SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Factors Engineering”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 271 records · Page 15

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis Internal Science Team Update: Deployed Payloads

Artemis will reestablish human presence on the Moon and lead to a new era of scientific discovery and exploration. Led by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Artemis effort includes a collaboration of space agencies and companies from around the world. In support of Artemis, a cross-disciplinary effort of science, engineering, operations, and human factors personnel is currently developing the best methods, facilities, and field locations to test hardware, train astronauts, and evaluate concepts of operations. This poster, as part of the Artemis Internal Science Team (AIST), provides an update to NASA’s plans for the solicitation, development, and operations of deployed surface payloads. In calendar year 2023, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate will solicit proposals for instruments to be deployed by crew on the surface of the Moon (Fig. 1), beginning with Artemis III. The Artemis III mission will land in the south polar region of the Moon, within 6º of latitude from the south pole, in the vicinity of both persistently illuminated and permanently shadowed areas of the Moon, with potential access to surface-accessible volatile deposits. Several of the proposed landing regions are located among some of the oldest parts of the Moon, and together with the permanently shadowed regions, provide the opportunity to learn about the history of the Moon through previously unexplored lunar regions. Deployed payloads will be a critical part of a notional program that captures the highest-priority science for Artemis III and provides the greatest feed-forward to follow-on missions and the build-up to the Artemis Base Camp.

R. C. Weber↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Volumetric Assessment of UPRITE Exercises From Marker-Based Motion Capture

BACKGROUND Lack of volumetric data on full-body movement of exercises presents a challenge to ensuring the fit of crew member’s full range of motion on the International Space Station (ISS). The Upright Proprioception Retention via In-flight Training and Evaluation (UPRITE) is a sensorimotor countermeasure device designed for maintaining crew members’ proprioception in a microgravity environment. A footplate—attached to a static base—rotates in two degrees of freedom (pitch and roll) up to a 20 deg angle. An initial volumetric assessment assuming an upright standing posture produced a cone-like shape with a narrow bottom and wide top. Such general volumetric assessments risk creating an overly conservative volume estimate, taking up more space than is necessary on the already limited interior space of the ISS, and neglecting necessary volume due to oversimplifying assumptions. Rather, higher-fidelity volumetric assessments offer more comprehensive insights in an environment where every area counts. The main objective of this work is to provide the spatial parameters of exercises on the UPRITE such that it is placed on the ISS according to its volumetric demands or that usage is adjusted to fit the available space. METHODS In 2023, a data collection was performed originally to inform loads and dynamics of system use and was recently leveraged for volumetric assessment. Three human subjects representing different body types (~63-76 inches in stature) performed a variety of board manipulations using UPRITE with body weight offload. The test collected the 3D positional data of a modified full-body Plug-in Gait marker set [1] via a 16-camera OptiTrack MoCap system. After processing – filling marker gaps and trimming data – in OptiTrack Motive, the recorded marker location data, which included device markers, was exported to a readable trajectory file. To accurately represent the full volume defining landmarks, additional markers were digitally added to an unscaled Modified Full Body Model [2]. The model was then scaled according to its subject parameters upon which an inverse kinematics analysis was performed. A custom plugin yielded model marker location data files. Volumetric analyses were performed on the recorded trajectory and model trajectory files using a custom Python-built tool that extracted the marker location data and plotted it in a 3D space. Concerned with only the maximum volume of the motion, a 3D convex hull analysis was applied to the plot, extracting the vertices or external points of the eventual 3D CAD output, dubbed aptly as a “volume shell”. This overall approach was based on guidance in a NASA-STD-3001 Technical Brief [3]. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Batch volumetric assessment on the exercises for each subject was performed, producing high-fidelity volume shells in minimal time. Preliminary results highlighted the value in higher-fidelity volumes based on collected data when possible. For example, revolving a single posture in the cone assessment would not have sufficiently captured a single leg stance; rather, it would need to involve swinging the leg both forward and back. Additional observations and the maximal dimensions of the volumes, including those based on scaled data for ISS anthropometric requirements, will be presented at the Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop. CONCLUSIONS While this work’s primary objective was for the UPRITE-to-ISS integration, the tool built to conduct this analysis has wide applications for future exercise systems as an informational tool for optimal device placement. The tool and its findings also have implications for exercise device design and spacecraft interior considerations on Gateway, the Lunar Pressurized Rover, and beyond. REFERENCES [1] Bell, C. A., et al. (2023) Recent Improvements and Verification of a Full Body Model in OpenSim. NASA Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230001080 [2] Lostroscio, K., et al (2023) The Digital Astronaut Simulation. AHFE International Conference on Human Factors in Design, Engineering, and Computing for All. [3] Exercise Overview. (2023) NASA-STD-3001 Technical Brief. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ochmo-tb-031-exercise-overview.pdf?emrc=9d454c?emrc=9d454c

