SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew member”

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 289 records · Page 16

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Autonomy Through Self-Scheduling: Scheduling Performance Pilot Study

Within the domain of human spaceflight, crew scheduling for International Space Station (ISS) remains a human-driven planning task. Large teams of flight controllers (called Ops Planners) spend weeks creating violation-free schedules for all crewmembers. As NASA considers long-duration exploration missions, the necessary shift of scheduling and planning management from Ops Planners to crew members requires significant research and investigation of crew performance to complete these scheduling tasks. This pilot study was conducted to evaluate non-expert human performance for the task of planning and scheduling, focusing on scheduling problems that increased in complexity based on the number of activities to be scheduled and the number of planning constraints. Nine non-expert planners were recruited to complete scheduling tasks using Playbook, a scheduling software. The results of this pilot study show that scheduling performance decreased as scheduling workload (i.e. number of activities and percent of activities with planning constraints) increased. This paper provides evidence towards developing a model for scheduling task difficulty and identifies potential implications for future automated aids for flight crew scheduling.

planning↗

NASA NTRS2009

Environmental Control and Life Support Integration Strategy for 6-Crew Operations Stephanie Duchesne

The International Space Station (ISS) crew compliment has increased in size from 3 to 6 crew members . In order to support this increase in crew on ISS, the United States on-orbit Segment (USOS) has been outfitted with a suite of regenerative Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) hardware including an Oxygen Generation System(OGS), Waste and Hygiene Compartment (WHC), and a Water Recovery System (WRS). The WRS includes the Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) and the Water Processor Assembly (WPA). With this additional life support hardware, the ISS has achieved full redundancy in its on-orbit life support system between the USOS and Russian Segment (RS). The additional redundancy created by the Regenerative ECLS hardware creates the opportunity for independent support capabilities between segments, and for the first time since the start of ISS, the necessity to revise Life Support strategy agreements. Independent operating strategies coupled with the loss of the Space Shuttle supply and return capabilities in 2010 offer new and unique challenges. This paper will discuss the evolution of the ISS Life Support hardware strategy in support of 6-Crew on ISS, as well as the continued work that is necessary to ensure the support of crew and ISS Program objectives through the life of station.

Duchesne, Stephanie M.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Environmental Control and Life Support Integration Strategy for 6-Crew Operations

The International Space Station (ISS) crew complement has increased in size from 3 to 6 crew members. In order to support this increase in crew on ISS, the United States on-orbit Segment (USOS) has been outfitted with a suite of regenerative Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) hardware including an Oxygen Generation System (OGS), Waste and Hygiene Compartment (WHC), and a Water Recovery System (WRS). The WRS includes the Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) and the Water Processor Assembly (WPA). With this additional life support hardware, the ISS has achieved full redundancy in its on-orbit life support system between the t OS and Russian Segment (RS). The additional redundancy created by the Regenerative ECLS hardware creates the opportunity for independent support capabilities between segments, and for the first time since the start of ISS, the necessity to revise Life Support strategy agreements. Independent operating strategies coupled with the loss of the Space Shuttle supply and return capabilities in 2010 offer new and unique challenges. This paper will discuss the evolution of the ISS Life Support hardware strategy in support of 6-Crew on ISS, as well as the continued work that is necessary to ensure the support of crew and ISS Program objectives through the life of station

Duchesne, Stephanie M.↗

NASA NTRS2001

X-38 Program Status/Overview

The X-38 Project consists of a series of experimental vehicles designed to provide the technical "blueprint" for the International Space Station's (ISS) Crew Return Vehicle (CRV). There are three atmospheric vehicles and one space flight vehicle in the program. Each vehicle is designed as a technical stepping stone for the next vehicle, with each new vehicle being more complex and advanced than it's predecessor. The X-38 project began in 1995 at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas at the direction of the NASA administrator. From the beginning, the project has had the CRY design validation as its ultimate goal. The CRY has three basic missions that drive the design that must be proven during the course of the X-38 Project: a) Emergency return of an ill or injured crew member. b) Emergency return of an entire ISS crew due to the inability of ISS to sustain life c) Planned return of an entire ISS crew due to the inability to re-supply the ISS or return the crew. The X-38 project must provide the blueprint for a vehicle that provides the capability for human return from space for all three of these design missions.

Anderson, Brian L.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Communication variations and aircrew performance

