Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crewed”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2000

STS-99 Crew with Press, TCDT Crew Emergency Egress Training, Walkdown Pad 39A

The primary objective of the STS-99 mission was to complete high resolution mapping of large sections of the Earth's surface using the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), a specially modified radar system. This radar system produced unrivaled 3-D images of the Earth's Surface. The mission was launched at 12:31 on February 11, 2000 onboard the space shuttle Endeavour. and led by Commander Kevin Kregel. The crew was Pilot Dominic L. Pudwill Gorie and Mission Specialists Janet L. Kavandi, Janice E. Voss, Mamoru Mohri from the National Space Development Agency (Japanese Space Agency), and Gerhard P. J. Thiele from DARA (German Space Agency). In this tape Commander Kevin Kregel introduces the crew to the assembled press at the site where they will practice emergency exit procedures as part of the Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test (TCDT), a dress rehearsal for launch.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2000

Crew Factors in Flight Operations XII: A Survey of Sleep Quantity and Quality in On-Board Crew Rest Facilities

Many aircraft operated on long-haul commercial airline flights are equipped with on-board crew rest facilities, or bunks, to allow crewmembers to rest during the flight. The primary objectives of this study were to gather data on how the bunks were used, the quantity and quality of sleep obtained by flight crewmembers in the facilities, and the factors that affected their sleep. A retrospective survey comprising 54 questions of varied format addressed demographics, home sleep habits, and bunk sleep habits. Crewmembers from three airlines with long-haul fleets carrying augmented crews consisting of B747-100/200, B747-400, and MD-11 aircraft equipped with bunks returned a total of 1404 completed surveys (a 37% response rate). Crewmembers from the three carriers were comparable demographically, although one carrier had older, more experienced flight crewmembers. Each group, on average, rated themselves as "good" or "very good" sleepers at home, and all groups obtained about the same average amount of sleep each night. Most were able to sleep in the bunks, and about two thirds indicated that these rest opportunities benefited their subsequent flight deck alertness and performance. Comfort, environment, and physiology (e.g., being ready for sleep) were identified as factors that most promoted sleep. Factors cited as interfering with sleep included random noise, thoughts, heat, and the need to use the bathroom. These factors, in turn, suggest potential improvements to bunk facilities and their use. Ratings of the three aircraft types suggested differences among facilities. Bunks in the MD-11 were rated significantly better than either of the B747 types, and the B747-400 bunks received better ratings than did the older, B747-100/200 facilities.

Rosekind, Mark R.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Theory underlying CRM training: Psychological issues in flight crew performance and crew coordination

What psychological theory and research can reveal about training in Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) is summarized. A framework is provided for the critical analysis of current approaches to CRM training. Background factors and definitions critical to evaluating CRM are reviewed, followed by a discussion of issues directly related to CRM training effectiveness. Some of the things not known about the optimization of crew performance and the research needed to make these efforts as effective as possible are described.

Helmreich, Robert L.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Crew factors in flight operations. 8: Factors influencing sleep timing and subjective sleep quality in commercial long-haul flight crews

How flight crews organize their sleep during layovers on long-haul trips is documented. Additionally, environmental and physiological constraints on sleep are examined. In the trips studied, duty periods averaging 10.3 hr alternated with layovers averaging 24.8 hr, which typically included two subject-defined sleep episodes. The circadian system had a greater influence on the timing and duration of first-sleeps than second-sleeps. There was also a preference for sleeping during the local night. The time of falling asleep for second-sleeps was related primarily to the amount of sleep already obtained in the layover, and their duration depended on the amount of time remaining in the layover. For both first- and second-sleeps, sleep durations were longer when subjects fell asleep earlier with respect to the minimum of the circadian temperature cycle. Naps reported during layovers and on the flight deck may be a useful strategy for reducing cumulative sleep loss. The circadian system was not able to synchronize with the rapid series of time-zone shifts. The sleep/wake cycle was forced to adopt a period different from that of the circadian system. Flight and duty time regulations are a means of ensuring that reasonable minimum rest periods are provided. This study clearly documents that there are physiologically and environmentally determined preferred sleep times within a layover. The actual time available for sleep is thus less than the scheduled rest period.

Gander, Philippa H.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Flight Crew Integration (FCI) ISS Crew Comments Database & Products Summary

This Crew Debrief Data provides support for design and development of vehicles, hardware, requirements, procedures, processes, issue resolution, lessons learned, consolidation and trending for current Programs; and much of the data is also used to support development of future Programs.

Schuh, Susan↗
NASA NTRS1975

Apollo experience report: Crew station integration. Volume 2: Crew station displays and controls

The functional requirements for the Apollo displays and controls system are presented. The configuration of the displays, controls, and panels for both the command module and the lunar module are described, and the design development and operational experience of the displays and controls system are discussed. Pertinent recommendations for future displays and controls system design efforts are made.

