Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crewed”

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 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1996

Facilitation techniques as predictors of crew participation in LOFT debriefings

Based on theories of adult learning and airline industry guidelines for Crew Resource Management (CRM), the stated objective during Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) debriefings is for instructor pilots (IP's) to facilitate crew self-analysis of performance. This study reviews 19 LOFT debriefings from two major U.S. airlines to examine the relationship between IP efforts at facilitation and associated characteristics of crew participation. A subjective rating scale called the Debriefing Assessment Battery was developed and utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of IP facilitation and the quality of crew participation. The results indicate that IP content, encouragement, and questioning techniques are highly and significantly correlated with, and can therefore predict, the degree and depth of crew participation.

McDonnell, L. K.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Considerations for Medical Transport from the Space Station via an Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV)

In developing a permanently crewed space station, the importance of medical care has been continually reaffirmed; and the health maintenance facility (HMF) is an integral component. It has diagnostic, therapeutic, monitoring, and information management capability. It is designed to allow supportive care for: (1) non-life-threatening illnesses; e.g., headache, lacerations; (2) moderate to severe, possibly life-threatening illnesses; e.g., appendicitis, kidney stones; and (3) severe, incapacitating, life-threatening illnesses; e.g., major trauma, toxic exposure. Since the HMF will not have a general surgical capability, the need for emergency escape and recovery methods has been studied. Medical risk assessments have determined that it is impossible to accurately predict the incidence of crewmember illness/injury. A best estimate is 1:3 per work-year, with 1% of these needing an ACRV. For an eight-person crew, this means that one assured crew return vehicle (ACRV) will be used every 4 to 12 years. The ACRV would serve at least three basic objectives as: (1) a crew return if the space shuttle is unavailable; (2) an escape vehicle from a major time-critical space station emergency; and (3) a full or partial crew return vehicle for a medical emergency. The focus of this paper is the third objective for the ACRV.

Stepaniak, Philip↗
NASA NTRS1995

Flight Crew Sleep in Long-Haul Aircraft Bunk Facilities: Survey Results

Modem long-haul aircraft can fly up to 16 continuous hours and provide a 24-hour, global capability. Extra (augmented) flight crew are available on long flights to allow planned rest periods, on a rotating basis, away from the flight deck in onboard crew rest facilities (2 bunks). A NASA/FAA study is under-way to examine the quantity and quality of sleep obtained in long-haul aircraft bunks and the factors that promote or interfere with that sleep. The first phase of the study involved a retrospective survey, followed by a second phase field study to collect standard polysomnographic data during inflight bunk sleep periods. A summary of the Phase I survey results are reported here. A multi-part 54-question retrospective survey was completed by 1,404 flight crew (37% return rate) at three different major US air carriers flying B747-100, 200, 400, and MD- 11 long-haul aircraft. The questions examined demographics, quantity and quality of sleep at home and in onboard bunks, factors that promote or interfere with sleep, and effects on subsequent performance and alertness. Flight crew reported a mean bunk sleep latency of 39.4 mins (SD=28.3 mins) (n=1,276) and a mean total sleep time of 2.2 hrs (SD=1.3 hrs) (n=603). (Different flight lengths could affect overall time available for sleep.) Crew rated 25 factors for their interference or promotion of bunk sleep. Figure I portrays the average ratings for each factor across all three carriers. A principal components analysis of the 25 factors revealed three areas that promoted bunk sleep: physiological (e.g., readiness for sleep), physical environment (e.g., bunk size, privacy), and personal comfort (e.g., blankets, pillows). Five areas were identified that interfered with sleep: environmental disturbance (e.g., background noise, turbulence), luminosity (e.g., lighting), personal disturbances (e.g., bathroom trips, random thoughts), environmental discomfort (e.g., low humidity, cold), and interpersonal disturbances (e.g., bunk partner).

