Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human factors 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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1992

The Language Research Center's Computerized Test System for environmental enrichment and psychological assessment

In the spring of 1987, we undertook to provide environmental enrichment to nonhuman primate subjects in ways that would complement and even contribute to the bio-behaviorial science that justified the monkeys' captivity. Of course, the psychological well-being of captive primates--and indeed all research species-- has been an area of intense research activity since the 1985 amendment of the Animal Welfare Act. This mandate for researchers to ensure the psychological, as well as physical, fitness of experimental animals catalyzed the humane and scientific interests of the research community. The contemporary literature is replete with proposed means both of assaying and of providing enrichment and well-being. Notwithstanding, consensus on either assessment or intervention has yet to be reached. The paradigm we employed was modelled after successful efforts with chimpanzees. An automated test system was constructed in which subjects responded to computer tasks by manipulating a joystick. The tasks, interactive game-like versions of many of the classic testing paradigms of cognitive and comparative psychology, permitted the controlled presentation of stimuli and demands without the required presence of a human experimenter. Despite significant barriers to the success, rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and a variety of other primate species (including, of course, humans) have mastered the skills necessary for testing in this paradigm. Previous experiments have illustrated the utility of the test system for addressing questions of learning, memory, attention, perception, and motivation. Additional data have been reported to support the contention that the Language Research Center's Computerized Test System (LRC-CTS) serves its other raison d'etre--providing environmental enrichment and assessing psychological well-being. This paper is designed to augment previous descriptions of the technology and the paradigm for scientists and caretakers interested in environmental enrichment and performance assessment with primates.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS2016

NASA Human System Risk Assessment Process

NASA utilizes an evidence based system to perform risk assessments for the human system for spaceflight missions. The center of this process is the multi-disciplinary Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The HSRB is chartered from the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) at NASA Headquarters. The HSRB reviews all human system risks via an established comprehensive risk and configuration management plan based on a project management approach. The HSRB facilitates the integration of human research (terrestrial and spaceflight), medical operations, occupational surveillance, systems engineering and many other disciplines in a comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB considers all factors that influence human risk. These factors include pre-mission considerations such as screening criteria, training, age, sex, and physiological condition. In mission factors such as available countermeasures, mission duration and location and post mission factors such as time to return to baseline (reconditioning), post mission health screening, and available treatments. All of the factors influence the total risk assessment for each human risk. The HSRB performed 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 and, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit for 6 and 12 months, deep space for 30 days and 1 year, a lunar mission for 1 year, 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 two-page assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence of that risk, available risk mitigations, traceability to the Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS) and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the Human Research Program, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets to provide the most economical and timely mitigations. The risk assessments were completed for the 6 DRMs and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB reviews each risk at least annually or when new evidence/information is available that adds to the body of evidence. 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.

Francisco, D.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) National Campaign II

The Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) effort at NASA aims to enable access to low-altitude airspace for small UAS. This goal is being pursued partly through partnerships that NASA has developed with the UAS stakeholder community, the FAA, other government agencies, and the designated FAA UAS Test Sites. By partnering with the FAA UAS Test Sites, NASA's UTM project has performed a geographically diverse, simultaneous set of UAS operations at locations in six states. The demonstrations used an architecture that was developed by NASA in partnership with the FAA to safely coordinate such operations. These demonstrations-the second or 'Technical Capability Level (TCL 2)' National Campaign of UTM testing-was performed from May 15 through June 9, 2017. Multiple UAS operations occurred during the testing at sites located in Alaska, Nevada, Texas, North Dakota, Virginia, and New York with multiple organizations serving as UAS Service Suppliers and/or UAS Operators per the specifications provided by NASA. By engaging various members of the UAS community in development and operational roles, this campaign provided initial validation of different aspects of the UTM concept including: UAS Service Supplier technologies and procedures; geofencing technologies/conformance monitoring; ground-based surveillance/sense and avoid; airborne sense and avoid; communication, navigation, surveillance; and human factors related to UTM data creation and display. Additionally, measures of performance were defined and calculated from the flight data to establish quantitative bases for comparing flight test activities and to provide potential metrics that might be routinely monitored in future operational UTM systems.