Langdoc, W. A.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Skylab crew health: Crew surgeon's report

Medical examinations and treatment of crewmen preflight, during Skylab missions, and postflight periods are outlined. From a clinical point of view, all of the physiological responses noted in the various missions were either self-limiting or represented work-around problems requiring minimal counteraction. As such, these changes do not preclude extending man's duration in zero-gravity for longer periods of time.

Hordinsky, J. R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Early Assessments of Crew Timelines for the Lunar Surface Habitat

As NASA progresses towards sustained crewed space missions, crew timelines will become increasingly important to achieving mission goals. While it is desirable to spend as much time as possible during crewed space missions on science activities and experiments, there are a large number of activities that crew members must perform each day in order to maintain both crew and vehicle health and safety. The time available for science activities in space is highly dependent on mandatory tasks required for crew and vehicle health and safety. The different crewed activities need to be planned accordingly long before the start of a mission in order to optimize crew time for science. To begin assessing the potential crew time for available for science, an understanding of the requirements to maintain crew and vehicle health and safety is needed. These additional activities may include sleep, exercise, vehicle maintenance, logistics handling, crew personal time, as well as many other tasks. The remaining time outside of these required tasks, within a reasonable crew work schedule, can be dedicated to science operations. This paper will detail a collaborative effort to analyzing crew times for sustained spaceflight missions and how the results of that analysis are applied to the crew timeline for the proposed Lunar Surface Habitat (SH).To determine the crew time for all of these required activities, an analysis was conducted utilizing defined agency requirements and historical crewed mission data. Predicted crew activity times were integrated into a daily schedule in order to optimize the crew’s time during the mission. This methodology was utilized to produce expected crew timelines for NASA’s proposed Artemis Base Camp (ABC) missions. The current plans for the ABC contain two different sustained habitats, the Pressurized Rover (PR) and the Surface Habitat (SH). While the crew are separated between the two habitats, the timelines for each element are dependent on the other element’s operations, so the two element timelines are formed in conjunction with one another. The results described in this paper, however, will focus solely on the crew timeline in the SH. This paper will explain the methodology behind predicting the required crew time spent in the SH for each activity, and the process of incorporating these predicted crew times into a coherent schedule.

Crew Time↗
NASA NTRS2018

Evaluation of Crew-Centric Onboard Mission Operations Planning and Execution Tool: Year 2

Currently, mission planning for the International Space Station (ISS) is largely affected by ground operators in mission control. The task of creating a week-long mission plan for ISS crew takes dozens of people multiple days to complete, and is often created far in advance of its execution. As such, re-planning or adapting to changing real-time constraints or emergent issues is similarly taxing. As we design for future mission operations concepts to other planets or areas with limited connectivity to Earth, more of these ground-based tasks will need to be handled autonomously by the crew onboard.There is a need for a highly usable (including low training time) tool that enables efficient self-scheduling and execution within a single package. The ISS Program has identified Playbook as a potential option. It already has high crew acceptance as a plan viewer from previous analogs and can now support a crew self-scheduling assessment on ISS or on another mission. The goals of this work, a collaboration between the Human Research Program and the ISS Program, are to inform the design of systems for more autonomous crew operations and provide a platform for research on crew autonomy for future deep space missions. Our second year of the research effort have included new insights on the crew self-scheduling sessions performed by the crew through use on the HERA (Human Exploration Research Analog) and NEEMO (NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations) analogs. Use on the NEEMO analog involved two self-scheduling strategies where the crew planned and executed two days of EVAs (Extra-Vehicular Activities). On HERA year two represented the first HERA campaign where we were able to perform research tasks. This involved selected flexible activities that the crew could schedule, mock timelines where the crew completed more complex planning exercises, usability evaluation of the crew self-scheduling features, and more insights into the limit of plan complexity that the crew could effectively self-schedule. In parallel we have added in new features and functionality in the Playbook tool based off of our insights from crew self-scheduling in the NASA analogs. In particular this year we have added in the ability for the crew to add, edit, and remove their own activities in the Playbook tool, expanding the type of planning and re-planning possible in the tool and opening up the ability for more free form plan creation. The ability to group and manipulate groups of activities from the plan task list was also added, allowing crew members to add predefined sets of activities onto their mission timeline. In addition we also added a way for crew members to roll back changes in their plan, in order to allow an undo like capability. These features expand and complement the initial self-scheduling features added in year one with the goal of making crew autonomous planning more efficient. As part of this work we have also finished developing the first version of our Playbook Data Analysis Tool, a research tool built to interpret and analyze the unobtrusively collected data obtained during the NASA analog missions through Playbook. This data which includes user click interaction as well as plan change information, through the Playbook Data Analysis Tool, allows us to playback this information as if a video camera was mounted over the crewmember's tablet. While the primary purpose of this tool is to allow usability analysis of crew self-scheduling sessions used on the NASA analog, since the data collected is structured, the tool can automatically derive metrics that would be traditionally tedious to achieve without manual analysis of video playback. We will demonstrate and discuss the ability for future derived metrics to be added to the tool. In addition to the current data and results gathered in year two we will also discuss the preparation and goals of our International Space Station (ISS) onboard technology demonstration with Playbook. This technology demonstration will be preformed as part of the CAST payload starting in late 2016.

