Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “team,”

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 325 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Examining the Trends in Financial Support Given to Science Teams for Data Analysis in Mission Proposals

Introduction: The goal of this summer internship research project was to analyze trends in financial support proposed for the science teams of planetary missions. The analysis focuses on the funding for Co-Investigators (Co-Is) to conduct research and/or data analysis needed to achieve the science objectives of the mission. The operational portion of the missions after launch (i.e., Phase E, including cruise and prime operations at the final destination) were examined since that is when the bulk of research is funded and conducted. The objectives of the project were to determine the average level of support for Co-Investigators, identify variation between mission competitions and over time, and determine the relationship between mission type and the amount of support requested. Methodology: This project was conducted using data from 90 proposals submitted to six mission competitions in the Discovery and New Frontiers programs. The level of support for Co-Is was determined by examining Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 4 (Science Analysis) for Phase E, which was further subdivided into cruise and prime operations. This data represents a proxy rather than the actual funding Co-Is receive to perform research and data analysis because not every dollar in WBS 4 is spent on this activity. Therefore, the proxy obtained in this research represents an overestimate of the funds allocated to Co-Is for research and data analysis. Findings: Analysis shows that on average a Co-I receives approximately four full years of support spread across the entirety of Phase E for science analysis. The variation among proposed missions is less than expected given the variety of factors that are expected to drive this metric (length of mission, mission type, etc.). Additionally, the level of requested support for Co-Is has been remarkably consistent across every variable considered (by competition, over time, by mission type) over the six competitions and nearly 20 years spanned by this project. This remains true for cruise, primary operations, and all of Phase E. Conclusions: A remarkable amount of science is accomplished by the science teams of planetary missions. However, a surprisingly small amount of funding is requested to support the science analysis driving this productivity, both in terms of absolute magnitude of funding and as a portion of total mission cost. This suggests improvements are needed to refine the estimates of Co-I support and/or that Co-Is rely on other funding sources to conduct their research. Better estimates can be determined by engaging directly with Co-Is and NASA centers to obtain data as well as finding other data sources. Additionally, NASA could consider mandating improved reporting of requested funding levels in mission competitions.

E Murray↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis Internal Science Team Update: Artemis Science Flight Operations

The Artemis Internal Science Team (AIST) is positioned across NASA to provide crossmission Science leadership across the Agency and Artemis. To prepare for the next generation of planetary surface exploration-based extravehicular activities (EVAs), we draw heavily from experience with Apollo, SkyLab, Space Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS), and analog tests to design the structure by which science will be integrated in the Plan, Train, and Fly phases of Artemis missions. AIST members have been working for years to integrate science into the Artemis flight operations structure, most notably through a tight collaboration with the NASA JSC Flight Operations Directorate (FOD). This abstract describes several examples of this integration, including Structure of RealTime Science Integration, the development of the EVA Science Officer Flight Controller Position, the development and testing of the Science Evaluation Room, and the development of Training for Artemis Science Teams.

K E Young↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enabling Communication Between Astronauts and Ground Teams for Space Exploration Missions

Over the last four years, Playbook’s Mission Log has evolved to become an enabling capability for analog missions that simulate deep space, exploration missions with communication transmission latency. Playbook is a planning and execution web-application for mission operations, aggregating multiple sources of information for astronauts to execute the mission in one place: timeline, procedures, chat interface. Playbook’s Mission Log provides a multimedia chat software interface with unique features and functionalities that support asynchronous communication between analog astronauts and ground support teams. This paper describes the iterative design the Mission Log has undergone based on user observations and solicited feedback. Key features include indicators that help users cope with asynchronous communication as well as aids that assist teams coordinate work. Future work and capabilities are outlined, which build upon the increased use of the Mission Log as a communication and coordination tool for space exploration.

communication↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of Space Environmental Effects (SEE) Team Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Testing

Electrostatic discharge (ESD) due to the radiation environment encountered during spaceflight missions is a serious risk that must be mitigated by careful testing and design considerations. The MSFC Space Environmental Effects (SEE) Team has world-class facilities for ESD testing along with decades of experience. The Team has recently conducted successful campaigns for several high-profile projects including Europa Clipper, Exploration Upper Stage, Lunar Gateway, Orion, Docking System, and Human Landing System. This presentation will give a brief overview of ESD causes, hazards, test methods and test deliverables.