Aweiss, Arwa S.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) National Campaign II

The Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) effort at NASA aims to enable access to low-altitude airspace for small UAS. This goal is being pursued partly through partnerships that NASA has developed with the UAS stakeholder community, the FAA, other government agencies, and the designated FAA UAS Test Sites. By partnering with the FAA UAS Test Sites, NASA's UTM project has performed a geographically diverse, simultaneous set of UAS operations at locations in six states. The demonstrations used an architecture that was developed by NASA in partnership with the FAA to safely coordinate such operations. These demonstrations—the second or "Technical Capability Level (TCL 2)" National Campaign of UTM testing—was performed from May 15 through June 9, 2017. Multiple UAS operations occurred during the testing at sites located in Alaska, Nevada, Texas, North Dakota, Virginia, and New York with multiple organizations serving as UAS Service Suppliers and/or UAS Operators per the specifications provided by NASA. By engaging various members of the UAS community in development and operational roles, this campaign provided initial validation of different aspects of the UTM concept including: UAS Service Supplier technologies and procedures; geofencing technologies/conformance monitoring; ground-based surveillance/sense and avoid; airborne sense and avoid; communication, navigation, surveillance; and human factors related to UTM data creation and display. Additionally, measures of performance were defined and calculated from the flight data to establish quantitative bases for comparing flight test activities and to provide potential metrics that might be routinely monitored in future operational UTM systems.

Aweiss, Arwa↗
NASA NTRS1985

Hand controllers for teleoperation. A state-of-the-art technology survey and evaluation

Hand controller technology for teleoperation is surveyed in three major catagories: (1) hand grip design, (2) control input devices, and (3) control strategies. In the first category, 14 hand grip designs are reviewed and evaluated in light of human factor considerations. In the second, 12 hand controller input devices are evaluated in terms of task performance, configuration and force feedback, controller/slave correspondence, operating volume, operator workload, human limitations, cross coupling, singularities, anthropomorphic characteristics, physical complexity, control/display interference, accuracy, technological base, cost, and reliability. In the third catagory, control strategies, commonly called control modes, are surveyed and evaluated. The report contains a bibliography with 189 select references on hand controller technology.

Brooks, T. L.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Tools to Support Human Factors and Systems Engineering Interactions During Early Analysis

We describe an approach and existing software tool support for effective interactions between human factors engineers and systems engineers in early analysis activities during system acquisition. We examine the tasks performed during this stage, emphasizing those tasks where system engineers and human engineers interact. The Concept of Operations (ConOps) document is an important product during this phase, and particular attention is paid to its influences on subsequent acquisition activities. Understanding this influence helps ConOps authors describe a complete system concept that guides subsequent acquisition activities. We identify commonly used system engineering and human engineering tools and examine how they can support the specific tasks associated with system definition. We identify possible gaps in the support of these tasks, the largest of which appears to be creating the ConOps document itself. Finally, we outline the goals of our future empirical investigations of tools to support system concept definition.

Thronesbery, Carroll↗
NASA NTRS2005

Tools to Support Human Factors and Systems Engineering Interactions During Early Analysis

We describe an approach and existing software tool support for effective interactions between human factors engineers and systems engineers in early analysis activities during system acquisition. We examine the tasks performed during this stage, emphasizing those tasks where system engineers and human engineers interact. The Concept of Operations (ConOps) document is an important product during this phase, and particular attention is paid to its influences on subsequent acquisition activities. Understanding this influence helps ConOps authors describe a complete system concept that guides subsequent acquisition activities. We identify commonly used system engineering and human engineering tools and examine how they can support the specific tasks associated with system definition. We identify possible gaps in the support of these tasks, the largest of which appears to be creating the ConOps document itself. Finally, we outline the goals of our future empirical investigations of tools to support system concept definition.

Thronesbery, Carroll↗
NASA NTRS1991

Acquisition and production of skilled behavior in dynamic decision-making tasks: Modeling strategic behavior in human-automation interaction: Why and aid can (and should) go unused

