to minimize these potential technology investments incurred by cryogenic-based propulsion systems. Recent efforts also focused on evaluating the sensitivity of key design parameters, such as landing site latitude, elevation, and local atmospheric conditions. All play a large role in determining the predicted propellant requirements of the MAV. Understanding their potential impacts is important because of the rippling effects of changes to the MAV design on other architecture elements, such as entry, descent, landing, and transportation systems. Results indicate up to +2% to -4% wet mass variation due to landing site latitude, with higher latitudes greater than 70 degrees North resulting in greater than 6% wet mass increases. The MAV saw reduced impact due to atmospheric design parameters, which only accounting for -0.6% to +0.4% wet mass variation.

Douglas J. Trent↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Can Resilience Assessments Inform Early Design Human Factors Decision-making?

There is a growing call among researchers for tighter coupling between human factors and human reliability assessments. In this research, we explore if early design stage resilience assessments can help bridge some of the gaps between human factors and human reliability assessments. Resilience in systems is their ability to recover reasonably and operate within acceptable bounds during failures and unexpected events. The fmdtools toolkit allows designers to assess the resilience of a system by modeling the human error and machine-related failure propagation in both nominal and faulty scenarios during the early design stages. As a result, the fmdtools toolkit has a low-fidelity dynamic human reliability assessment component built into it. In this paper, we study if the results from the fmdtools simulations can help inform and prioritize human factors design decision-making, resulting in tighter coupling between human factors and human reliability assessments during the design process. Specifically, we explore the results from a rover design example to understand the types of information that can help guide human factor-related decision-making.

Resilience-based Design↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Identifying Human Errors and Error Mechanisms From Accident Reports Using Large Language Models

Emerging operational concepts for aviation hinge on novel paradigms for human machine interaction. Critical to their safe operation is early consideration of human error into the design process. Existing methods for consideration of human error require significant expert input, which is challenging both in early design and in novel systems for which there is little existing safety expertise. In this research, we propose a methodology for identifying human error, error producing factors, and mechanisms in early design from historical incident reports. Additionally, we hypothesize that cross-domain sharing of lessons learned can aid with early design human considerations in circumstances where data is not relevant or incomplete. This is addressed by identifying causes of human error in aviation and railway domains through applying state-of-the art natural language processing techniques to historical incident reports. Using this method, it is possible to extract extensive reports on human error from past incidents. Using the proposed approach, we identify nine human errors from railway reports and fourteen from aviation reports, with three errors common to both domains. There is at least one error producing conditions for each human error while a majority of the errors have more than one error mechanism. We also found that a majority of the human errors, error producing factors, and error mechanisms (even if they are not common between the domains) can be used to inform safe operations across domains as long as the errors are not domain specific and are interpreted and contextualized using engineering judgement.

Human Errors↗

NASA NTRS2017

What Machines Need to Learn to Support Human Problem-Solving

In the development of intelligent systems that interact with humans, there is often confusion between how the system functions with respect to the humans it interacts with and how it interfaces with those humans. The former is a much deeper challenge than the latter it requires a system-level understanding of evolving human roles as well as an understanding of what humans need to know (and when) in order to perform their tasks. This talk will focus on some of the challenges in getting this right as well as on the type of research and development that results in successful human-autonomy teaming. Brief Bio: Dr. Alonso Vera is Chief of the Human Systems Integration Division at NASA Ames Research Center. His expertise is in human-computer interaction, information systems, artificial intelligence, and computational human performance modeling. He has led the design, development and deployment of mission software systems across NASA robotic and human space flight missions, including Mars Exploration Rovers, Phoenix Mars Lander, ISS, Constellation, and Exploration Systems. Dr. Vera received a Bachelor of Science with First Class Honors from McGill University in 1985 and a Ph.D. from Cornell University in 1991. He went on to a Post-Doctoral Fellowship in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University from 1990-93.

intelligent systems↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Logistics Rates and Assumptions for Future Human Spaceflight Missions Beyond LEO