L D Quinto↗

NASA NTRS2008

Design and Verification

As future space missions become longer, an important aspect to consider is the habitability of the spacecraft. The amount of habitable volume affects not only astronaut comfort, but safety and mission success as well. However, as the volume is increased to aid in task performance, the weight of the vehicle and cost of the mission escalates in proportion. Pressure to reduce mission cost is constant, but the risk to mission success and crew survival must remain the priorities. The Constellation Program's Altair Lunar Lander is designed for short duration surface operation missions of seven to ten days. For short duration missions, humans will tolerate fairly primitive environmental situations provided the basic physiological arrangements are acceptable. However, for long-duration lunar surface operations, the living and operational spaces within which the crew work must provide both the essentials of life, as well as the support necessary for the crew to be productive in accomplishing their mission. The Altair is still in the preliminary design phase, which is the optimal time for Human Factors data to be provided to designers and engineers. A Human Centered Design (HCD) approach is being taken with our Human Factors evaluations. Human-in-the-loop testing is conducted using low-medium fidelity mock-ups of proposed lunar architecture. Based on current ConOps (Concept of Operations) procedures, a task analysis is performed in which individual tasks are combined into larger operational scenarios. Subjective and objective performance measures are gathered at both the task and scenario level. These scores are used to determine the functionality of the vehicle in terms of task performance. Results from these evaluations will highlight areas for design or operational improvement.

Thompson, Shelby G.↗

NASA NTRS1998

Methodology for Examining the Operator and the System Concurrently: Pilot Interaction with Automation

Complex system description is problematic when considering operator task activities interacting with system dynamics. Engineering languages have matured sufficiently to allow machine system description at various levels of depth and breadth but without operator synergy. Concurrently, Task Analysis methods have evolved along diverse lines enabling a description of the operator in the system from various paradigms but not describing the system. A void exists when attempting to view the system and the operator in the same plane. We propose a methodology employing descriptive languages from different domains viewed in a single dimension. Finite Automata (FA) languages describe the machine system in the proposed approach. Operator task specifications, a form of task analysis output, examine the operator activities within the system. Operator task specifications were then selected for discrete task activities and overlaid on the system description to examine operator inputs and subsequently view system responses. Unexpected (surprise) and undesirable system behavior was expected to emerge from this analysis. In this paper we shall first describe the methodology and show how the two perspectives, machine model and operator task specifications are integrated. Following we describe the process of doing such analysis using an example from cockpit automation. The methodology was employed in the analysis of a new function that was added to an existing automatic flight control system. We begin by defining a flight scenario involving all aspects of pilot interaction with the new function. Then, we proceed to develop a basic model of the machine behavior, in the context of pilot actions. Finally we superimpose the operator task specification on the machine model and perform the analysis. The proposed methodology may have broad appeal to system designers and human factors specialists. A common language for engineers of diverse domains is a strong point of this approach. Systems engineers may not fully understand operational considerations and human limitations, and human factors specialists may not be exposed to the full extent of system behavior. We hope the proposed methodology is adopted by both disciplines and in the process each assimilates a common language to address potential shortcomings of either approach separately.

Austin, David↗

NASA NTRS2011

MIT January Operational Internship Experience 2011

This slide presentation reviews the 2011 January Operational Internship experience (JOIE) program which allows students to study operational aspects of spaceflight, how design affects operations and systems engineering in practice for 3 weeks. Topics include: (1) Systems Engineering (2) NASA Organization (3) Workforce Core Values (4) Human Factors (5) Safety (6) Lean Engineering (7) NASA Now (8) Press, Media, and Outreach and (9) Future of Spaceflight.

