Results for “Human Centered Design” — Page 13

NASA NTRS2007

Analytical Approach for Estimating Preliminary Mass of ARES I Crew Launch Vehicle Upper Stage Structural Components

In January 2004, President Bush gave the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) a vision for Space Exploration by setting our sight on a bold new path to go back to the Moon, then to Mars and beyond. In response to this vision, NASA started the Constellation Program, which is a new exploration launch vehicle program. The primary mission for the Constellation Program is to carry out a series of human expeditions ranging from Low Earth Orbit to the surface of Mars and beyond for the purposes of conducting human exploration of space, as specified by the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). The intent is that the information and technology developed by this program will provide the foundation for broader exploration activities as our operational experience grows. The ARES I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) has been designated as the launch vehicle that will be developed as a "first step" to facilitate the aforementioned human expeditions. The CLV Project is broken into four major elements: First Stage, Upper Stage Engine, Upper Stage (US), and the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is responsible for the design of the CLV and has the prime responsibility to design the upper stage of the vehicle. The US is the second propulsive stage of the CLV and provides CEV insertion into low Earth orbit (LEO) after separation from the First Stage of the Crew Launch Vehicle. The fully integrated Upper Stage is a mix of modified existing heritage hardware (J-2X Engine) and new development (primary structure, subsystems, and avionics). The Upper Stage assembly is a structurally stabilized cylindrical structure, which is powered by a single J-2X engine which is developed as a separate Element of the CLV. The primary structure includes the load bearing liquid hydrogen (LH2) and liquid oxygen (LOX) propellant tanks, a Forward Skirt, the Intertank structure, the Aft Skirt and the Thrust Structure. A Systems Tunnel, which carries fluid and electrical power functions to other Elements of the CLV, is included as secondary structure. The MSFC has an overall responsibility for the integrated US element as well as structural design an thermal control of the fuel tanks, intertank, interstage, avionics, main propulsion system, Reaction Control System (RCS) for both the Upper Stage and the First Stage. MSFC's Spacecraft and Vehicle Department, Structural and Analysis Design Division is developing a set of predicted mass of these elements. This paper details the methodology, criterion and tools used for the preliminary mass predictions of the upper stage structural assembly components. In general, weight of the cylindrical barrel sections are estimated using the commercial code Hypersizer, whereas, weight of the domes are developed using classical solutions. HyperSizer is software that performs automated structural analysis and sizing optimization based on aerospace methods for strength, stability, and stiffness. Analysis methods range from closed form, traditional hand calculations repeated every day in industry to more advanced panel buckling algorithms. Margin-of-safety reporting for every potential failure provides the engineer with a powerful insight into the structural problem. Optimization capabilities include finding minimum weight panel or beam concepts, material selections, cross sectional dimensions, thicknesses, and lay-ups from a library of 40 different stiffened and sandwich designs and a database of composite, metallic, honeycomb, and foam materials. Multiple different concepts (orthogrid, isogrid, and skin stiffener) were run for multiple loading combinations of ascent design load with and with out tank pressure as well as proof pressure condition. Subsequently, selected optimized concept obtained from Hypersizer runs was translated into a computer aid design (CAD) model to account for the wall thickness tolerance, weld land etc for developing the most probable weight of the components. The flow diram summarizes the analysis steps used in developing these predicted mass.

Aggarwal, Pravin↗

NASA NTRS2000

Modeling Separate and Combined Atmospheres in BIO-Plex

We modeled BIO-Plex designs with separate or combined atmospheres and then simulated controlling the atmosphere composition. The BIO-Plex is the Bioregenerative Planetary Life Support Systems Test Complex, a large regenerative life support test facility under development at NASA Johnson Space Center. Although plants grow better at above-normal carbon dioxide levels, humans can tolerate even higher carbon dioxide levels. Incinerator exhaust has very high levels of carbon dioxide. An elaborate BIO-Plex design would maintain different atmospheres in the crew and plant chambers and isolate the incinerator exhaust in the airlock. This design easily controls the crew and plant carbon dioxide levels but it uses many gas processors, buffers, and controllers. If all the crew's food is grown inside BIO-Plex, all the carbon dioxide required by the plants is supplied by crew respiration and the incineration of plant and food waste. Because the oxygen mass flow must balance in a closed loop, the plants supply all the oxygen required by the crew and the incinerator. Using plants for air revitalization allows using fewer gas processors, buffers, and controllers. In the simplest design, a single combined atmosphere was used for the crew, the plant chamber, and the incinerator. All gas processors, buffers, and controllers were eliminated. The carbon dioxide levels were necessarily similar for the crew and plants. If most of the food is grown, carbon dioxide can be controlled at the desired level by scheduling incineration. An intermediate design uses one atmosphere for the crew and incinerator chambers and a second for the plant chamber. This allows different carbon dioxide levels for the crew and plants. Better control of the atmosphere is obtained by varying the incineration rate. Less gas processing storage and control is needed if more food is grown.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2000

