Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human performance”

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 271 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

Tool for Human-Systems Integration Assessment: HSI Scorecard

This paper describes the development and rationale for a human-systems integration (HSI) scorecard that can be used in reviews of vehicle specification and design. This tool can be used to assess whether specific HSI related criteria have been met as part of a project milestone or critical event, such as technical reviews, crew station reviews, mockup evaluations, or even review of major plans or processes. Examples of HSI related criteria include Human Performance Capabilities, Health Management, Human System Interfaces, Anthropometry and Biomechanics, and Natural and Induced Environments. The tool is not intended to evaluate requirements compliance and verification, but to review how well the human related systems have been considered for the specific event and to identify gaps and vulnerabilities from an HSI perspective. The scorecard offers common basis, and criteria for discussions among system managers, evaluators, and design engineers. Furthermore, the scorecard items highlight the main areas of system development that need to be followed during system lifecycle. The ratings provide a repeatable quantitative measure to what has been often seen as only subjective commentary. Thus, the scorecard is anticipated to be a useful HSI tool to communicate review results to the institutional and the project office management.

Whitmore, Nihriban↗
NASA NTRS2013

Investigation of Control Inceptor Dynamics and Effect on Human Subject Performance

The control inceptor used in a vehicle simulation is an important part of adequately representing the dynamics of the vehicle. The inceptor characteristics are typically based on a second order spring mass damper system with damping, force gradient, breakout force, and natural frequency parameters. Changing these parameters can have a great effect on pilot control of the vehicle. A quasi transfer of training experiment was performed employing a high fidelity and a low fidelity control inceptor. A disturbance compensatory task was employed which involved a simple horizon line disturbed in roll by a sum of sinusoids presented in an out-the-window display. Vehicle dynamics were modeled as 1/s and 1/s2. The task was to maintain level flight. Twenty subjects were divided between the high and the low fidelity training groups. Each group was trained to a performance asymptote, and then transferred to the high fidelity simulation. RMS tracking error, a PSD analysis, and a workload analysis were performed to quantify the transfer of training effect. Quantitative results of the experiments show that there is no significant difference between the high and low fidelity training groups for 1/s plant dynamics. For 1/s2 plant dynamics there is a greater difference in tracking performance and PSD; and the subjects are less correlated with the input disturbance function

Stanco, Anthony A.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Development of a Ground Test and Analysis Protocol for NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing a Motion-Based System for Lunar Vehicle Handling Qualities Testing

— Motion and visual cue influences are critical in any simulator system, as they impact multiple aspects of the human’s neurovestibular and visual systems. Cues of real motion proceeds to the brain before cues of visual change. It is important therefore for simulator motion cues to exist and to match those realistically with those of the real vehicle to provide transferable training of the activity for operations. The United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine (1989)[1] stated that motion platforms are the only simulation devices capable of fully stimulating the body motion sensors. They confirmed that motion platforms can impart accelerations to the whole body and therefore exercise the automatic motion feedback-loop that operators are used to. With both visual and motion cues handling the vehicle becomes more realistic. Strachan (2019)[1] confirms motion cueing from a well set-up motion platform has been found to be important especially in conditions such as night or reduced visibility where motion cues may be more relied upon. As of this writing, the only lunar rover motion simulator is housed at the General Motors (GM) Milford Proving Ground, which only simulates the motions of a traditional car. A NASA Test Team proposed to complete a motion-based simulation system for NASA’s Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) which resides at Johnson Space Center’s Systems Engineering Simulator facility. This activity integrated existing fixed base simulation capabilities with a newly procured six-degree of freedom motion base platform for the design, development, evaluation, and training associated with the LTV project. This would incorporate a South Pole Lunar virtual reality simulation using Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 5m/pixel high-resolution imagery and Unreal 5.2 Virtual Shadow Maps, combined with a virtual reality (VR) headset, integrated within a rover cockpit on a Mikrolar Motion Platform for evaluating human performance and vehicle handling qualities for concept roving vehicle designs. The motion-based system received its Human Rating Certification on March 2023. To begin testing the new facility, a preliminary handling qualities study was conducted. The objectives were to determine if there is a correlation amongst three handling quality methods of performance for a lunar vehicle and to understand the effects of a simulated 1/6-g loads and visuals with a motion platform on the operator while in a 1-g physical environment. The capability this system provides directly benefits the NASA’s Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program and NASA’s Flight Operations Directorate in evaluating the driving qualities of vehicle concepts, human performance related to the operating of a lunar surface vehicle, and assessment of suit related driving impacts. It would also provide direct operational benefit by providing a first-in class and unique simulation platform for the lunar astronaut training curriculum. The empirical knowledge of rover and human performance on this scale is paramount as there is currently no other lunar surface simulator with these capabilities. The result of this study ensures a broadly applicable method of testing for shirtsleeve, unpressurized and pressurized suited rover handling qualities.