Advances in computer and control technology offer the opportunity for task-offload aiding in human-machine systems. A task-offload aid (e.g., an autopilot, an intelligent assistant) can be selectively engaged by the human operator to dynamically delegate tasks to an automated system. Successful design and performance prediction in such systems requires knowledge of the factors influencing the strategy the operator develops and uses for managing interaction with the task-offload aid. A model is presented that shows how such strategies can be predicted as a function of three task context properties (frequency and duration of secondary tasks and costs of delaying secondary tasks) and three aid design properties (aid engagement and disengagement times, aid performance relative to human performance). Sensitivity analysis indicates how each of these contextual and design factors affect the optimal aid aid usage strategy and attainable system performance. The model is applied to understanding human-automation interaction in laboratory experiments on human supervisory control behavior. The laboratory task allowed subjects freedom to determine strategies for using an autopilot in a dynamic, multi-task environment. Modeling results suggested that many subjects may indeed have been acting appropriately by not using the autopilot in the way its designers intended. Although autopilot function was technically sound, this aid was not designed with due regard to the overall task context in which it was placed. These results demonstrate the need for additional research on how people may strategically manage their own resources, as well as those provided by automation, in an effort to keep workload and performance at acceptable levels.

Kirlik, Alex↗
NASA NTRS1991

Recent technology products from Space Human Factors research

The goals of the NASA Space Human Factors program and the research carried out concerning human factors are discussed with emphasis given to the development of human performance models, data, and tools. The major products from this program are described, which include the Laser Anthropometric Mapping System; a model of the human body for evaluating the kinematics and dynamics of human motion and strength in microgravity environment; an operational experience data base for verifying and validating the data repository of manned space flights; the Operational Experience Database Taxonomy; and a human-computer interaction laboratory whose products are the display softaware and requirements and the guideline documents and standards for applications on human-computer interaction. Special attention is given to the 'Convoltron', a prototype version of a signal processor for synthesizing the head-related transfer functions.

Jenkins, James P.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Motion sickness and proprioceptive aftereffects following virtual environment exposure

To study the potential aftereffects of virtual environments (VE), tests of visually guided behavior and felt limb position (pointing with eyes open and closed) along with self-reports of motion sickness-like discomfort were administered before and after 30 min exposure of 34 subjects. When post- discomfort was compared to a pre-baseline, the participants reported more sickness afterward (p < 0.03). The change in felt limb position resulted in subjects pointing higher (p < 0.038) and slightly to the left, although the latter difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). When findings from a second study using a different VE system were compared, they essentially replicated the results of the first study with higher sickness afterward (p < 0.001) and post- pointing errors were also up (p < 0.001) and to the left (p < 0.001). While alternative explanations (e.g. learning, fatigue, boredom, habituation, etc.) of these outcomes cannot be ruled out, the consistency of the post- effects on felt limb position changes in the two VE implies that these recalibrations may linger once interaction with the VE has concluded, rendering users potentially physiologically maladapted for the real world when they return. This suggests there may be safety concerns following VE exposures until pre-exposure functioning has been regained. The results of this study emphasize the need for developing and using objective measures of post-VE exposure aftereffects in order to systematically determine under what conditions these effects may occur.

NASA Discipline Neuroscience↗
NASA NTRS2009

Lunar Human Research Requirements (LHRR)

Biomedical research will be conducted during transit and on the surface of the Moon to prepare for extended stays on the Moon and to prepare for the exploration of Mars. The objective of the Human Research Program (HRP) is to preserve the health and enhance performance of astronaut explorers. Specific objectives of the HRP include developing the knowledge, capabilities, and necessary countermeasures and technologies in support of human space exploration; focusing on mitigating the highest risks to crew health and performance; and defining and improving human spaceflight medical, environmental, behavioral, and human factors standards. This document contains a detailed description of the resource accommodations, interfaces, and environments to be provided by the Constellation Program (CxP) to support the HRP research in transit and on the lunar surface. Covered, specifically, are the requirements for mass and volume transport; crew availability; ground operations, baseline data collection, and payload processing; power, and data. Volumes and mass are given for transport of conditioned samples only. They do not account for the engineering solution that the Constellation Program will implement (refrigerator/freezer volume/mass). This document does not account for requirements on the Orion vehicle for transportation to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS Program has supplied requirements for this mission.

Denkins, Pamela↗
NASA NTRS2003

Human Factors Engineering Requirements for the International Space Station - Successes and Challenges

Advanced technology coupled with the desire to explore space has resulted in increasingly longer human space missions. Indeed, any exploration mission outside of Earth's neighborhood, in other words, beyond the moon, will necessarily be several months or even years. The International Space Station (ISS) serves as an important advancement toward executing a successful human space mission that is longer than a standard trip around the world or to the moon. The ISS, which is a permanently occupied microgravity research facility orbiting the earth, will support missions four to six months in duration. In planning for the ISS, the NASA developed an agency-wide set of human factors standards for the first time in a space exploration program. The Man-Systems Integration Standard (MSIS), NASA-STD-3000, a multi-volume set of guidelines for human-centered design in microgravity, was developed with the cooperation of human factors experts from various NASA centers, industry, academia, and other government agencies. The ISS program formed a human factors team analogous to any major engineering subsystem. This team develops and maintains the human factors requirements regarding end-to-end architecture design and performance, hardware and software design requirements, and test and verification requirements. It is also responsible for providing program integration across all of the larger scale elements, smaller scale hardware, and international partners.

