Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Systems Integration”

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 289 records · Page 16

Evaluation of Usability and Workload Associated with Paper Strips as Compared to Virtual Flight Strips Used for Ramp Operations

This paper describes a study comparing the use of paper strips with virtual flight strips depicted on a new user interface, the Ramp Traffic Console (RTC), designed for use by ramp controllers to be used in place of paper strips. A Human-In-the-Loop (HITL) experiment was performed as the fifth in a series of six HITL simulation studies designed to evaluate a pushback Decision Support Tool (DST) concept for Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT). Workload and usability were assessed in post-run and post-study questionnaires. In the RTC virtual flight strip condition, post-run questionnaire results show lower workload ratings across all aspects of workload; additionally a trend is found toward increased usability ratings. Post-study questionnaire results indicate a preference for RTC over paper strips. Additional research is suggested with more training runs and a greater number of participants to increase statistical power. It is also suggested that this new technology be re-evaluated as a part of the ATD-2 (Airspace Technology Demonstration 2) field testing activities.

Human Factors↗

Guidance for Human Error Analysis (HEA)

NASA’s Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.2C requires Program Managers to conduct a human error analysis (HEA) for all mission phases. The purpose of the HEA is to enable programs to understand and manage potential catastrophic hazards that could be caused by human error, understand the relative risks and uncertainties within the system design, and influence decisions throughout the system lifecycle. This document provides guidance to NASA civil servants and contractors on how the Agency’s HEA requirement can be fulfilled.

Human Error Analysis; NASA Procedural Requirement;↗

Envisioning the Future Role of an Exploration Clinical Decision Support System

The Exploration Medical Capability Element of the NASA Human Research Program seeks to fuse new and existing technologies with practical mission goals into feasible and fiscally realizable human missions to the Moon and Mars. Expected communication delays with Earth-based medical experts will require unprecedented crew self-reliance to rapidly identify and treat anticipated and unforeseen medical conditions using constrained onboard resources with limited crew clinical skill. During this session, the current status of this project will be presented. We will discuss how current modes of decision support (e.g., alerts of critical values, reminders of overdue preventive health tasks, guided clinical workflows, advice for drug prescribing, critiques of existing health care orders, and suggestions for various active care issues) can be tailored to exploration crew needs.

human-system integration↗

Development of an Accepted Medical Condition List for Exploration Medical Capability Scoping

Future NASA human spaceflight programs are on the verge of moving beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to implement missions in lunar space and ultimately Mars. The mission constraints for these types of missions are expected to be progressively challenging for integration of Human Systems requirements into the vehicle and mission architectures. Mass and volume allocations are expected to become increasingly restrictive at the same time that mission realities will drive an increasing need for crew self-sufficiency in the maintenance and repair of both vehicle systems and human systems. To meet these challenges, a systematic, traceable, and repeatable approach to identifying, defining, and prioritizing medical capabilities is required. To provide a systematic and repeatable approach to defining and prioritizing clinical capabilities for spaceflight medicine, a clear process is required for delivering a list of prioritized medical capabilities to the Systems Engineering process that will delineate the mass, power, volume, and similar needs and the trade space analysis for a given space vehicle and mission architecture.

Rebecca Blue↗

Extreme Problem Solving II: How Can 4 Astronauts do the Jobs of 80 Experts?

On past and present space missions, resilience is largely dependent on the problem-solving expertise of flight controllers at Mission Control on the ground. Missions to Mars will instead experience long communication delays and blackouts that require a small crew to detect, diagnose, and respond to critical events with only intermittent and limited real-time ground support. Our 2021 SpaceCHI paper “Extreme Problem Solving: The New Challenges of Deep Space Exploration” introduced the paradigm shift of increasingly Earth-independent mission operations and identified the capabilities that are not currently available on-board but will be needed to enable safe exploration beyond low-Earth orbit [1]. This paper investigates how the ground team achieves resilience today to inform what will be needed to achieve human-systems resilience on future long duration exploration missions – how can a crew of four generalists achieve the same outcomes as a team of 80+ experts? An actual ISS anomaly is analyzed and then reimagined under Mars transit conditions, to reveal critical decision-points and the onboard capabilities that will be needed for successful resolution. This paper also presents criteria for what makes urgent, unanticipated events so challenging to resolve.