Rosekind, Mark R.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Expedition 5 Crew Interviews: Valery Korzun, Commander

Expedition 5 Commander Valery Kozun is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission and what his responsibilities will be as commander, what the crew exchange will be like (the Expedition 5 crew will replace the Expedition 4 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)), the daily life on an extended stay mission, the loading operations that will take place, the experiments he will be conducting on board, and the planned extravehicular activities (EVAs) scheduled for the mission. Kozun discusses the EVAs in greater detail and explains the significance of the Mobile Base System and the Crew Equipment Translation Aid (CETA) cart for the ISS. He also explains at some length the science experiments which will be conducted on board by the Expedition 5 crew members. Korzun also touches on how his previous space experience on Mir (including dealing with a very serious fire) will benefit the Expedition 5 mission.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

Expedition 6 Crew Interviews: Ken Bowersox CDR

Expedition 6 Commander Ken Bowersox is seen during a prelaunch interview. He gives details on the mission's goals and significance, his role in the mission, what his responsibilities will be as commander, what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 6 crew in place of the Expedition 5 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)) and what day-to-day life on an extended stay mission is like. Bowersox also discusses in some detail the planned extravehicular activities (EVAs), the anticipated use of the robot arms in installing the P1 truss and the on-going science experiments which will be conducted by the Expedition 6 crew. He touches on challenges posed by a late change in the crew roster. Bowersox ends with his thoughts on the value on the ISS in fostering international cooperation.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

STS-112 Crew Interviews - Wolf

STS-112 Mission Specialist David Wolf is seen during this preflight interview, where he first answers questions on his career path and role models. Other questions cover mission goals, ISS (International Space Station) Expedition 5 spacecrew, crew training, the S1 Truss and its radiators, the MBS (Mobile Base Structure), his experience onboard Mir, and his EVAs (extravehicular activities) on the coming mission. The EVAs are the subject of several questions. Wolf discusses his crew members, and elsewhere discusses Pilot Pamela Melroy's role as an IV crew member during EVAs. In addition, Wolf answers questions on transfer operations, the SHIMMER experiment, and his thoughts on multinational crews and crew bonding.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

STS-111 Crew Training Clip

The STS-111 Crew is in training for space flight. The crew consists of Commander Ken Cockrell, Pilot Paul Lockhart, Mission Specialists Franklin Chang-Diaz and Philippe Perrin. The crew training begins with Post Insertion Operations with the Full Fuselage Trainer (FFT). Franklin Chang-Diaz, Philippe Perrin and Paul Lockhart are shown in training for airlock and Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) activities. Bailout in Crew Compartment Training (CCT) with Expedition Five is also shown. The crew also gets experience with photography, television, and habitation equipment.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

Bounding the Risk of Crew Loss Following Orbital Debris Penetration of the International Space Station at Assembly Stages 1J and 1E

Orbital debris impacts on the International Space Station occur frequently. To date, none of the impacting particles has been sufficiently large to penetrate manned pressurized volumes. We used the Manned Spacecraft Crew Survivability code to evaluate the risk to crew of penetrations of pressurized modules at two assembly stages: after Flight lJ, when the pressurized elements of Kibo, the Japanese Experiment Module, are present, and after Flight lE, when the European Columbus Module is present. Our code is a Monte Carlo simulation of impacts on the Station that considers several potential event types that could lead to crew loss. Among the statistics tabulated by the program is the probability of death of one or more crew members, expressed as the risk factor, R. This risk factor is dependent on details of crew operations during both ordinary circumstances and decompression emergencies, as well as on details of internal module configurations. We conducted trade studies considering these procedure and configuration details to determine the bounds on R at the 1J and 1E stages in the assembly sequence. Here we compare the R-factor bounds, and procedures and configurations that reduce R at these stages.