Whitmore, M.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Human Factors Lessons Learned from Flight Testing Wingless Lifting Body Vehicles

Since the 1960s, NASA, the Air Force, and now private industry have attempted to develop an operational human crewed reusable spacecraft with a wingless, lifting body configuration. This type of vehicle offers increased mission flexibility and greater reentry cross range than capsule type craft, and is particularly attractive due to the capability to land on a runway. That capability, however, adds complexity to the human factors engineering requirements of developing such aircraft.

Human Factors Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2015

Coordination of International Risk-Reduction Investigations by the Multilateral Human Research Panel for Exploration

Effective use of the unique capabilities of the International Space Station (ISS) for risk reduction on future deep space missions involves preliminary work in analog environments to identify and evaluate the most promising techniques, interventions and treatments. This entails a consolidated multinational approach to biomedical research both on ISS and in ground analogs. The Multilateral Human Research Panel for Exploration (MHRPE) was chartered by the five ISS partners to recommend the best combination of partner investigations on ISS for risk reduction in the relatively short time available for ISS utilization. MHRPE will also make recommendations to funding agencies for appropriate preparatory analog work. In 2011, NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) and the Institute of Biomedical Problems (IBMP) of the Russian Academy of Science, acting for MHRPE, developed a joint US-Russian biomedical program for the 2015 one-year ISS mission (1YM) of American and Russian crewmembers. This was to evaluate the possibilities for multilateral research on ISS. An overlapping list of 16 HRP, 9 IBMP, 3 Japanese, 3 European and 1 Canadian investigations were selected to address risk-reduction goals in 7 categories: Functional Performance, Behavioral Health, Visual Impairment, Metabolism, Physical Capacity, Microbial and Human Factors. MHRPE intends to build on this bilateral foundation to recommend more fully-integrated multilateral investigations on future ISS missions commencing after the 1YM. MHRPE has also endorsed an on-going program of coordinated research on 6-month, one-year and 6-week missions ISS expeditions that is now under consideration by ISS managers. Preparatory work for these missions will require coordinated and collaborative campaigns especially in the psychological and psychosocial areas using analog isolation facilities in Houston, Köln and Moscow, and possibly elsewhere. The multilateral Human Analogs research working group (HANA) is the focal point of those planning discussions, with MHRPE coordinating between the national programs and then supporting implementation on ISS. Experience gained during preparations for the 1YM has identified improvements in both American and Russian processes to enable well-integrated investigations on all subsequent ISS expeditions. Among those is that the greatest efficiency is to be gained with investigations that are fully integrated from their conception, with co-principal investigators, a consolidated proposal and integrated plans for crewmember time and other flight-related resources. Analog investigations preceding future ISS expeditions will employ these lessons in efficiency to evaluate the techniques and tools to be validated aboard ISS. In this way, the resources and capabilities of ISS can be applied most efficiently to solving the problems facing astronauts of all nations in missions deep into the solar system.

Charles, John B.↗
NASA NTRS2016

HSI in NASA: From Research to Implementation

As NASA plans to send human explorers beyond low Earth orbit, onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system, there will be new challenges to address in terms of HSI. These exploration missions will be quite different from the current and past missions such as Apollo, Shuttle, and International Space Station. The exploration crew will be more autonomous from ground mission control with delayed, and at times, no communication. They will have limited to no resupply for much longer mission durations. Systems to deliver and support extended human habitation at these destinations are extremely complex and unique, presenting new opportunities to employ HSI practices. In order to have an effective and affordable HSI implementation, both research and programmatic efforts are required. Currently, the HSI-related research at NASA is primarily in the area of space human factors and habitability. The purpose is to provide human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and update standards, requirements, and processes to verify and validate these requirements. In addition, HSI teams are actively engaged in technology development and demonstration efforts to influence the mission architecture and next-generation vehicle design. Finally, appropriate HSI references have been added to NASA' s systems engineering documentation, and an HSI Practitioner's Guide has been published to help design engineers consider HSI early and continuously in the acquisition process. These current and planned HSI-related activities at NASA will be discussed in this panel.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗
NASA NTRS2019