human-systems integration architecture↗

Risks of Increased Earth Independence

As human space exploration begins to extend beyond the immediate vicinity of Earth, the ability of expertise on the ground to support operations will progressively decrease. Ground control expertise has been the primary countermeasure preventing loss of life and mission over the past sixty years and it will be gradually stripped away as expeditions reach further into space. The large, flexible and adaptive teams of experts on the ground, provide not only engineering analysis and problem-solving but also greatly increased work capacity. Monitoring of the large and fast moving stream of telemetry data is carried out around the clock by 20-30 flight controllers per shift. Analysis of that data and troubleshooting is carried out by an additional 50-100 engineers per shift. Artificial intelligence capabilities will need to be part of the solution but will not the entire solution. As progress continues to be made on intelligent systems, especially those for use in complex, dynamic environments where humans will remain a part of the activity, there is an ever increasing need to focus on how those systems will interact with the humans. Although capabilities such as natural language processing and facial recognition have become common place, even basic aspects of problem-solving, causal reasoning and generative decision-making remain well-beyond of our current capabilities. Advanced data visualization, procedure execution support, and new training approaches will be needed to close the gap between what is currently provided by experts on the ground and what the crew will need to do in increasingly autonomous ways with greater distance from Earth.

human-systems integration architecture↗

Ensuring Safe, Effective, and Reliable Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Applications for Nuclear Electricity Generation through a Systems Approach

There is a significant potential to reduce operating and maintenance cost at nuclear power plants using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). For instance, AI/ML has the potential to significant improve work management processes, condition reporting, and plant surveillance activities. However, the nuclear industry has been slow in adopting AI/ML due to several multifaceted barriers discussed in this paper. This work presents such multidisciplinary approach intended to 1) accelerate industry adoption of AI/ML-based applications at nuclear power plants and 2) ensure their safe, reliable, and effective use. This approach is discussed further in this work and will be used to address overarching challenges associated with AI deployment at scale to provide industry guidance that support accelerated adoption of AI/ML technologies throughout the industry.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Computer-Based Procedures Among Older Adults: Findings from the Rancor Microworld Simulator

As with many industries worldwide, nuclear energy is experiencing an aging workforce; older than other energy sources and the national average. For example, while almost one in three nuclear industry professionals are 55+ years, for oil and gas that number is one in five. The challenges brought about by an aging workforce are one of the industry’s top concerns. However, the industry lacks for empirical research that examines the effects of developmental aging in older workers, as well as the interactions between aging and new digital technologies. We present the results of an experiment that tested three different computer-based procedures in a sample of 30 older adults (55+ years). While the industry has traditionally relied on paper-based procedures, these are being modernized by digital technology. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three procedure-types that varied by the level of digitalization, based on the IEEE Standard-1786. Type 1 essentially represents a digital representation of a paper-based procedure, Type 2 adds embedded indicators, and Type 3 adds soft controls. Participants performed two different operational scenarios (startup and loss of feedwater) on a simplified nuclear power plant simulator. Results revealed a weak signal that Type 2 may produce lower workload and lower completion times in some instances. However, there were no significant effects of procedure-type across any other outcomes, including simulator log data, situation awareness, and preference ratings. We discuss our findings in terms of optimal levels of digitalization/automation for an aging nuclear workforce and suggest pathways for future directions.

46 - INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AN↗

Operator Informational Needs for Multiple Autonomous Small Vehicles

With the anticipated explosion of small unmanned aerial vehicles, it is highly likely that operators will be controlling fleets of autonomous vehicles. To fulfill the promise of autonomy, vehicle operators will not be concerned with manual control of the vehicle; instead, they will deal with the overall mission. Furthermore, the one operator to many vehicles is becoming a constant meme with various industries including package delivery, search and rescue, and utility companies. In order for an operator to concurrently control several vehicles, his station must look and behave very differently than the current ground control station instantiations. Furthermore, the vehicle will have to be much more autonomous, especially during non-normal operations, in order to accommodate the knowledge deficit or the information overload of the operator in charge of several vehicles. The expected usage increase of small drones requires presenting the operational information generated by a fleet of heterogeneous autonomous agents to an operator. NASA Langley Research Center's Autonomy Incubator has brought together researchers in various disciplines including controls, trajectory planning, systems engineering, and human factors to develop an integrated system to study autonomy issues. The initial human factors effort is focusing on mission displays that would give an operator the overall status of all autonomous agents involved in the current mission. This paper will discuss the specifics of the mission displays for operators controlling several vehicles.

Trujillo, Anna C.↗

Capability for Integrated Systems Risk-Reduction Analysis

NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) is working to increase the likelihoods of human health and performance success during long-duration missions, and subsequent crew long-term health. To achieve these goals, there is a need to develop an integrated understanding of how the complex human physiological-socio-technical mission system behaves in spaceflight. This understanding will allow HRP to provide cross-disciplinary spaceflight countermeasures while minimizing resources such as mass, power, and volume. This understanding will also allow development of tools to assess the state of and enhance the resilience of individual crewmembers, teams, and the integrated mission system. We will discuss a set of risk-reduction questions that has been identified to guide the systems approach necessary to meet these needs. In addition, a framework of factors influencing human health and performance in space, called the Contributing Factor Map (CFM), is being applied as the backbone for incorporating information addressing these questions from sources throughout HRP. Using the common language of the CFM, information from sources such as the Human System Risk Board summaries, Integrated Research Plan, and HRP-funded publications has been combined and visualized in ways that allow insight into cross-disciplinary interconnections in a systematic, standardized fashion. We will show examples of these visualizations. We will also discuss applications of the resulting analysis capability that can inform science portfolio decisions, such as areas in which cross-disciplinary solicitations or countermeasure development will potentially be fruitful.