Evans, S.↗
NASA NTRS2002

STS-112/Atlantis/ISS 9A Pre-Launch - Launch On-Orbit - Landing - Crew Egress

The video starts with an introduction of the crew of Space Shuttle Atlantis on STS-112 at their customary pre-flight meal. The crew consists of Commander Jeffrey Ashby, Pilot Pam Melroy, and Mission Specialists David Wolf, Sandra Magnus, Piers Sellers, and Fyodor Yurchikhin. The crew is then shown during suit-up, while exiting the Operations and Checkout Building to board the Astrovan, and during ingress and seating. Launch views include: Beach Tracker, VAB, PAD-B, Tower-1, DLTR-3, Grandstand, Cocoa Beach DOAMS, Playalinda DOAMS, UCS-23, OTV-170, OTV-171, and External Tank Camera. On-orbit footage includes the Atlantis orbiter docking with the ISS (International Space Station). The video shows clips of extravehicluar activities (EVAs), and some of the tasks performed during the mission. Footage included shows the installation of the S1 Truss onto the ISS with the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (Canadarm 2), Canadarm 2 carrying the Ammonia Tank Assembly prior to connection, the checkout of the Thermal Radiator Rotary Joint, the soft docking of an S-Band antenna, and the deployment of the S1 Radiator. An onboard repair of the ISS humidity separator is also shown. Landing views include: VAB, Tower 1, Mid-Field, Runway South End, Runway North End, Tower-2, Cocoa Beach DOAMS, and PPOV. Kennedy Space Center managers greet the crew upon arrival, and Commander Ashby gives a brief speech while standing with his crew members.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2000

STS-92 Meal - Suit up - Depart O&C - Launch Discovery On Orbit - Landing - Crew Egress

The video begins with the introduction of the crew of Space Shuttle Discovery on STS-92, at their customary pre-flight meal. The crew consists of Commander Brian Duffy, Pilot Pamela Melroy, and Mission Specialists Leroy Chiao, William McArthur, Peter "Jeff" Wisoff, Michael Lopez-Alegria, and Koichi Wakata. The introduction and suit-up of the astronauts, and their departure in the Astrovan are shown at a quick pace. The video shows in detail the seating of the crew and each astronaut's final preparations in the White Room prior to boarding. Views of Discovery's night launch include: SLF Convoy, Beach Tracker, VAB, Pad Perimeter, Tower-1, UCS-15, Press Site, UCS-23, OTV-61, OTV-70, OTV-71, and the In-Cabin Ascent Camera. While in orbit, the Discovery orbiter docks with the International Space Station (ISS). The docking is shown in a series of still images. The video includes clips from four extravehicular activities (EVAs). The crew members who performed the EVAs comment on them while speaking to Mission Control. During the EVAs, the Z1 Truss and an antenna are attached to the ISS. The crew members on the fourth EVA test jet packs. Views of landing include: TV-1, TV-2, TV-3, LRO-1, and HUD.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

STS-110/Atlantic/ISS 8A Pre-Launch On Orbit-Landing-Crew Egress

The crew of STS-110, which consists of Commander Michael Bloomfield, Pilot Stephen Frick, and Mission Specialists Rex Walheim, Ellen Ochoa, Lee Morin, Jerry Ross, and Steven Smith is introduced at the customary pre-flight meal. The narrator provides background information on the astronauts during suit-up. Each crew member is shown in the White Room before boarding Space Shuttle Atlantis, and some display signs to loved ones. Launch footage includes the following replays: Beach Tracker, VAB, Pad B, Tower 1, DLTR-3, Grandstand, Cocoa Beach DOAMS, Playalinda DOAMS, UCS-23, SLF Convoy, OTV-154, OTV-163, OTV-170 (mislabeled), and OTV-171 (mislabeled). After the launch, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe gives a speech to the Launch Control Center, with political dignitaries present. While on-orbit, Atlantis docks with the International Space Station (ISS), and Canadarm 2 on the ISS lifts the S0 Truss out of the orbiter's payload bay. The video includes highlights of three extravehicular activities (EVAs). In the first, the S0 Truss is fastened to the Destiny Laboratory Module on the ISS. During the third EVA, Walheim and Smith assist in the checkout of the handcart on the S0 Truss. The Atlantis crew is shown gathered together with the Expedition 4 crew of the ISS, and again by itself after undocking. Replays of the landing include: VAB, Tower 1, Mid-field, Runway South End, Runway North End, Tower 2, Playalinda DOAMS, Cocoa Beach DOAMS, and Pilot Point of View (PPOV). After landing, Commander Bloomfield lets each of his crew members give a short speech.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