Modeling Separate and Combined Atmospheres in BIO-Plex

We modeled BIO-Plex designs with separate or combined atmospheres and then simulated controlling the atmosphere composition. The BIO-Plex is the Bioregenerative Planetary Life Support Systems Test Complex, a large regenerative life support test facility under development at NASA Johnson Space Center. Although plants grow better at above-normal carbon dioxide levels, humans can tolerate even higher carbon dioxide levels. incinerator exhaust has very high levels of carbon dioxide. An elaborate BIO-Plex design would maintain different atmospheres in the crew and plant chambers and isolate the incinerator exhaust in the airlock. This design easily controls the crew and plant carbon dioxide levels but it uses many gas processors, buffers, and controllers. If all the crew's food is grown inside BIO-Plex, all the carbon dioxide required by the plants is supplied by crew respiration and the incineration of plant and food waste. Because the oxygen mass flow must balance in a closed loop, the plants supply all the oxygen required by the crew and the incinerator. Using plants for air revitalization allows using fewer gas processors, buffers, and controllers. In the simplest design, a single combined atmosphere was used for the crew, the plant chamber, and the incinerator. All gas processors, buffers, and controllers were eliminated. The carbon dioxide levels were necessarily similar for the crew and plants. If most of the food is grown, carbon dioxide can be controlled at the desired level by scheduling incineration. An intermediate design uses one atmosphere for the crew and incinerator chambers and a second for the plant chamber. This allows different carbon dioxide levels for the crew and plants. Better control of the atmosphere is obtained by varying the incineration rate. Less gas processing, storage, and control is needed if more food is grown.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS1993

Spatial interpretation of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center Payload Operations Control Center using virtual reality technology

In its search for higher level computer interfaces and more realistic electronic simulations for measurement and spatial analysis in human factors design, NASA at MSFC is evaluating the functionality of virtual reality (VR) technology. Virtual reality simulation generates a three dimensional environment in which the participant appears to be enveloped. It is a type of interactive simulation in which humans are not only involved, but included. Virtual reality technology is still in the experimental phase, but it appears to be the next logical step after computer aided three-dimensional animation in transferring the viewer from a passive to an active role in experiencing and evaluating an environment. There is great potential for using this new technology when designing environments for more successful interaction, both with the environment and with another participant in a remote location. At the University of North Carolina, a VR simulation of a the planned Sitterson Hall, revealed a flaw in the building's design that had not been observed during examination of the more traditional building plan simulation methods on paper and on computer aided design (CAD) work station. The virtual environment enables multiple participants in remote locations to come together and interact with one another and with the environment. Each participant is capable of seeing herself and the other participants and of interacting with them within the simulated environment.

Lindsey, Patricia F.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Force Feedback Joystick

I-FORCE, a computer peripheral from Immersion Corporation, was derived from virtual environment and human factors research at the Advanced Displays and Spatial Perception Laboratory at Ames Research Center in collaboration with Stanford University Center for Design Research. Entrepreneur Louis Rosenberg, a former Stanford researcher, now president of Immersion, collaborated with Dr. Bernard Adelstein at Ames on studies of perception in virtual reality. The result was an inexpensive way to incorporate motors and a sophisticated microprocessor into joysticks and other game controllers. These devices can emulate the feel of a car on the skid, a crashing plane, the bounce of a ball, compressed springs, or other physical phenomenon. The first products incorporating I-FORCE technology include CH- Products' line of FlightStick and CombatStick controllers.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1999

Effect of optical digitizer selection on the application accuracy of a surgical localization system-a quantitative comparison between the OPTOTRAK and flashpoint tracking systems