DeLatte, Danielle↗

NASA NTRS2012

Human Systems Integration in Practice: Constellation Lessons Learned

NASA's Constellation program provided a unique testbed for Human Systems Integration (HSI) as a fundamental element of the Systems Engineering process. Constellation was the first major program to have HSI mandated by NASA's Human Rating document. Proper HSI is critical to the success of any project that relies on humans to function as operators, maintainers, or controllers of a system. HSI improves mission, system and human performance, significantly reduces lifecycle costs, lowers risk and minimizes re-design. Successful HSI begins with sufficient project schedule dedicated to the generation of human systems requirements, but is by no means solely a requirements management process. A top-down systems engineering process that recognizes throughout the organization, human factors as a technical discipline equal to traditional engineering disciplines with authority for the overall system. This partners with a bottoms-up mechanism for human-centered design and technical issue resolution. The Constellation Human Systems Integration Group (HSIG) was a part of the Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) organization within the program office, and existed alongside similar groups such as Flight Performance, Environments & Constraints, and Integrated Loads, Structures and Mechanisms. While the HSIG successfully managed, via influence leadership, a down-and-in Community of Practice to facilitate technical integration and issue resolution, it lacked parallel top-down authority to drive integrated design. This presentation will discuss how HSI was applied to Constellation, the lessons learned and best practices it revealed, and recommendations to future NASA program and project managers. This presentation will discuss how Human Systems Integration (HSI) was applied to NASA's Constellation program, the lessons learned and best practices it revealed, and recommendations to future NASA program and project managers on how to accomplish this critical function.

Zumbado, Jennifer Rochlis↗

NASA NTRS2010

Constraint and Flight Rule Management for Space Mission Operations

The exploration of space is one of the most fascinating domains to study from a human factors perspective. Like other complex work domains such as aviation (Pritchett and Kim, 2008), air traffic management (Durso and Manning, 2008), health care (Morrow, North, and Wickens, 2006), homeland security (Cooke and Winner, 2008), and vehicle control (Lee, 2006), space exploration is a large-scale sociotechnical work domain characterized by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty, and risk in real-time operational contexts (Perrow, 1999; Woods et al, 1994). Nearly the entire gamut of human factors issues - for example, human-automation interaction (Sheridan and Parasuraman, 2006), telerobotics, display and control design (Smith, Bennett, and Stone, 2006), usability, anthropometry (Chaffin, 2008), biomechanics (Marras and Radwin, 2006), safety engineering, emergency operations, maintenance human factors, situation awareness (Tenney and Pew, 2006), crew resource management (Salas et al., 2006), methods for cognitive work analysis (Bisantz and Roth, 2008) and the like -- are applicable to astronauts, mission control, operational medicine, Space Shuttle manufacturing and assembly operations, and space suit designers as they are in other work domains (e.g., Bloomberg, 2003; Bos et al, 2006; Brooks and Ince, 1992; Casler and Cook, 1999; Jones, 1994; McCurdy et al, 2006; Neerincx et aI., 2006; Olofinboba and Dorneich, 2005; Patterson, Watts-Perotti and Woods, 1999; Patterson and Woods, 2001; Seagull et ai, 2007; Sierhuis, Clancey and Sims, 2002). The human exploration of space also has unique challenges of particular interest to human factors research and practice. This chapter provides an overview of those issues and reports on some of the latest research results as well as the latest challenges still facing the field.

Barreiro, J.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors in Space Exploration