Applying a Crew Accommodations Resource Model to Future Space Vehicle Research

The success of research and development for human space flight depends heavily on modeling. In addition, the use of such models is especially critical at the earliest phase of research and development of any manned vehicle or habitat. NASA is currently studying various innovative and futuristic propulsion technologies to enable further exploration of space by untended as well as tended vehicles. Details such as vehicle mass, volume, shape and configuration are required variables to evaluate the success of the propulsion concepts. For tended vehicles, the impact of the crew's requirements on those parameters must be included. This is especially important on long duration missions where the crew requirements become more complex. To address these issues, a crew accommodations resource model, developed as a mission planning tool for human spaceflight (Stillwell, Boutros, & Connolly), was applied to a reference mission in order to estimate the volume and mass required to sustain a crew for a variety of long duration missions. The model, which compiled information from numerous different sources and contains various attributes which can be modified to enable comparisons across different dimensions, was instrumental in deriving volume and mass required for a tended long duration space flight. With the inclusion of some additional variables, a set of volume and mass requirements were provided to the project. If due consideration to crew requirements for volume and mass had not been entertained, the assumptions behind validation of the propulsion technology could have been found to be incorrect, possibly far into development of the technology or even into the design and build of test vehicles. The availability and use of such a model contributes significantly by increasing the accuracy of human space flight research and development activities and acts as a cost saving measure by preventing inaccurate assumptions from driving design decisions.

Blume, Jennifer Linda↗
NASA NTRS2003

A Gold Standards Approach to Training Instructors to Evaluate Crew Performance

The Advanced Qualification Program requires that airlines evaluate crew performance in Line Oriented Simulation. For this evaluation to be meaningful, instructors must observe relevant crew behaviors and evaluate those behaviors consistently and accurately against standards established by the airline. The airline industry has largely settled on an approach in which instructors evaluate crew performance on a series of event sets, using standardized grade sheets on which behaviors specific to event set are listed. Typically, new instructors are given a class in which they learn to use the grade sheets and practice evaluating crew performance observed on videotapes. These classes emphasize reliability, providing detailed instruction and practice in scoring so that all instructors within a given class will give similar scores to similar performance. This approach has value but also has important limitations; (1) ratings within one class of new instructors may differ from those of other classes; (2) ratings may not be driven primarily by the specific behaviors on which the company wanted the crews to be scored; and (3) ratings may not be calibrated to company standards for level of performance skill required. In this paper we provide a method to extend the existing method of training instructors to address these three limitations. We call this method the "gold standards" approach because it uses ratings from the company's most experienced instructors as the basis for training rater accuracy. This approach ties the training to the specific behaviors on which the experienced instructors based their ratings.

Baker, David P.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Optimized bioregenerative space diet selection with crew choice

Previous studies on optimization of crew diets have not accounted for choice. A diet selection model with crew choice was developed. Scenario analyses were conducted to assess the feasibility and cost of certain crew preferences, such as preferences for numerous-desserts, high-salt, and high-acceptability foods. For comparison purposes, a no-choice and a random-choice scenario were considered. The model was found to be feasible in terms of food variety and overall costs. The numerous-desserts, high-acceptability, and random-choice scenarios all resulted in feasible solutions costing between 13.2 and 17.3 kg ESM/person-day. Only the high-sodium scenario yielded an infeasible solution. This occurred when the foods highest in salt content were selected for the crew-choice portion of the diet. This infeasibility can be avoided by limiting the total sodium content in the crew-choice portion of the diet. Cost savings were found by reducing food variety in scenarios where the preference bias strongly affected nutritional content.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS1998

Psychosocial issues affecting crews during long-duration international space missions