Mindock, J.↗

Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP) Exploration EVA (xEVA) System Compatibility Standards

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) is a significant capability for Artemis Systems which includes Gateway Program (modules), Human Landing System (HLS) Program (Integrated Lander and Human Class Delivery Lander), Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV), Pressurized Rover (PR), Payloads, and any other future lunar surface assets that will be utilized for exploration or science. The EVA and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP) will provide the following: Exploration EVA (xEVA) suits, xEVA tools and crew aids along with vehicle integration/support hardware, LTV, and PR. Being a distributed and dynamic capability (moving components), xEVA System hardware will interface with almost all elements of the Artemis architecture. As such, it is important to document a singular set of EVA compatibility standards at the programmatic level to articulate “how to interface with xEVA suit hardware” and “how to design hardware that EVA crewmembers will access and manipulate.”

Exploration↗

Integrated Human Test Facilities at NASA and the Role of Human Engineering

Integrated human test facilities are a key component of NASA's Advanced Life Support Program (ALSP). Over the past several years, the ALSP has been developing such facilities to serve as a large-scale advanced life support and habitability test bed capable of supporting long-duration evaluations of integrated bioregenerative life support systems with human test crews. These facilities-targeted for evaluation of hypogravity compatible life support and habitability systems to be developed for use on planetary surfaces-are currently in the development stage at the Johnson Space Center. These major test facilities are comprised of a set of interconnected chambers with a sealed internal environment, which will be outfitted with systems capable of supporting test crews of four individuals for periods exceeding one year. The advanced technology systems to be tested will consist of both biological and physicochemical components and will perform all required crew life support and habitability functions. This presentation provides a description of the proposed test "missions" to be supported by these integrated human test facilities, the overall system architecture of the facilities, the current development status of the facilities, and the role that human design has played in the development of the facilities.

Tri, Terry O.↗

Alignment of NASA’s Human System Risks with Technological Capability Gaps to Enable Integrated Research and Technology Development Strategic Planning

BACKGROUND: Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains a set of twenty-nine different Human System Risks with subject matter experts from across the agency providing regular updates to the estimated likelihood and consequence associated with each risk. The Human Research Program (HRP) has historically used these risk classifications as a primary basis for identifying and prioritizing human research investments aimed at characterizing and/or mitigating the respective human system risks. In many cases, technology development is required to mature and validate risk mitigation strategies, however, NASA’s primary technology development programs have not typically used Human System Risks as a basis for strategic planning. A primary function of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is to continually identify, review, and update technological capability gaps and to establish and oversee multiyear strategic roadmaps aimed at guiding NASA’s technology development priorities in these areas. These roadmaps are intended to be agency-wide and independent of any program, directorate, or other organization within NASA. DESCRIPTION: The SCLT and HRP collaborated to establish a set of Human System Capability Gaps, which establish a formal linkage between the capability gaps used to prioritize investments across much of NASA, and the Human System Risks that are primarily used to inform and prioritize human research. This set of twenty-eight gaps was developed by subject matter experts, and each gap mapped to the primary associated Human System Risks. The gaps and risk mapping were then reviewed and approved via the HSRB, thereby formally aligning the research-focused Human System Risks with the technology-focused capability gaps. DISCUSSION: This effort has enabled development of integrated roadmaps and budget coordination with research and technology development activities that are formally linked to agency-recognized capability gaps and Human System Risks. Close and ongoing coordination between the SCLT, HRP, Mars Campaign Office, and the Health & Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) is essential to ensure alignment and prioritization of CHP-related research and technology development to enable NASA’s future exploration missions.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗

Human System Risk Management for Space Flight

This brief abstract reviews the development of the current day approach to human system risk management for space flight and the development of the critical components of this process over the past few years. The human system risk management process now provides a comprehensive assessment of each human system risk by design reference mission (DRM) and is evaluated not only for mission success but also for long‐term health impacts for the astronauts. The discipline of bioastronautics is the study of the biological and medical effects of space flight on humans. In 1997, the Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) initiated the Bioastronautics Roadmap (Roadmap) as the "Critical Path Roadmap", and in 1998 participation in the roadmap was expanded to include the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) and the external community. A total of 55 risks and 250 questions were identified and prioritized and in 2000, the Roadmap was base-lined and put under configuration control. The Roadmap took into account several major advisory committee reviews including the Institute of Medicine (IOM) "Safe Passage: Astronaut care for Exploration Missions", 2001. Subsequently, three collaborating organizations at NASA HQ (Chief Health and Medical Officer, Office of Space Flight and Office of Biological & Physical Research), published the Bioastronautics Strategy in 2003, that identified the human as a "critical subsystem of space flight" and noted that "tolerance limits and safe operating bands must be established" to enable human space flight. These offices also requested a review by the IOM of the Roadmap and that review was published in October 2005 as "A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Exploration of Space: A Review of NASA's Bioastronautics Roadmap", that noted several strengths and weaknesses of the Roadmap and made several recommendations. In parallel with the development of the Roadmap, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) began a process in 2004 of evaluating the tolerance limits and safe operating bands called for in the Bioastronautics Strategy. Over the next several years, the concept of the "operating bands" were turned into Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS), developed by the technical resources of the SLSD at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). These standards were developed and reviewed at the SLSD and then presented to the OCHMO for acceptance. The first set of standards was published in 2007 as the NASA‐STD‐3001, Volume 1, Crew Health that elaborated standards for several physiological areas such as cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, radiation exposure and nutrition. Volume 2, Human Factors, Habitability and Human Health was published in 2011, along with development guidance in the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH). Taken together, the SFHSS Volumes 1 and 2, and the HIDH replaced the NASA‐STD‐3000 with new standards and revisions of the older document. Three other changes were also taking place that facilitated the development of the human system risk management approach. In 2005, the life sciences research and development portfolio underwent a comprehensive review through the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) that resulted in the reformulation of the Bioastronautics Program into Human Research Program (HRP) that was focused on appropriate mitigation results for high priority human health risks. The baseline HRP budget was established in August 2005. In addition, the OCHMO formulated the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) in 2006 that established the position of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at the NASA JSC along with other key technical disciplines, and the OCHMO became the responsible office for the SFHSS as noted above. The final change was the establishment in 2008 of the Human System Risk Board (HSRB), chaired by the CMO with representation from the HRP, SLSD management and technical experts. The HSRB then began to review all human system risks, established a comprehensive risk management and configuration management plan and data sharing policy. These major developments of standards, the HRP, the HMTA and a forum for review of human system risks (HSRB) facilitated the integration of human research, medical operations, systems engineering and many other disciplines in the comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB began a comprehensive review of all potential inflight medical conditions and events and over the course of several reviews consolidated the number of human system risks to 30 where the greatest emphasis is placed for investing program dollars for risk mitigation. The HSRB considers all available evidence from human research, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit 6 and 12 months, deep space sortie for 30 days and 1 year, a one year lunar mission, and a planetary mission for 3 years) are considered as human system risks are modified by the hazards associated with space flight such as microgravity, exposure to radiation, distance from the earth, isolation and a closed environment. Each risk has a summary assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence base for that risk, the available risk mitigations, traceability to the SFHSS and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the HRP, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets. These risk assessments were completed for 6 DRMs in December of 2014 and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB will review each risk at least annually and especially when new information is available that must be considered for effective risk mitigation. The current status of each risk can be reported to program management for operations, budget reviews and general oversight of the human system risk management program.

Davis, Jeffrey↗

A voyage to Mars: A challenge to collaboration between man and machines

A speech addressing the design of man machine systems for exploration of space beyond Earth orbit from the human factors perspective is presented. Concerns relative to the design of automated and intelligent systems for the NASA Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) missions are largely based on experiences with integrating humans and comparable systems in aviation. The history, present status, and future prospect, of human factors in machine design are discussed in relation to a manned voyage to Mars. Three different cases for design philosophy are presented. The use of simulation is discussed. Recommendations for required research are given.

Statler, Irving C.↗

Development of a Human Motor Model for the Evaluation of an Integrated Alerting and Notification Flight Deck System

A human motor model was developed on the basis of performance data that was collected in a flight simulator. The motor model is under consideration as one component of a virtual pilot model for the evaluation of NextGen crew alerting and notification systems in flight decks. This model may be used in a digital Monte Carlo simulation to compare flight deck layout design alternatives. The virtual pilot model is being developed as part of a NASA project to evaluate multiple crews alerting and notification flight deck configurations. Model parameters were derived from empirical distributions of pilot data collected in a flight simulator experiment. The goal of this model is to simulate pilot motor performance in the approach-to-landing task. The unique challenges associated with modeling the complex dynamics of humans interacting with the cockpit environment are discussed, along with the current state and future direction of the model.

Daiker, Ron↗