The exploration of space is one of the most fascinating domains to study from a human factors perspective. Like other complex work domains such as aviation (Pritchett and Kim, 2008), air traffic management (Durso and Manning, 2008), health care (Morrow, North, and Wickens, 2006), homeland security (Cooke and Winner, 2008), and vehicle control (Lee, 2006), space exploration is a large-scale sociotechnical work domain characterized by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty, and risk in real-time operational contexts (Perrow, 1999; Woods et ai, 1994). Nearly the entire gamut of human factors issues - for example, human-automation interaction (Sheridan and Parasuraman, 2006), telerobotics, display and control design (Smith, Bennett, and Stone, 2006), usability, anthropometry (Chaffin, 2008), biomechanics (Marras and Radwin, 2006), safety engineering, emergency operations, maintenance human factors, situation awareness (Tenney and Pew, 2006), crew resource management (Salas et aI., 2006), methods for cognitive work analysis (Bisantz and Roth, 2008) and the like -- are applicable to astronauts, mission control, operational medicine, Space Shuttle manufacturing and assembly operations, and space suit designers as they are in other work domains (e.g., Bloomberg, 2003; Bos et al, 2006; Brooks and Ince, 1992; Casler and Cook, 1999; Jones, 1994; McCurdy et ai, 2006; Neerincx et aI., 2006; Olofinboba and Dorneich, 2005; Patterson, Watts-Perotti and Woods, 1999; Patterson and Woods, 2001; Seagull et ai, 2007; Sierhuis, Clancey and Sims, 2002). The human exploration of space also has unique challenges of particular interest to human factors research and practice. This chapter provides an overview of those issues and reports on sorne of the latest research results as well as the latest challenges still facing the field.

FROM↗

NASA NTRS1989

Human factors and productivity on Space Station Freedom

Three main facets of man systems are investigated with reference to the Space Station Freedom program: specific hardware systems that focus on the human element; requirements definition for man-systems integration; and crew interface and operations analysis. Three key criteria have been identified for selecting individuals to constitute the human system or crew for Space Station Freedom missions: aptitude for mission specific skills, motivation, and sensitivity to self and others. Integration of the human system into the complex engineering and science systems planned on Space Station Freedom will require the close collaboration of engineers, physicians, psychologists, and human factors experts. Ground-based research and experiments on the KC-135 aircraft are providing information about how human systems will function on a space station and how to design other systems to interact with the crew. A laboratory for further research will be provided onboard Space Station Freedom.

Leach, C. S.↗

NASA NTRS1989

An expert system to advise astronauts during experiments

Work being done on an expert system designed to improve the quality of space experimentation in vestibular physiology is described. Emphasis is given to two of the several modules of which the system architecture is composed: the Protocol Manager and the Interesting Data Filter. Some engineering issues related to human factors and to data acquisition and monitoring are also addressed.

Young, Laurence R.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Lunar architecture and urbanism

Human civilization and architecture have defined each other for over 5000 years on Earth. Even in the novel environment of space, persistent issues of human urbanism will eclipse, within a historically short time, the technical challenges of space settlement that dominate our current view. By adding modern topics in space engineering, planetology, life support, human factors, material invention, and conservation to their already renaissance array of expertise, urban designers can responsibly apply ancient, proven standards to the exciting new opportunities afforded by space. Inescapable facts about the Moon set real boundaries within which tenable lunar urbanism and its component architecture must eventually develop.

Sherwood, Brent↗

NASA NTRS2006

Preliminary Study Using Forward Reaction Control System Jets During Space Shuttle Entry

Failure or degradation of the flight control system, or hull damage, can lead to loss of vehicle control during entry. Possible failure scenarios are debris impact and wing damage that could result in a large aerodynamic asymmetry which cannot be trimmed out without additional yaw control. Currently the space shuttle uses aerodynamic control surfaces and Reaction Control System jets to control attitude. The forward jets are used for orbital maneuvering only, while the aft jets are used for yaw control during entry. This paper develops a controller for using the forward reaction control system jets as an additional control during entry, and assesses its value and feasibility during failure situations. Forward-aft jet blending logic is created, and implemented on a simplified model of the space shuttle entry flight control system. The model is validated and verified on the nonlinear, six degree-of-freedom Shuttle Engineering Simulator. A rudimentary human factors study was undertaken using the forward cockpit simulator at Johnson Space Center, to assess flying qualities of the new system and pilot workload. Results presented in the paper show that the combination of forward and aft jets provides useful additional yaw control, in addition to potential fuel savings and the ability to balance the use of the fuel in the forward and aft tanks to meet availability constraints of both forward and aft fuel tanks. Piloted simulation studies indicated that using both sets of jets while flying a damaged space shuttle reduces pilot workload, and makes the vehicle more responsive.