As NASA prepares for future human spaceflight missions with extended crew duration in destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), the Agency has focused itself on understanding the drivers to sustainably support human life beyond Earth’s atmosphere. Future missions to deep space, the lunar surface, and eventually the Martian surface pose new challenges in ensuring the crew is sufficiently supplied with all necessary materials. To mitigate the risk of not delivering sufficient consumables and logistics for human spaceflight missions, NASA has examined past human space mission data and developed metabolic modeling to determine estimates for the crew consumption rates of fluids, solid consumables, and additional equipment needed. This paper is a compilation of guidelines, rates, and assumptions necessary to evaluate the logistics needs for future human exploration conceptual missions beyond LEO, providing a starting point and resource of information regarding usage rates and overall logistics supply planning for crewed exploration missions. Logistics represent all equipment and supplies not installed as part of the vehicle that are needed to support mission activities. Logistics can be further divided into specific categories, including consumables, maintenance items, spares, utilization, outfitting, as well as any packaging required. This paper will also provide use case examples of logistics needs to support human missions in deep space, including a conceptual lunar surface mission. The paper provides information necessary to calculate the mass and volume of known logistics for conceptual future human exploration missions beyond LEO. The assumptions in the paper are updated versions of previous assumptions made by the Agency and were derived from a number of sources, including International Space Station (ISS) historical usage and resupply rates, the Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions Document (BVAD) 2022, Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH) 2014, and data gathered from NASA human spaceflight programs and projects. The primary goal of the paper is to establish a set of consistent reference rates that multiple teams and groups can utilize to conduct logistics analysis and compare cases. This methodology is for initial estimates of conceptual human missions and does not take the place of detailed analysis for programs, nor does it provide requirements for programs.

Human Spaceflight↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Logistics Rates and Assumptions for Future Human Spaceflight Missions Beyond LEO

Human Spaceflight↗

NASA NTRS2002

On the nature and evolution of the neural bases of human language

The traditional theory equating the brain bases of language with Broca's and Wernicke's neocortical areas is wrong. Neural circuits linking activity in anatomically segregated populations of neurons in subcortical structures and the neocortex throughout the human brain regulate complex behaviors such as walking, talking, and comprehending the meaning of sentences. When we hear or read a word, neural structures involved in the perception or real-world associations of the word are activated as well as posterior cortical regions adjacent to Wernicke's area. Many areas of the neocortex and subcortical structures support the cortical-striatal-cortical circuits that confer complex syntactic ability, speech production, and a large vocabulary. However, many of these structures also form part of the neural circuits regulating other aspects of behavior. For example, the basal ganglia, which regulate motor control, are also crucial elements in the circuits that confer human linguistic ability and abstract reasoning. The cerebellum, traditionally associated with motor control, is active in motor learning. The basal ganglia are also key elements in reward-based learning. Data from studies of Broca's aphasia, Parkinson's disease, hypoxia, focal brain damage, and a genetically transmitted brain anomaly (the putative "language gene," family KE), and from comparative studies of the brains and behavior of other species, demonstrate that the basal ganglia sequence the discrete elements that constitute a complete motor act, syntactic process, or thought process. Imaging studies of intact human subjects and electrophysiologic and tracer studies of the brains and behavior of other species confirm these findings. As Dobzansky put it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (cited in Mayr, 1982). That applies with as much force to the human brain and the neural bases of language as it does to the human foot or jaw. The converse follows: the mark of evolution on the brains of human beings and other species provides insight into the evolution of the brain bases of human language. The neural substrate that regulated motor control in the common ancestor of apes and humans most likely was modified to enhance cognitive and linguistic ability. Speech communication played a central role in this process. However, the process that ultimately resulted in the human brain may have started when our earliest hominid ancestors began to walk.

Review, Tutorial↗

NASA NTRS1993

Cognitive engineering models: A prerequisite to the design of human-computer interaction in complex dynamic systems

This chapter examines a class of human-computer interaction applications, specifically the design of human-computer interaction for the operators of complex systems. Such systems include space systems (e.g., manned systems such as the Shuttle or space station, and unmanned systems such as NASA scientific satellites), aviation systems (e.g., the flight deck of 'glass cockpit' airplanes or air traffic control) and industrial systems (e.g., power plants, telephone networks, and sophisticated, e.g., 'lights out,' manufacturing facilities). The main body of human-computer interaction (HCI) research complements but does not directly address the primary issues involved in human-computer interaction design for operators of complex systems. Interfaces to complex systems are somewhat special. The 'user' in such systems - i.e., the human operator responsible for safe and effective system operation - is highly skilled, someone who in human-machine systems engineering is sometimes characterized as 'well trained, well motivated'. The 'job' or task context is paramount and, thus, human-computer interaction is subordinate to human job interaction. The design of human interaction with complex systems, i.e., the design of human job interaction, is sometimes called cognitive engineering.