Test Track↗
NASA NTRS1997

Wings: A New Paradigm in Human-Centered Design

Many aircraft accidents/incidents investigations cite crew error as a causal factor (Boeing Commercial Airplane Group 1996). Human factors experts suggest that crew error has many underlying causes and should be the start of an accident investigation and not the end. One of those causes, the flight deck design, is correctable. If a flight deck design does not accommodate the human's unique abilities and deficits, crew error may simply be the manifestation of this mismatch. Pilots repeatedly report that they are "behind the aircraft" , i.e., they do not know what the automated aircraft is doing or how the aircraft is doing it until after the fact. Billings (1991) promotes the concept of "human-centered automation"; calling on designers to allocate appropriate control and information to the human. However, there is much ambiguity regarding what it mean's to be human-centered. What often are labeled as "human-centered designs" are actually designs where a human factors expert has been involved in the design process or designs where tests have shown that humans can operate them. While such designs may be excellent, they do not represent designs that are systematically produced according to some set of prescribed methods and procedures. This paper describes a design concept, called Wings, that offers a clearer definition for human-centered design. This new design concept is radically different from current design processes in that the design begins with the human and uses the human body as a metaphor for designing the aircraft. This is not because the human is the most important part of the aircraft (certainly the aircraft would be useless without lift and thrust), but because he is the least understood, the least programmable, and one of the more critical elements. The Wings design concept has three properties: a reversal in the design process, from aerodynamics-, structures-, and propulsion-centered to truly human-centered; a design metaphor that guides function allocation and control and display design; and a deliberate distinction between two fundamental functions of design, to complement and to interpret human performance. The complementary function extends the human's capabilities beyond his or her current limitations - this includes sensing, computation, memory, physical force, and human decision making styles and skills. The interpretive (or hermeneutic, Hollnagel 1991) function translates information, functionality, and commands between the human and the aircraft. The Wings design concept allows the human to remain aware of the aircraft through natural interpretation. It also affords great improvements in system performance by maximizing the human's natural abilities and complementing the human's skills in a natural way. This paper will discuss the Wings design concept by describing the reversal in the traditional design process, the function allocation strategy of Wings, and the functions of complementing and interpreting the human.

Schutte, Paul C.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Planetary Suit Hip Bearing Model for Predicting Design vs. Performance