The relationship between communication variations and aircrew performance (high-error vs low-error performances) was investigated by analyzing the coded verbal transcripts derived from the videotape records of 18 two-person air transport crews who participated in a high-fidelity, full-mission flight simulation. The flight scenario included a task which involved abnormal operations and required the coordinated efforts of all crew members. It was found that the best-performing crews were characterized by nearly identical patterns of communication, whereas the midrange and poorer performing crews showed a great deal of heterogeneity in their speech patterns. Although some specific speech sequences can be interpreted as being more or less facilitative to the crew-coordination process, predictability appears to be the key ingredient for enhancing crew performance. Crews communicating in highly standard (hence predictable) ways were better able to coordinate their task, whereas crews characterized by multiple, nonstandard communication profiles were less effective in their performance.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board's independent investigation into the tragic February 1, 2003, loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its seven-member crew lasted nearly seven months and involved 13 Board members, approximately 120 Board investigators, and thousands of NASA and support personnel. Because the events that initiated the accident were not apparent for some time, the investigation's depth and breadth were unprecedented in NASA history. Further, the Board determined early in the investigation that it intended to put this accident into context. We considered it unlikely that the accident was a random event; rather, it was likely related in some degree to NASA's budgets, history, and program culture, as well as to the politics, compromises, and changing priorities of the democratic process. We are convinced that the management practices overseeing the Space Shuttle Program were as much a cause of the accident as the foam that struck the left wing. The Board was also influenced by discussions with members of Congress, who suggested that this nation needed a broad examination of NASA's Human Space Flight Program, rather than just an investigation into what physical fault caused Columbia to break up during re-entry. Findings and recommendations are in the relevant chapters and all recommendations are compiled in Chapter 11. Volume I is organized into four parts: The Accident; Why the Accident Occurred; A Look Ahead; and various appendices. To put this accident in context, Parts One and Two begin with histories, after which the accident is described and then analyzed, leading to findings and recommendations. Part Three contains the Board's views on what is needed to improve the safety of our voyage into space. Part Four is reference material. In addition to this first volume, there will be subsequent volumes that contain technical reports generated by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and NASA, as well as volumes containing reference documentation and other related material.

Gehman, Harold W., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2002

STS-111/Endeavour/ISS UF2 Pre-Launch Activities: Launch with Playbacks

This video of the preflight preparations for and launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-111 begins with a view of Endeavour on the launch pad. Additional launch pad views leading up to liftoff are interspersed with footage from the Firing Room at Kennedy Space Center, the crew's prelaunch activities, and inspection of the crew members in the White Room before boarding Endeavour. The crew is introduced by a narrator during the preflight banquet and suiting up, and a later clip shows them departing to the launch site. The crew consists of Commander Kenneth Cockrell, Pilot Paul Lockhart, Mission Specialists Philippe Perrin and Franklin Chang-Diaz, and the Expedition 5 crew of the International Space Station (ISS) (Commander Valery Korzun and Flight Engineers Peggy Whitsun and Sergei Treschev). The nozzles on Endeavour's Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) are swiveled before liftoff, and the launch is shown past the separation of the solid rocket boosters. After a brief clip from the Mission Control Center at Johnson Space Center, the following launch replays are shown: Beach Tracker, VAB, Pad A, Tower 1, UCS-15, Grandstand, Cocoa Beach DOAMS, Playalinda DOAMS, UCS-23, and OTV-070.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2010

Microbial Anomalies Encountered on the International Space Station

Microorganisms in our living environments are unavoidable. A community of microbes arrived in space with the delivery of the first element of the International Space Station (ISS), attached to hardware and on the bodies of the humans tasked with the initial assembly missions. The risk that microorganisms could cause adverse effects in the health of both the human occupants of the ISS as well as the physical integrity of the station environment and life support systems has been both a driver and a function of engineering and operational controls. Scientists and engineers at NASA have gone to extensive measures to control microbial growth at levels safe for the crewmembers and the spacecraft environment. Many of these measures were initiated with the design of the spacecraft and its systems. Materials used in the ISS were tested for resistance to fungi, such as mold and a paint with a fungus-killing chemical was also used. Controlling the humidity of the air in the Station is also an effective way of discouraging microbe growth. The breathing air is reconditioned by the Environmental Control Life Support System (ECLSS) prior to distribution, utilizing High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration. Requirements restricting the accumulation of water condensate in the air handlers and habitable volume of the ISS were other safeguards added. Water for drinking and food rehydration is disinfected or filtered. A robust in-flight housekeeping regimen for the ISS significantly reduces inappropriate growth of microorganisms and includes a regular cleaning of accessible surfaces with disinfectant wipes. Most of these requirements were suggested by microbiologists to mitigate and possibly prevent many microbiological risks. In addition to these controls, before flight monitoring and analyses of the cabin air, exposed surfaces, water and food, consumables, and crew members are conducted to mitigate microbial risk to the crew and spacecraft. Many microbial risks are much easier to identify and resolve before launch than during space flight. Although the focus has been on prevention of microbiologically related, not all problems can be anticipated. A number of microbial anomalies have occurred on ISS. This paper will discuss the occurrences, root-cause investigations, and mitigation steps taken to remediate the contamination.

Bruce, Rebekah J.↗

NASA NTRS2015

International Space Station Environmental Control and Life Support System Status: 2014-2015

The International Space Station (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) system includes regenerative and non-regenerative technologies that provide the basic life support functions to support the crew, while maintaining a safe and habitable shirtsleeve environment. This paper provides a summary of the U.S. ECLS system activities over the past year and the impacts of the international partners' activities on them, covering the period of time between March 2014 and February 2015. The ISS continued permanent crew operations including the continuation of six crew members being on ISS. Work continues on the commercial crew vehicles, and work to try and extend ISS service life.