Application accuracy is a crucial factor for stereotactic surgical localization systems, in which space digitization camera systems are one of the most critical components. In this study we compared the effect of the OPTOTRAK 3020 space digitization system and the FlashPoint Model 3000 and 5000 3D digitizer systems on the application accuracy for interactive localization of intracranial lesions. A phantom was mounted with several implantable frameless markers which were randomly distributed on its surface. The target point was digitized and the coordinates were recorded and compared with reference points. The differences from the reference points represented the deviation from the "true point." The root mean square (RMS) was calculated to show the differences, and a paired t-test was used to analyze the results. The results with the phantom showed that, for 1-mm sections of CT scans, the RMS was 0.76 +/- 0. 54 mm for the OPTOTRAK system, 1.23 +/- 0.53 mm for the FlashPoint Model 3000 3D digitizer system, and 1.00 +/- 0.42 mm for the FlashPoint Model 5000 system. These preliminary results showed that there is no significant difference between the three tracking systems, and, from the quality point of view, they can all be used for image-guided surgery procedures. Copyright 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Non-NASA Center↗

NASA NTRS2004

Defining Exercise Performance Metrics for Flight Hardware Development

The space industry has prevailed over numerous design challenges in the spirit of exploration. Manned space flight entails creating products for use by humans and the Johnson Space Center has pioneered this effort as NASA's center for manned space flight. NASA Astronauts use a suite of flight exercise hardware to maintain strength for extravehicular activities and to minimize losses in muscle mass and bone mineral density. With a cycle ergometer, treadmill, and the Resistive Exercise Device available on the International Space Station (ISS), the Space Medicine community aspires to reproduce physical loading schemes that match exercise performance in Earth s gravity. The resistive exercise device presents the greatest challenge with the duty of accommodating 20 different exercises and many variations on the core set of exercises. This paper presents a methodology for capturing engineering parameters that can quantify proper resistive exercise performance techniques. For each specified exercise, the method provides engineering parameters on hand spacing, foot spacing, and positions of the point of load application at the starting point, midpoint, and end point of the exercise. As humans vary in height and fitness levels, the methodology presents values as ranges. In addition, this method shows engineers the proper load application regions on the human body. The methodology applies to resistive exercise in general and is in use for the current development of a Resistive Exercise Device. Exercise hardware systems must remain available for use and conducive to proper exercise performance as a contributor to mission success. The astronauts depend on exercise hardware to support extended stays aboard the ISS. Future plans towards exploration of Mars and beyond acknowledge the necessity of exercise. Continuous improvement in technology and our understanding of human health maintenance in space will allow us to support the exploration of Mars and the future of space exploration.

Beyene, Nahon M.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Surface Habitat Systems

The Surface Habitat Systems (SHS) Focused Investment Group (FIG) is part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) effort to provide a focused direction and funding to the various projects that are working on human surface habitat designs and technologies for the planetary exploration missions. The overall SHS-FIG effort focuses on directing and guiding those projects that: 1) develop and demonstrate new surface habitat system concepts, innovations, and technologies to support human exploration missions, 2) improve environmental systems that interact with human habitats, 3) handle and emplace human surface habitats, and 4) focus on supporting humans living and working in habitats on planetary surfaces. The activity areas of the SHS FIG described herein are focused on the surface habitat project near-term objectives as described in this document. The SHS-FIG effort focuses on mitigating surface habitat risks (as identified by the Lunar Surface Systems Project Office (LSSPO) Surface Habitat Element Team; and concentrates on developing surface habitat technologies as identified in the FY08 gap analysis. The surface habitat gap assessment will be updated annually as the surface architecture and surface habitat definition continues to mature. These technologies are mapped to the SHS-FIG Strategic Development Roadmap. The Roadmap will bring to light the areas where additional innovative efforts are needed to support the development of habitat concepts and designs and the development of new technologies to support of the LSSPO Habitation Element development plan. Three specific areas of development that address Lunar Architecture Team (LAT)-2 and Constellation Architecture Team (CxAT) Lunar habitat design issues or risks will be focused on by the SHS-FIG. The SHS-FIG will establish four areas of development that will help the projects prepare in their planning for surface habitat systems development. Those development areas are the 1) surface habitat concept definition, 2) inflatable surface habitat development, and 3) autonomous habitat operations, and 4) cross-cutting / systems engineering. In subsequent years, the SHS-FIG will solicit a call for innovations and technologies that will support the development of these four development areas. The other development areas will be assessed yearly and identified on the SHS-FIG s Strategic Development Roadmap. Initial investment projects that are funded by the Constellation Program Office (CxPO), LSSPO, or the Exploration Technology Development Projects (ETDP) will also be included on the Roadmap. For example, in one or two years from now, the autonomous habitat operations and testbed would collaborations with the Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) and Automation for Operations ETDP projects, which will give the surface habitat projects an integrated habitat autonomy testbed to test software and systems. The SHS-FIG scope is to provide focused direction for multiple innovations, technologies and subsystems that are needed to support humans at a remote planetary surface habitat during the concept development, design definition, and integration phases of that project. Subsystems include: habitability, lightweight structures, power management, communications, autonomy, deployment, outfitting, life support, wireless connectivity, lighting, thermal and more.