Designing a planetary suit is very complex and often requires difficult trade-offs between performance, cost, mass, and system complexity. In order to verifying that new suit designs meet requirements, full prototypes must eventually be built and tested with human subjects. Using computer models early in the design phase of new hardware development can be advantageous, allowing virtual prototyping to take place. Having easily modifiable models of the suit hard sections may reduce the time it takes to make changes to the hardware designs and then to understand their impact on suit and human performance. A virtual design environment gives designers the ability to think outside the box and exhaust design possibilities before building and testing physical prototypes with human subjects. Reductions in prototyping and testing may eventually reduce development costs. This study is an attempt to develop computer models of the hard components of the suit with known physical characteristics, supplemented with human subject performance data. Objectives: The primary objective was to develop an articulating solid model of the Mark III hip bearings to be used for evaluating suit design performance of the hip joint. Methods: Solid models of a planetary prototype (Mark III) suit s hip bearings and brief section were reverse-engineered from the prototype. The performance of the models was then compared by evaluating the mobility performance differences between the nominal hardware configuration and hardware modifications. This was accomplished by gathering data from specific suited tasks. Subjects performed maximum flexion and abduction tasks while in a nominal suit bearing configuration and in three off-nominal configurations. Performance data for the hip were recorded using state-of-the-art motion capture technology. Results: The results demonstrate that solid models of planetary suit hard segments for use as a performance design tool is feasible. From a general trend perspective, the suited performance trends were comparable between the model and the suited subjects. With the three off-nominal bearing configurations compared to the nominal bearing configurations, human subjects showed decreases in hip flexion of 64%, 6%, and 13% and in hip abduction of 59%, 2%, and 20%. Likewise the solid model showed decreases in hip flexion of 58%, 1%, and 25% and in hip abduction of 56%, 0%, and 30%, under the same condition changes from the nominal configuration. Differences seen between the model predictions and the human subject performance data could be attributed to the model lacking dynamic elements and performing kinematic analysis only, the level of fit of the subjects with the suit, the levels of the subject s suit experience.

Cowley, Matthew S.↗
NASA NTRS2014

EMU Suit Performance Simulation

Introduction: Designing a planetary suit is very complex and often requires difficult trade‐offs between performance, cost, mass, and system complexity. To verify that new suit designs meet requirements, full prototypes must be built and tested with human subjects. However, numerous design iterations will occur before the hardware meets those requirements. Traditional draw‐prototype‐test paradigms for research and development are prohibitively expensive with today's shrinking Government budgets. Personnel at NASA are developing modern simulation techniques that focus on a human‐centric design paradigm. These new techniques make use of virtual prototype simulations and fully adjustable physical prototypes of suit hardware. This is extremely advantageous and enables comprehensive design down‐selections to be made early in the design process. Objectives: The primary objective was to test modern simulation techniques for evaluating the human performance component of two EMU suit concepts, pivoted and planar style hard upper torso (HUT). Methods: This project simulated variations in EVA suit shoulder joint design and subject anthropometry and then measured the differences in shoulder mobility caused by the modifications. These estimations were compared to human‐in‐the‐loop test data gathered during past suited testing using four subjects (two large males, two small females). Results: Results demonstrated that EVA suit modeling and simulation are feasible design tools for evaluating and optimizing suit design based on simulated performance. The suit simulation model was found to be advantageous in its ability to visually represent complex motions and volumetric reach zones in three dimensions, giving designers a faster and deeper comprehension of suit component performance vs. human performance. Suit models were able to discern differing movement capabilities between EMU HUT configurations, generic suit fit concerns, and specific suit fit concerns for crewmembers based on individual anthropometry

Cowley, Matthew S.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Man-Machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) v5: Augmentations, Motivations, and Directions for Aeronautics Applications

As automation and advanced technologies are introduced into transport systems ranging from the Next Generation Air Transportation System termed NextGen, to the advanced surface transportation systems as exemplified by the Intelligent Transportations Systems, to future systems designed for space exploration, there is an increased need to validly predict how the future systems will be vulnerable to error given the demands imposed by the assistive technologies. One formalized approach to study the impact of assistive technologies on the human operator in a safe and non-obtrusive manner is through the use of human performance models (HPMs). HPMs play an integral role when complex human-system designs are proposed, developed, and tested. One HPM tool termed the Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) is a NASA Ames Research Center HPM software tool that has been applied to predict human-system performance in various domains since 1986. MIDAS is a dynamic, integrated HPM and simulation environment that facilitates the design, visualization, and computational evaluation of complex man-machine system concepts in simulated operational environments. The paper will discuss a range of aviation specific applications including an approach used to model human error for NASA s Aviation Safety Program, and what-if analyses to evaluate flight deck technologies for NextGen operations. This chapter will culminate by raising two challenges for the field of predictive HPMs for complex human-system designs that evaluate assistive technologies: that of (1) model transparency and (2) model validation.

Gore, Brian F.↗