Using Virtual Reality and Motion Capture as Tools for Human Factors Engineering at Nasa Marshall Space Flight Center

MSFC’s Human Factors Engineering (HFE) team is responsible for all worksite analyses performed for the SLS pre-launch integration activities at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). There is a wide variety of tasks associated with pre-launch integration activities and it is important to verify that vehicle integration will be successful early in the design process. The VR work performed by the HFE team at MSFC has allowed fast changing layouts to be analyzed by various departments with minimal impact to cost or schedule. Implementing these methods for SLS allows for VR use in early design cycles, saving time and budget. Utilizing the resulting HFE analyses improves usability and safety. Ultimately, the goal is to provide a safe environment for the technicians assembling the vehicle and the astronaut crew at launch.

Andrews, Tanya↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Concept of Operations (ConOps) of an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)

The growth of new emerging operations involving Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) necessitates developing a perspective for an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS). This perspective advances from the National Academies report on IASMS and its recommendation for developing a Concept of Operations (ConOps) for IASMS. A ConOps has been developed for In-time System-Wide Safety Assurance (ISSA) from which the IASMS ConOps pivots to provide a robust scope commensurate with the broad vision defined by the National Academies. The IASMS ConOps focuses on emerging operations and spans innovations in Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) and an increasingly complex ecosystem comprised of a widening mix of vehicles and technologies, Urban Air Mobility (UAM) with industry-federated services, traditional operations, as well as new supersonic aircraft and space launch systems.The challenge for the IASMS ConOps is to be broad to encompass innovations in the coming years and decades while agile to ensure levels of safety compatible with operational and certification requirements of the National Airspace System (NAS). The IASMS ConOps interweaves increasing complexity of operational safety capabilities and unlocking UAS Maturity Levels (UMLs). The relationships between increased complexity of automation and automated systems, fewer operators who are not as traditionally higher skilled, more complex operational environments, and aviation operations management with mixed aircraft and equipage pose a multi-dimensional space for IASMS capabilities essential for safety assurance and risk management. Instantiating IASMS capabilities and how they would be integral to AAM operations and increasing maturity of UAM could be accomplished through a series of Safety Demonstrators. These Safety Demonstrators could provide increased understanding and insight into use of controls for risk mitigation, means of compliance for certification, and operational experience with safety services such as in relation to contingency management. The IASMS capabilities can be viewed as initially residing with the vehicle, airspace, and Supplemental Data Service Provider (SDSP). For example, vehicle capabilities include communications including the command and control link, Remote Identification (ID), conflict advisory/alerting, and UAS system monitoring. These capabilities monitor and assess data such as battery health, aircraft state, and human performance. Complexity of ISAMS capabilities depends on a number of factors. These factors are intendedonly as a notional categorization with the purpose being to reflect the complexity of the AAM ecosystem that would drive up the complexity of ISSA capabilities including systems, sensors, models, standards, and controls. Factors could include the Vehicle Flight Management, Environment, Airspace, and Contingency Management. Each of these factors can be comprised of multiple sub-factors that contribute to increasing complexity. For example, Airspace at a lower level of complexity could be dedicated to UTM operations that are unmonitored, and at a higher level of complexity could involve mixed UTM and ATM operations. The IASMS concept includes safety services that provide data and information to different participants in AAM. The roles and responsibilities of participants can be defined using the Responsible-Accountable-Consulted-Informed (RACI) analysis. For example, for the safety service involving the Remote ID, the Operator would be accountable for providing the data, the Vehicle would be responsible for transmitting it, and the USS, SDSP, Vertiports, FIMS (FAA), and Public Entities such as safety services would be informed by receiving the data. The IASMS ConOps identifies the capabilities needed for risk mitigation and safety assurance in the increasingly complex national airspace. The ConOps serves as a pathway for engaging with industry to gain operational experience including through the Safety Demonstrator series, the RACI analysis, and operational complexity factors. The ConOps serves to integrate these different perspectives to build a cohesive and cogent approach to an AAM safety management system.

In-Time Aviation Safety Management System↗