Kennedy, Kriss J.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Building on 50 Years of Systems Engineering Experience for a New Era of Space Exploration

Over the past 50 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has delivered space transportation solutions for America's complex missions, ranging from scientific payloads that expand knowledge, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, to astronauts and lunar rovers destined for voyages to the Moon. Currently, the venerable Space Shuttle, which has been in service since 1981, provides the United States (US) capability for both crew and heavy cargo to low-Earth orbit to construct the International Space Station, before the Shuttle is retired in 2010. In the next decade, NASA will replace this system with a duo of launch vehicles: the Ares I crew launch vehicle and the Ares V cargo launch vehicle. The goals for this new system include increased safety and reliability coupled with lower operations costs that promote sustainable space exploration for decades to come. The Ares I will loft the Orion crew exploration vehicle, while the heavy-lift Ares V will carry the Altair lunar lander, as well as the equipment and supplies needed to construct a lunar outpost for a new generation of human and robotic space pioneers. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center manages the Shuttle's propulsion elements and is managing the design and development of the Ares rockets, along with a host of other engineering assignments in the field of scientific space exploration. Specifically, the Marshall Center's Engineering Directorate houses the skilled workforce and unique facilities needed to build capable systems upon the foundation laid by the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle programs. This paper will provide details of the in-house systems engineering and vehicle integration work now being performed for the Ares I and planned for the Ares V. It will give an overview of the Ares I system-level testing activities, such as the ground vibration testing that will be conducted in the Marshall Center's Dynamic Test Stand to verify the integrated vehicle stack's structural integrity and to validate computer modeling and simulation, as well as the main propulsion test article analysis to be conducted in the Static Test Stand. Ultimately, fielding a robust space transportation solution that will carry international explorers and essential payloads will pave the way for a new era of scientific discovery now dawning beyond planet Earth.

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗

NASA NTRS2008

The Application of the Human Engineering Modeling and Performance Laboratory for Space Vehicle Ground Processing Tasks at Kennedy Space Center

The introduction of United Space Alliance's Human Engineering Modeling and Performance Laboratory began in early 2007 in an attempt to address the problematic workspace design issues that the Space Shuttle has imposed on technicians performing maintenance and inspection operations. The Space Shuttle was not expected to require the extensive maintenance it undergoes between flights. As a result, extensive, costly resources have been expended on workarounds and modifications to accommodate ground processing personnel. Consideration of basic human factors principles for design of maintenance is essential during the design phase of future space vehicles, facilities, and equipment. Simulation will be needed to test and validate designs before implementation.

Woodbury, Sarah K.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Statistical Engineering in Air Traffic Management Research

NASA is working to develop an integrated set of advanced technologies to enable efficient arrival operations in high-density terminal airspace for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. This integrated arrival solution is being validated and verified in laboratories and transitioned to a field prototype for an operational demonstration at a major U.S. airport. Within NASA, this is a collaborative effort between Ames and Langley Research Centers involving a multi-year iterative experimentation process. Designing and analyzing a series of sequential batch computer simulations and human-in-the-loop experiments across multiple facilities and simulation environments involves a number of statistical challenges. Experiments conducted in separate laboratories typically have different limitations and constraints, and can take different approaches with respect to the fundamental principles of statistical design of experiments. This often makes it difficult to compare results from multiple experiments and incorporate findings into the next experiment in the series. A statistical engineering approach is being employed within this project to support risk-informed decision making and maximize the knowledge gained within the available resources. This presentation describes a statistical engineering case study from NASA, highlights statistical challenges, and discusses areas where existing statistical methodology is adapted and extended.