Williams, David E.↗

NASA NTRS2015

International Space Station Environmental Control and Life Support System Previous Year Status for 2013 - 2014

The International Space Station (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) system includes regenerative and non-regenerative technologies that provide the basic life support functions to support the crew, while maintaining a safe and habitable shirtsleeve environment. This paper provides a summary of the U.S. ECLS system activities over the past year and the impacts of the international partners' activities on them, covering the period of time between March 2013 and February 2014. The ISS continued permanent crew operations including the continuation of six crew members being on ISS. Work continues on the commercial crew vehicles, and work to try and extend ISS service life.

Williams, David E.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design for an Integrated Open-Loop System for Carbon Dioxide Removal using Liquid Amine

Manned Space missions require maintaining a safe environment for the crew that can both sustain a breathable atmosphere and remove pollutants. Carbon dioxide, while not toxic in low concentrations, accumulates as crew members work and breath and can eventually affect the crew’s health. Therefore, a constant, passive system to remove the carbon dioxide build up is necessary for long-term missions. Currently, the prevailing liquid sorbent used in submarines and industrial flue gas utilizes the primary amine, monoethanolamine (MEA), to capture, transfer, and remove carbon dioxide from air. Diglycolamine (DGA) is an alternate primary amine that has similar performance and less volatility. It is currently being studied at Ames Research Center (ARC) and is the primary candidate for the operation of the sub-scale liquid amine test stand. The test stand is used to investigate liquid flow and liquid gas interfaces to assist in a system design for microgravity applications. The test stand includes a wedge design utilizes capillary action to hold the liquid while allowing gas-liquid interaction for carbon dioxide transfer. These wedge trays are placed in a contactor unit to remove carbon dioxide from the air stream, a degasser unit to replenish the liquid amine, and a capillary condensing heat exchanger (CCHX) to recapture water lost in the degasser unit. Nominal operating conditions for the contactor are a gas flow rate of 26scfm enriched with pure CO2 to 2600ppm and a liquid mixture of 65/35 vol% DGA/H2O at 0.65mL/min while the degasser was operated at 100°C and 1 atm. This paper discusses the challenges and limitations of a fully integrated system which will influence the design of a new subscale test stand.

Adrian Cortez↗

NASA NTRS1977

Coordinated crew performance in commercial aircraft operations

A specific methodology is proposed for an improved system of coding and analyzing crew member interaction. The complexity and lack of precision of many crew and task variables suggest the usefulness of fuzzy linguistic techniques for modeling and computer simulation of the crew performance process. Other research methodologies and concepts that have promise for increasing the effectiveness of research on crew performance are identified.

Murphy, M. R.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Shared Problem Models and Crew Decision Making

The importance of crew decision making to aviation safety has been well established through NTSB accident analyses: Crew judgment and decision making have been cited as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents in commercial air transport, general aviation, and military aviation. Yet the bulk of research on decision making has not proven helpful in improving the quality of decisions in the cockpit. One reason is that traditional analytic decision models are inappropriate to the dynamic complex nature of cockpit decision making and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions. A new model of dynamic naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove more useful for training or aiding cockpit decision making. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulation and National Transportation Safety Board accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation and reflect the crew's metacognitive skill. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relation between communication that serves to build performance. Implications of these findings for crew training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action: Applying Research to Practice

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment: Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action: Applying Research to Practice

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1995

Decision Making in the Airplane

The Importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful In improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking In response to a problem, This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS2007

Surface Operations: Two Case Studies of Simulated Lunar Operations

In September 2007, a team of scientists and engineers from several NASA centers participated in a field exercise at Meteor Crater, Arizona. The tests in this field exercise utilized recently developed robots of varying scales and capabilities and humans in pressurized space suits. Two examples of operations performed in the field are presented: a surface operations scenario involving suited crew supported by a number of mobile robots and setup operations for accessing a crater. The surface operations scenario simulated the end of a crew sortie and involved the following agents: 1) Suit subjects from Johnson Space Center s (JSC) advanced spacesuit laboratory 2) JSC's unpressurized crewed rover testbed, SCOUT 3) The Jet Propulsion Laboratory s (JPL) rough terrain, payload carrying robot, ATHLETE 4) JSC's Astronaut assist robot, Robonaut 5) Ames Research Center's (ARC) inspection robot, K-10. Operations began with ATHLETE positioning a pressurized rover compartment (PRC) as two crew members drove the SCOUT unpressurized rover from the field. The crew dismounted SCOUT, walked to the PRC for recharging. Robonaut then removed a sample box from the SCOUT equipment tray. K-10 then performed a drive around inspection of SCOUT, assembling a mosaic image. Lastly, the SCOUT vehicle was remotely driven to the next site. The setup operations for crater access scenario involved ATHLETE and Robonaut. This scenario began with Robonaut approaching ATHLETE and extracting a tether line. ATHLETE then extracted a drill and drilled an anchor into the surface. Robonaut then reconnected the tether to the anchor and backed away. ATHLETE is then ready to descend into the crater. This descending into the crater step is currently in the planning phase.

Bluethmann, William J.↗