Peter Bertone↗
NASA NTRS2023

Increasing Diversity on Spacecraft Mission Teams Reduces Risk

Many of the NASA spacecraft sent into Earth orbit and throughout the Solar System are competitively selected and led by principal investigators (PIs). These senior scientists are responsible for directing research activities, managing the use of funds, and reporting to the funding agency. Additionally, the European Space Agency (ESA) has competitively selected missions that are led by ESA-nominated project scientists and include instruments that are overseen by PIs. Usually, the PIs and project scientists form a science working team that provides scientific leadership of the mission. These NASA and ESA PI roles require a deep understanding of the mission’s scientific goals and engineering design aspects. And, importantly, these roles also require skills in team management.

Kathleen E. Mandt↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

System-Theoretic Analysis of Unsafe Collaborative Control in Teaming Systems

The interactions that occur in human-teaming are inspiring novel aerospace designs aimed at improving how humans and machines, or multiple machines, work together. Unfortunately, current Systems Engineering processes are ill-equipped to handle these complex relationships and are unable to design and assure the safety for these systems. To close part of this gap, this paper introduces a novel system-theoretic analytical process to identify unsafe collaborative control actions. It is part of a broader set of techniques that extend the state-of-the-art in hazard analysis, System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA), to systematically address collaboration. The method rigorously expresses the different ways multiple commands may be unsafe together. Using Systems Theory, it employs abstraction to manage the combinatorial complexity in enumerating control contributions from multiple collaborating components. An algorithm integrates these concepts into an end-to-end process and is supported by automation to enumerate, refine, prune, and prioritize unsafe combinations of control actions. The output of the method feeds the specification of system requirements to implement safety-guided design starting early in concept development. The process is demonstrated on a manned-unmanned aircraft teaming case study and finds new causal factors that were not previously found in a past hazard analysis of the same system.

System Safety↗
NASA NTRS2024

EVA Operations for the Artemis III Science Team

The purpose of this presentation is to give the newly selected Artemis III Science Team some basic information on EVA Operations and potential interactions with the science team in both the planning and real-time phases of the mission.

EVA↗
NASA NTRS2016

Workload Measurement in Human Autonomy Teaming: How and Why?

This is an invited talk on autonomy and workload for an AFRL Blue Sky workshop sponsored by the Florida Institute for Human Machine Studies. The presentation reviews various metrics of workload and how to move forward with measuring workload in a human-autonomy teaming environment.

autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2011

Application of Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) Patterns to Reduce Crew Operations (RCO)

Unmanned aerial systems, advanced cockpits, and air traffic management are all seeing dramatic increases in automation. However, while automation may take on some tasks previously performed by humans, humans will still be required to remain in the system for the foreseeable future. The collaboration between humans and these increasingly autonomous systems will begin to resemble cooperation between teammates, rather than simple task allocation. It is critical to understand this human-autonomy teaming (HAT) to optimize these systems in the future. One methodology to understand HAT is by identifying recurring patterns of HAT that have similar characteristics and solutions. This paper applies a methodology for identifying HAT patterns to an advanced cockpit project.

design patterns↗
NASA NTRS2016

Application of Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) Patterns to Reduce Crew Operations (RCO)

Unmanned aerial systems, robotics, advanced cockpits, and air traffic management are all examples of domains that are seeing dramatic increases in automation. While automation may take on some tasks previously performed by humans, humans will still be required, for the foreseeable future, to remain in the system. The collaboration with humans and these increasingly autonomous systems will begin to resemble cooperation between teammates, rather than simple task allocation. It is critical to understand this human-autonomy teaming (HAT) to optimize these systems in the future. One methodology to understand HAT is by identifying recurring patterns of HAT that have similar characteristics and solutions. This paper applies a methodology for identifying HAT patterns to an advanced cockpit project.

design patterns↗
NASA NTRS2016

Application of Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) Patterns to Reduced Crew Operations (RCO)

As part of the Air Force - NASA Bi-Annual Research Council Meeting, slides will be presented on recent Reduced Crew Operations (RCO) work. Unmanned aerial systems, robotics, advanced cockpits, and air traffic management are all examples of domains that are seeing dramatic increases in automation. While automation may take on some tasks previously performed by humans, humans will still be required, for the foreseeable future, to remain in the system. The collaboration with humans and these increasingly autonomous systems will begin to resemble cooperation between teammates, rather than simple task allocation. It is critical to understand this human-autonomy teaming (HAT) to optimize these systems in the future. One methodology to understand HAT is by identifying recurring patterns of HAT that have similar characteristics and solutions. A methodology for identifying HAT patterns to an advanced cockpit project is discussed.

Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT)↗
NASA NTRS2016

Demonstration of Human-Autonomy Teaming Principles

Known problems with automation include lack of mode awareness, automation brittleness, and risk of miscalibrated trust. Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) is essential for improving these problems. We have identified some critical components of HAT and ran a part-task study to introduce these components to a ground station that supports flight following of multiple aircraft. Our goal was to demonstrate, evaluate, and refine HAT principles. This presentation provides a brief summary of the study and initial findings.

transparency↗
NASA NTRS2017

Developing a General Framework for Human Autonomy Teaming

Automation has entered nearly every aspect of our lives, but it often remains hard to understand. Why is this? Automation is often brittle, requiring constant human oversight to assure it operates as intended. This oversight has become harder as automation has become more complicated. To resolve this problem, Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) has been proposed. HAT looks to make automation act as more of a teammate, by having it communicate with human operators in a more human, goal-directed, manner which provides transparency into the reasoning behind automated recommendations and actions. This, in turn, permits more trust in the automation when it is appropriate, and less when it is not, allowing a more targeted supervision of automated functions. This paper proposes a framework for HAT, incorporating two key tenets: bi-directional communication, and operator directed authority. We have successfully applied these tenets to integrating the autonomous constrained flight planner (an aide for planning diverts) into a dispatch station. We propose the development of general design patterns that may allow these results to be generalized to domains such as photography and automotive navigation. While these domains are very different, we find application of our HAT tenets provides a number of opportunities for improving interaction between human operators and automation.

human factors↗
NASA NTRS2017

A Human-Autonomy Teaming Approach for a Flight-Following Task

Managing aircraft is becoming more complex with increasingly sophisticated automation responsible for more flight tasks. With this increased complexity, it is becoming more difficult for operators to understand what the automation is doing and why. Human involvement with increasingly autonomous systems must adjust to allow for a more dynamic relationship involving cooperation and teamwork. As part of an ongoing project to develop a framework for human-autonomy teaming (HAT) in aviation, a part-task study was conducted to demonstrate, evaluate and refine proposed critical aspects of HAT. These features were built into an automated recommender system on a ground station available from previous studies. Participants performed a flight-following task once with the original ground station (i.e., No HAT condition) and once with the HAT features enabled (i.e., HAT condition). Behavioral and subjective measures were collected; subjective measures are presented here. Overall, participants preferred the ground station with HAT features enabled compared to the station without the HAT features. Participants reported that the HAT displays and automation were preferred for keeping up with operationally important issues. Additionally, participants reported that the HAT displays and automation provided enough situation awareness to complete the task and reduced workload relative to the No HAT baseline.

ACFP↗
NASA NTRS2018

Contingency Management with Human Autonomy Teaming

Automation is playing an increasingly important role in many operations. It is often cheaper faster and more precise than human operators. However, automation is not perfect. There are many situations in which a human operator must step in. We refer to these instances as contingencies and the act of stepping in contingency management. Here we propose coupling Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT) with contingency management. We describe two aspects to HAT, bi-directional communication, and working agreements (or plays). Bi-directional communication like Crew Resource Management in traditional aviation, allows all parties to contribute to a decision. Working agreements specify roles and responsibilities. Importantly working agreements allow for the possibility of roles and responsibilities changing depending on environmental factors (e.g., situations the automation was not designed for, workload, risk, or trust). This allows for the automation to "automatically" become more autonomous as it becomes more trusted and/or it is updated to deal with a more complete set of possible situations. We present a concrete example using a prototype contingency management station one might find in a future airline operations center. Automation proposes reroutes for aircraft that encounter bad weather or are forced to divert for environmental or systems reasons. If specific conditions are met, these recommendations may be autonomously datalinked to the affected aircraft.

dispatch↗