Mitchell, Christine M.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Human Modeling Evaluations in Microgravity Workstation and Restraint Development

The International Space Station (ISS) will provide long-term missions which will enable the astronauts to live and work, as well as, conduct research in a microgravity environment. The dominant factor in space affecting the crew is "weightlessness" which creates a challenge for establishing workstation microgravity design requirements. The crewmembers will work at various workstations such as Human Research Facility (HRF), Microgravity Sciences Glovebox (MSG) and Life Sciences Glovebox (LSG). Since the crew will spend considerable amount of time at these workstations, it is critical that ergonomic design requirements are integral part of design and development effort. In order to achieve this goal, the Space Human Factors Laboratory in the Johnson Space Center Flight Crew Support Division has been tasked to conduct integrated evaluations of workstations and associated crew restraints. Thus, a two-phase approach was used: 1) ground and microgravity evaluations of the physical dimensions and layout of the workstation components, and 2) human modeling analyses of the user interface. Computer-based human modeling evaluations were an important part of the approach throughout the design and development process. Human modeling during the conceptual design phase included crew reach and accessibility of individual equipment, as well as, crew restraint needs. During later design phases, human modeling has been used in conjunction with ground reviews and microgravity evaluations of the mock-ups in order to verify the human factors requirements. (Specific examples will be discussed.) This two-phase approach was the most efficient method to determine ergonomic design characteristics for workstations and restraints. The real-time evaluations provided a hands-on implementation in a microgravity environment. On the other hand, only a limited number of participants could be tested. The human modeling evaluations provided a more detailed analysis of the setup. The issues identified during the real-time testing were investigated in the human modeling analyses. In some cases, the opposite was true where preliminary human modeling analyses provided the design engineers with critical issues that needed to be addressed further. This extensive approach provided an effective means to fully address ergonomic design considerations and accurately identify critical issues.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗

NASA NTRS2002

Human Factors Directions for Civil Aviation

Despite considerable progress in understanding human capabilities and limitations, incorporating human factors into aircraft design, operation, and certification, and the emergence of new technologies designed to reduce workload and enhance human performance in the system, most aviation accidents still involve human errors. Such errors occur as a direct or indirect result of untimely, inappropriate, or erroneous actions (or inactions) by apparently well-trained and experienced pilots, controllers, and maintainers. The field of human factors has solved many of the more tractable problems related to simple ergonomics, cockpit layout, symbology, and so on. We have learned much about the relationships between people and machines, but know less about how to form successful partnerships between humans and the information technologies that are beginning to play a central role in aviation. Significant changes envisioned in the structure of the airspace, pilots and controllers' roles and responsibilities, and air/ground technologies will require a similarly significant investment in human factors during the next few decades to ensure the effective integration of pilots, controllers, dispatchers, and maintainers into the new system. Many of the topics that will be addressed are not new because progress in crucial areas, such as eliminating human error, has been slow. A multidisciplinary approach that capitalizes upon human studies and new classes of information, computational models, intelligent analytical tools, and close collaborations with organizations that build, operate, and regulate aviation technology will ensure that the field of human factors meets the challenge.

Hart, Sandra G.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Future Visions for Scientific Human Exploration