Wilson, Sara R.↗

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 NTRS2019

Supporting Crew Autonomy in Deep Space Exploration: Preliminary Onboard Capability Requirements and Proposed Research Questions. Technical Report of the Autonomous Crew Operations Technical Interchange Meeting

Communication delays are a critical challenge posed by long duration deep space exploration. Space missions historically have relied on an ever-present Mission Control Center (MCC) to direct operations in near real-time. As unanticipated anomalies that defeat fault detection and resolution systems do arise, the lack of real-time communication will significantly weaken what the MCC support represents: a reliable safety net for the flight crew through its deep and diverse areas of expertise and investigative resources. As a consequence, future space vehicles and habitats need to be equipped with capabilities to support the flight crew to operate with little or no ground support. Considerations must be given to vehicle and mission designs that will fortify the traditionally ground-centered safety net and forge new support systems, when communication delays exist. In August 2018, NASA’s Human Research Program, through its Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element, convened a Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) on Autonomous Crew Operations at NASA Ames Research Center. The goal of the meeting was to gather input from NASA centers, industry, academia, and branches of the Department of Defense (DoD) to address how intelligent technologies can be applied to augment onboard capabilities to support crew anomaly response. The TIM featured 24 presentations by 29 speakers and hosted a total of 59 attendees, including 43 from 5 NASA centers (Ames, Johnson, Langley, Marshall, and Jet Propulsion Lab) and 4 from the DoD (3 from Army Research Lab and 1 from Naval Postgraduate School), with remaining attendees from academia (e.g., UC Davis, CMU) and industry (e.g., IBM, Siemens). Discussions were centered around three themes: standards and guidelines, lessons learned in analog environments, and technologies. To help provide a framework for discussion, a concept matrix describing anomaly response processes was created prior to the TIM (Figure 1, page 6). The matrix captures the steps involved (monitoring and detection, diagnosis, solution development and evaluation, solution implementation and verification, resolution documentation) as well as the resources and capabilities required to support these steps (data, knowledge, analysis, synthesis, resource management). A wallpaper size printout of the matrix was utilized at the TIM to solicit attendee inputs along the three themes; the activity garnered 108 submissions of ideas. Overall, what emerged from TIM discussions was a picture of mismatch between crew anomaly response needs and support that can be provided by existing intelligent technologies. The needs are broad, spanning multiple steps and processes/resources, with many of which lacking support from existing technologies, such as knowledge management throughout the steps of problem solving (especially in resolution documentation) and manpower management. The solutions provided by existing intelligent technologies are specific to the steps/processes that they are designed to support and constrained to solving only problems similar to those that have occurred before. What is lacking from technologies is typically made up by humans, specifically their complex critical thinking, creative problem solving, and domain expertise. In the end, the TIM highlighted the pressing need to support responses to onboard anomalies during autonomous crew operations, particularly those that have eluded the system tests, inspection, and other assurance processes. Such anomalies can potentially threaten crew and vehicle safety, as well as significantly impact overall operations with additional workload. These fairly rare events are difficult to anticipate and prepare for, given the state-of-the-art in intelligent technologies. This is true even for anomalies that stem from “unknown knowns”—cases in which there is sufficient external information to characterize the problem but the overall pattern fails to be recognized by the problem solver, or in which the internal knowledge needed to solve a problem is held tacitly and potentially accessible by the problem solver but not articulated. It follows that the ability to tackle anomalies lies not only with the availability of relevant information and knowledge but also their accessibility in times of need. To that end, we propose research questions along the following three broad themes: • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information available? • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information accessible? • How intelligent technologies can help support the crew operating as a team in anomaly response processes?

autonomous crew operations↗

NASA NTRS2000

Autonomous Agents and Intelligent Assistants for Exploration Operations

Human exploration of space will involve remote autonomous crew and systems in long missions. Data to earth will be delayed and limited. Earth control centers will not receive continuous real-time telemetry data, and there will be communication round trips of up to one hour. There will be reduced human monitoring on the planet and earth. When crews are present on the planet, they will be occupied with other activities, and system management will be a low priority task. Earth control centers will use multi-tasking "night shift" and on-call specialists. A new project at Johnson Space Center is developing software to support teamwork between distributed human and software agents in future interplanetary work environments. The Engineering and Mission Operations Directorates at Johnson Space Center (JSC) are combining laboratories and expertise to carry out this project, by establishing a testbed for hWl1an centered design, development and evaluation of intelligent autonomous and assistant systems. Intelligent autonomous systems for managing systems on planetary bases will commuicate their knowledge to support distributed multi-agent mixed-initiative operations. Intelligent assistant agents will respond to events by developing briefings and responses according to instructions from human agents on earth and in space.