Psychosocial issues can negatively impact on crew performance and morale during long-duration international space missions. Major psychosocial factors that have been described in anecdotal reports from space and in studies from analog situations on Earth include: 1) crew heterogeneity due to gender differences, cultural issues, and work experiences and motivations; 2) language and dialect variations; and 3) task versus supportive leadership roles. All of these factors can lead to negative sequelae, such as intra-crew tension and cohesion disruptions. Specific sequelae that can result from single factors include subgrouping and scapegoating due to crew heterogeneity; miscommunication due to major or subtle language differences; and role confusion, competition, and status leveling due to inappropriate leadership role definition. It is time to conduct research exploring the impact of these psychosocial factors and their sequelae on space crews during actual long-duration international space missions.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS1995

Influence of the helicopter environment on patient care capabilities: flight crew perceptions

INTRODUCTION: Flight crew perceptions of the effect of the rotary-wing environment on patient-care capabilities have not been subject to statistical analysis. We hypothesized that flight crew members perceived significant difficulties in performing patient-care tasks during air medical transport. METHODS: A survey was distributed to a convenience sample of flight crew members from 20 flight programs. Respondents were asked to compare the difficulty of performing patient-care tasks in rotary-wing and standard (emergency department or intensive care unit) settings. Demographic data collected on respondents included years of flight experience, flights per month, crew duty position and primary aircraft in which the respondent worked. Statistical analysis was performed as appropriate using Student's t-test, type III sum of squares, and analysis of variance. Alpha was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of programs (90 individuals) responded. All tasks were significantly rated more difficult in the rotary-wing environment. Ratings were not significantly correlated with flight experience, duty position, flights per month or aircraft used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the performance of patient-care tasks are perceived by air medical flight crew to be significantly more difficult during rotary-wing air medical transport than in hospital settings.

Noise, Transportation/adverse effects↗
NASA NTRS2004

Bounding the risk of crew loss following orbital debris penetration of the International Space Station at assembly stages 1J and 1E

Orbital debris impacts on the International Space Station occur frequently. To date, none of the impacting particles has been large enough to penetrate manned pressurized volumes. We used the Manned Spacecraft Crew Survivability code to evaluate the risk to crew of penetrations of pressurized modules at two assembly stages: after Flight 1J, when the pressurized elements of Kibo, the Japanese Experiment Module, are present, and after Flight 1E, when the European Columbus Module is present. Our code is a Monte-Carlo simulation of impacts on the Station that considers several potential event types that could lead to crew loss. Among the statistics tabulated by the program is the probability of death of one or more crew members in the event of a penetration, expressed as the risk factor, R. This risk factor is dependent on details of crew operations during both ordinary circumstances and decompression emergencies, as well as on details of internal module configurations. We conducted trade studies considering these procedure and configuration details to determine the bounds on R at the 1J and 1E stages in the assembly sequence. Here we compare the R-factor bounds, and procedures could that reduce R at these stages. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of COSPAR.

Models, Theoretical↗
NASA NTRS2004

Decision Support Tool Evaluation Report for Coral Reef Early Warning System (CREWS) Version 7.0

The Coral Reef Early Warning System (CREWS) is operated by NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research as part of its Coral Reef Watch program in response to the deteriorating global state of coral reef and related benthic ecosystems. In addition to sea surface temperatures (SSTs), the two most important parameters used by the CREWS network in generating coral reef bleaching alerts are 1) wind speed and direction and 2) photosynthetically available radiation (PAR). NASA remote sensing products that can enhance CREWS in these areas include SST and PAR products from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and wind data from the Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT). CREWS researchers are also interested in chlorophyll, chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM), and salinity. Chlorophyll and CDOM are directly available as NASA products, while rainfall (an available NASA product) can be used as a proxy for salinity. Other potential NASA inputs include surface reflectance products from MODIS, the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer, and Landsat. This report also identifies NASA-supported ocean circulation models and products from future satellite missions that might enchance the CREWS DST.

D'Sa, Eurico↗