Restrepo, Carolina↗

NASA NTRS2002

Architecting Systems for Human Space Flight

Human-system interactions have been largely overlooked in the traditional systems engineering process. Awareness of human factors (HF) has increased in the past few years, but the involvement of HF specialists is still often too little and too late. In systems involving long-duration human space flight, it is essential that the human component be properly considered in the initial architectural definition phase, as well as throughout the system design process. HF analysis must include not only the strengths and limitations of humans in general, but the variability between individuals and within an individual over time, and the dynamics of group interactions.

Wocken, Gerald↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis Internal Science Team Update: Data and Software Development

M. J. Miller↗

NASA NTRS2006

Habitability and Human Factors: Lessons Learned in Long Duration Space Flight

This study documents the investigation of qualitative habitability and human factors feedback provided by scientists, engineers, and crewmembers on lessons learned from the ISS Program. A thorough review and understanding of this data is critical in charting NASA's future path in space exploration. NASA has been involved in ensuring that the needs of crewmembers to live and work safely and effectively in space have been met throughout the ISS Program. Human factors and habitability data has been collected from every U.S. crewmember that has resided on the ISS. The knowledge gained from both the developers and inhabitants of the ISS have provided a significant resource of information for NASA and will be used in future space exploration. The recurring issues have been tracked and documented; the top 5 most critical issues have been identified from this data. The top 5 identified problems were: excessive onsrbit stowage; environment; communication; procedures; and inadequate design of systems and equipment. Lessons learned from these issues will be used to aid in future improvements and developments to the space program. Full analysis of the habitability and human factors data has led to the following recommendations. It is critical for human factors to be involved early in the design of space vehicles and hardware. Human factors requirements need to be readdressed and redefined given the knowledge gained during previous ISS and long-duration space flight programs. These requirements must be integrated into vehicle and hardware technical documentation and consistently enforced. Lastly, space vehicles and hardware must be designed with primary focus on the user/operator to successfully complete missions and maintain a safe working environment. Implementation of these lessons learned will significantly improve NASA's likelihood of success in future space endeavors.

Baggerman, Susan D.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Verification and Implementation of Operations Safety Controls for Flight Missions

There are several engineering disciplines, such as reliability, supportability, quality assurance, human factors, risk management, safety, etc. Safety is an extremely important engineering specialty within NASA, and the consequence involving a loss of crew is considered a catastrophic event. Safety is not difficult to achieve when properly integrated at the beginning of each space systems project/start of mission planning. The key is to ensure proper handling of safety verification throughout each flight/mission phase. Today, Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) operations engineers continue to conduct these flight product reviews across all open flight products. As such, these reviews help ensure that each mission is accomplished with safety requirements along with controls heavily embedded in applicable flight products. Most importantly, the S&MA operations engineers are required to look for important design and operations controls so that safety is strictly adhered to as well as reflected in the final flight product.

Smalls, James R.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Human performance models for computer-aided engineering

This report discusses a topic important to the field of computational human factors: models of human performance and their use in computer-based engineering facilities for the design of complex systems. It focuses on a particular human factors design problem -- the design of cockpit systems for advanced helicopters -- and on a particular aspect of human performance -- vision and related cognitive functions. By focusing in this way, the authors were able to address the selected topics in some depth and develop findings and recommendations that they believe have application to many other aspects of human performance and to other design domains.

Elkind, Jerome I.↗

NASA NTRS1964

Biomedical and Human Factors Requirements for a Manned Earth Orbiting Station

This report is the result of a study conducted by Republic Aviation Corporation in conjunction with Spacelabs, Inc.,in a team effort in which Republic Aviation Corporation was prime contractor. In order to determine the realistic engineering design requirements associated with the medical and human factors problems of a manned space station, an interdisciplinary team of personnel from the Research and Space Divisions was organized. This team included engineers, physicians, physiologists, psychologists, and physicists. Recognizing that the value of the study is dependent upon medical judgments as well as more quantifiable factors (such as design parameters) a group of highly qualified medical consultants participated in working sessions to determine which medical measurements are required to meet the objectives of the study. In addition, various Life Sciences personnel from NASA (Headquarters, Langley, MSC) participated in monthly review sessions. The organization, team members, consultants, and some of the part-time contributors are shown in Figure 1. This final report embodies contributions from all of these participants.

EARTH ORBIT↗