Malin, Jane T.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Review of Significant Incidents and Close Calls in Human Spaceflight from a Human Factors Perspective

This project aims to identify poor human factors design decisions that led to error-prone systems, or did not facilitate the flight crew making the right choices; and to verify that NASA is effectively preventing similar incidents from occurring again. This analysis was performed by reviewing significant incidents and close calls in human spaceflight identified by the NASA Johnson Space Center Safety and Mission Assurance Flight Safety Office. The review of incidents shows whether the identified human errors were due to the operational phase (flight crew and ground control) or if they initiated at the design phase (includes manufacturing and test). This classification was performed with the aid of the NASA Human Systems Integration domains. This in-depth analysis resulted in a tool that helps with the human factors classification of significant incidents and close calls in human spaceflight, which can be used to identify human errors at the operational level, and how they were or should be minimized. Current governing documents on human systems integration for both government and commercial crew were reviewed to see if current requirements, processes, training, and standard operating procedures protect the crew and ground control against these issues occurring in the future. Based on the findings, recommendations to target those areas are provided.

Silva-Martinez, Jackelynne↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Flight Deck Design of a Hybrid Turbine/Electric Passenger Aircraft

NASA is exploring the development of a 180-passenger subsonic single engine aft turbine aircraft, The aft turbine provides electric power in a hybrid design to wing mounted electric engines, creating a highly efficient, high-bypass-ratio fan equivalent. The SUbsonic Single Aft eNgine (SUSAN) aircraft is being developed as a sustainable subsonic regional aircraft that seeks to reduce emission levels by 50% in the next few decades. Pilot-in-the-loop studies were conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to explore the flight deck design for the hybrid electric aircraft. Following modern trends in commercial aircraft flight decks with full time augmented controls and a quiet and dark philosophy, single throttle and simplified engine displays were developed for the SUSAN aircraft. The aircraft includes a single aft mounted turbine engine and 16 wing mounted electric fans. The final design was developed from feedback received during an earlier pilot-in-the-loop study where one, two, and three throttles were tested in standard airline operations, including various failures of the turbine and electric engines. Current flight deck designs normally provide control inceptors for each propulsion engine and an engine display for all primary aircraft engine parameters. With full time augmentation expected, a single throttle control with autothrottle always engaged, even during failures, is desired. Augmentation of flight controls using distributed thrust also requires full time control of the electric engines using automation. Additionally, electric engine thrust is augmented during climb based on battery state of charge. Thrust augmentation changes faster than human reaction time and therefore requires full-time automation. A pilot-in-the-loop study was conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to test the final design of the single throttle with simplified engine displays. Fourteen airline pilots evaluated the single throttle and engine display concept. Electric engine failures included one, four symmetric, and eight non-symmetric electric engine failures. The turbine engine was evaluated for complete and partial failure during critical phases of flight to include takeoff as well as enroute. Unexpected go-arounds increase workload and require significant throttle manipulation. Go-arounds were included to ensure the single throttle was usable for all phases of flight. Failures during takeoff required a return to the departure field and failures enroute required a diversion except for one and four electric engine failures as these failures did not affect aircraft flyability or range. There are currently no Part 25 aircraft certified with hybrid systems or electric engines with batteries as emergency propulsion. For turbine engine failures in the SUSAN aircraft design, range is limited to 30 minutes at full power. Battery state of charge and battery health displays were developed and tested for usability and to determine how well they supported pilot decisions for alternate airports during emergency diversions. Novel displays using shape and color were developed to provide immediate feedback when state of charge became critical. This paper details the pilot study including pilot feedback supporting the potential for increased automation and a single throttle control. Detailed recommendations are provided for a novel single throttle control and additional pilot controls to support selection of engines during start, shutdown, and engine troubleshooting procedures. This design deviates significantly from current practice of providing throttles for each propulsion engine. Engine display recommendations are provided based on pilot feedback during a guided post-evaluation interview. Battery state of charge and battery health display recommendations were collected from all airline crews. The simplified engine displays design was rated excellent as measured with a usability scale. Quantitative metrics include airspeed tracking, time to complete checklists, time to make diversion decisions and the quality of the diversion decision. Recommendations for future studies are documented with supporting research and current observations about upcoming flight deck certifications.