Today, humans explore deep-space locations such as Mars, asteroids, and beyond, vicariously here on Earth, with noteworthy success. However, to achieve the revolutionary breakthroughs that have punctuated the history of science since the dawn of the Space Age has always required humans as "the discoverers," as Daniel Boorstin contends in this book of the same name. During Apollo 17, human explorers on the lunar surface discovered the "genesis rock," orange glass, and humans in space revamped the optically crippled Hubble Space Telescope to enable some of the greatest astronomical discoveries of all time. Science-driven human exploration is about developing the opportunities for such events, perhaps associated with challenging problems such as whether we can identify life beyond Earth within the universe. At issue, however, is how to safely insert humans and the spaceflight systems required to allow humans to operate as they do best in the hostile environment of deep space. The first issue is minimizing the problems associated with human adaptation to the most challenging aspects of deep space space radiation and microgravity (or non-Earth gravity). One solution path is to develop technologies that allow for minimization of the exposure time of people to deep space, as was accomplished in Apollo. For a mission to the planet Mars, this might entail new technological solutions for in-space propulsion that would make possible time-minimized transfers to and from Mars. The problem of rapid, reliable in-space transportation is challenged by the celestial mechanics of moving in space and the so-called "rocket equation." To travel to Mars from Earth in less than the time fuel-minimizing trajectories allow (i.e., Hohmann transfers) requires an exponential increase in the amount of fuel. Thus, month-long transits would require a mass of fuel as large as the dry mass of the ISS, assuming the existence of continuous acceleration engines. This raises the largest technological stumbling block to moving humans on site as deep-space explorers, delivering the masses required for human spaceflight systems to LEO or other Earth orbital vantage points using the existing or projected fleet of Earth-to-orbit (ETO) launch vehicles. Without a return to Saturn V-class boosters or an alternate path, one cannot imagine emplacing the masses that would be required for any deep-space voyage without a prohibitive number of Shuttle-class launches. One futurist solution might involve mass launch systems that could be used to move the consumables, including fuel, water, food, and building materials, to LEO in pieces rather than launching integrated systems. This approach would necessitate the development of robotic assembly and fuel-storage systems in Earth orbit, but could provide for a natural separation of low-value cargo (e.g., fuel, water).

Garvin, James↗

NASA NTRS2007

NASA-STD 3001 and the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH): Evolution of NASA-STD-3000

The Habitability & Environmental Factors and Space Medicine Divisions have developed the Space Flight Human System Standard (SFHSS) (NASA-STD-3001) to replace NASA-STD-3000 as a new NASA standard for all human spaceflight programs. The SFHSS is composed of 2 volumes. Volume 1, Crew Health, contains medical levels of care, permissible exposure limits, and fitness for duty criteria, and permissible outcome limits as a means of defining successful operating criteria for the human system. Volume 2, Habitability and Environmental Health, contains environmental, habitability and human factors standards. Development of the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH), a companion to the standard, is currently under construction and entails the update and revision of NASA-STD-3000 data. This new handbook will, in the fashion of NASA STD-3000, assist engineers and designers in appropriately applying habitability, environmental and human factors principles to spacecraft design. Organized in a chapter-module-element structure, the HIDH will provide the guidance for the development of requirements, design considerations, lessons learned, example solutions, background research, and assist in the identification of gaps and research needs in the disciplines. Subject matter experts have been and continue to be solicited to participate in the update of the chapters. The purpose is to build the HIDH with the best and latest data, and provide a broad representation from experts in industry, academia, the military and the space program. The handbook and the two standards volumes work together in a unique way to achieve the required level of human-system interface. All new NASA programs will be required to meet Volumes 1 and 2. Volume 2 presents human interface goals in broad, non-verifiable standards. Volume 2 also requires that each new development program prepare a set of program-specific human factors requirements. These program-specific human and environmental factors requirements must be verifiable and tailored to assure the new system meets the Volume 2 standards. Programs will use the HIDH to write their verifiable program-specific requirements.

Pickett, Lynn↗

NASA NTRS2007

Human Error: A Concept Analysis

Human error is the subject of research in almost every industry and profession of our times. This term is part of our daily language and intuitively understood by most people however, it would be premature to assume that everyone's understanding of human error s the same. For example, human error is used to describe the outcome or consequence of human action, the causal factor of an accident, deliberate violations,a nd the actual action taken by a human being. As a result, researchers rarely agree on the either a specific definition or how to prevent human error. The purpose of this article is to explore the specific concept of human error using Concept Analysis as described by Walker and Avant (1995). The concept of human error is examined as currently used in the literature of a variety of industries and professions. Defining attributes and examples of model, borderline, and contrary cases are described. The antecedents and consequences of human error are also discussed and a definition of human error is offered.

Hansen, Frederick D.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Human Systems Integration (HSI) Case Studies from the NASA Constellation Program

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.

Baggerman, Susan↗