autothrottle↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Flight Deck Design of a Hybrid Turbine/Electric Passenger Aircraft

NASA is exploring the development of a 180-passenger subsonic single engine aft turbine aircraft, The aft turbine provides electric power in a hybrid design to wing mounted electric engines, creating a highly efficient, high-bypass-ratio fan equivalent. The SUbsonic Single Aft eNgine (SUSAN) aircraft is being developed as a sustainable subsonic regional aircraft that seeks to reduce emission levels by 50% in the next few decades. Pilot-in-the-loop studies were conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to explore the flight deck design for the hybrid electric aircraft. Following modern trends in commercial aircraft flight decks with full time augmented controls and a quiet and dark philosophy, single throttle and simplified engine displays were developed for the SUSAN aircraft. The aircraft includes a single aft mounted turbine engine and 16 wing mounted electric fans. The final design was developed from feedback received during an earlier pilot-in-the-loop study where one, two, and three throttles were tested in standard airline operations, including various failures of the turbine and electric engines. Current flight deck designs normally provide control inceptors for each propulsion engine and an engine display for all primary aircraft engine parameters. With full time augmentation expected, a single throttle control with autothrottle always engaged, even during failures, is desired. Augmentation of flight controls using distributed thrust also requires full time control of the electric engines using automation. Additionally, electric engine thrust is augmented during climb based on battery state of charge. Thrust augmentation changes faster than human reaction time and therefore requires full-time automation. A pilot-in-the-loop study was conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to test the final design of the single throttle with simplified engine displays. Fourteen airline pilots evaluated the single throttle and engine display concept. Electric engine failures included one, four symmetric, and eight non-symmetric electric engine failures. The turbine engine was evaluated for complete and partial failure during critical phases of flight to include takeoff as well as enroute. Unexpected go-arounds increase workload and require significant throttle manipulation. Go-arounds were included to ensure the single throttle was usable for all phases of flight. Failures during takeoff required a return to the departure field and failures enroute required a diversion except for one and four electric engine failures as these failures did not affect aircraft flyability or range. There are currently no Part 25 aircraft certified with hybrid systems or electric engines with batteries as emergency propulsion. For turbine engine failures in the SUSAN aircraft design, range is limited to 30 minutes at full power. Battery state of charge and battery health displays were developed and tested for usability and to determine how well they supported pilot decisions for alternate airports during emergency diversions. Novel displays using shape and color were developed to provide immediate feedback when state of charge became critical. This paper details the pilot study including pilot feedback supporting the potential for increased automation and a single throttle control. Detailed recommendations are provided for a novel single throttle control and additional pilot controls to support selection of engines during start, shutdown, and engine troubleshooting procedures. This design deviates significantly from current practice of providing throttles for each propulsion engine. Engine display recommendations are provided based on pilot feedback during a guided post-evaluation interview. Battery state of charge and battery health display recommendations were collected from all airline crews. The simplified engine displays design was rated excellent as measured with a usability scale. Quantitative metrics include airspeed tracking, time to complete checklists, time to make diversion decisions and the quality of the diversion decision. Recommendations for future studies are documented with supporting research and current observations about upcoming flight deck certifications.

autothrottle↗

NASA NTRS2012

GEOLAB: A Habitat-Based Geoscience Laboratory for Human Exploration Missions

GeoLab is a geological laboratory and test bed designed for conducting geoscience activities during NASA's analog missions. Scientists at NASA's Johnson Space Center built GeoLab as part of a technology project to aid the development of science operational concepts and to test a variety of analytical tools that could be developed for future planetary surface missions. It is integrated into NASA's Deep Space Habitat (DSH), an exploration habitat test article (Figure 2). As a prototype workstation, GeoLab provides a high fidelity facility for analog mission crewmembers to perform preliminary examination and characterization of geologic samples and communicate their findings to supporting scientists.

Evans, C. A.↗