onboard planning↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Crew and Logistics Lander for the Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat Architecture is a conceptual study that explores the use of a large habitat derived from the Space Launch System (SLS) liquid oxygen tank as a core habitation element that can be used for crew missions or training in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, and 1g. This is not part of current NASA Artemis mission planning, but instead represents an architecture that could potentially follow after the Artemis missions and initial human Mars landings. This architecture leverages Starship-derived vehicles for crew landing on and ascent from the Moon and Mars in support of long-duration surface missions with pressurized crew transfer baselined as a nominal capability. This is not the Human Landing System variant of Starship but represents a number of modifications to enable long-duration surface missions with an eight-person crew size. A rapid brainstorming study was conducted in February of 2021, using only public data, to identify options to deliver the 90-ton Common Habitat to the surface and emplace it at the intended habitation site. This study compared three lunar lander concepts and three Mars lander concepts before ultimately selecting the SpaceX Starship as the most viable lander. The Common Habitat Architecture assumes that this Starship variant can further be modified for crew and cargo delivery, assuming that the use of a common system will lead to cost benefits. It is assumed that the Starship will expend too much propellant in landing crew and logistics to be able to launch, given the assumed absence of surface propellant production. Consequently, a separable ascent stage is used for crew ascent. The pressurized elements of this modified Starship are discussed: Starship Ascent Module, Airlock, Transfer Tunnel, Pressurized Crew Transfer Module, and Logistics Modules. For each element, a description, dimensions, rough mass estimates, core capabilities, and design features are presented. Key mechanisms and internal structures of the starship are also discussed. This will include flame diverters for the ascend module, the orbital docking hatch, Pressurized Crew Transfer Module Garage door, Starship Ascent Module fairing, flame diverter blow-out panels, Pressurized Crew Transfer Module lift system, logistics module lift system, contingency crew ascent via the logistics module lift system, internal catwalks, and structural interfaces. Concept of Operations will be discussed for both Moon and Mars. This will include in-space crew rendezvous and transfer, crewed landing, shirtsleeve crew transfer, crew departure, contingency surface operations, and final element disposition. Key differences for Mars will be discussed, such as the Martian atmosphere, dust storms, the absence of crew handover, and Deep Space Exploration Vehicle rendezvous. Contingency microgravity maintenance access will also be discussed. This work will demonstrate viable pressurized crew transfer with a Starship-based lander architecture. Forward work includes Garage lighting and camera systems, Starship Ascent Module propulsion system and docking port trades, contingency habitation trades, and mass/power equipment estimation. Finally, forward work includes developing a heavy cargo return system derived from the Crew and Logistics Starship. The goal of this system is the return of at least 10,000 kg payloads from the surfaces of the Moon and Mars.

Lunar Lander↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessment of Crew Time for Maintenance and Repair Activities for Lunar Surface Missions

NASA is currently evaluating different methods to predict how much time crewmembers will spend conducting repair and maintenance activities on future space missions. As mission scope and spacecraft architectures change, understanding how crew repair and maintenance timelines are impacted by mission operations and technology changes is vital for future mission planning. Past work has been done using historical International Space Station (ISS) data to accurately predict crew habitation and operation timelines, resulting in the development of NASA’s Exploration Crew Time Model (ECTM). However, understanding crew maintenance and repair requirements has posed a unique challenge due to the complexity of available datasets, the probabilistic nature of sub-system failures, and the impacts of reliability growth on failure rates. This paper presents a methodology to collect and condition empirical repair and maintenance time data from available datasets, to extrapolate from that data to estimate projected maintenance and repair times for a lunar Surface Habitat (SH), and to assess how uncertainty in repair time could impact utilization time on the lunar surface. NASA ISS maintenance and crew time data are logged into two central databases: the Maintenance Data Collection (MDC) and the Operations Planning Timeline Integration System (OPTimIS). Separately, each of these two datasets capture only portions of the complete set of data required to generate an accurate assessment of crew time spent on maintenance activities at a sub-system level. To create a more useful crew time estimate for maintenance timelines, the authors developed a methodology to capture relevant data from each set and combine and utilize that data by linking crew time requirements to specific components. The authors compare the failure logs in the MDC to crew activity logs pulled from OPTimIS and then process the data to estimate required repair time for each failure and repair event. The entire maintenance activity dataset is then categorized based on the class of failed component to ensure a significant sample size for each class and accurate crew time estimates for any components lacking relevant data. This resultant component repair time data can be used in the future to generate Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) estimates and confidence intervals for each class of component based on a probabilistic distribution of documented maintenance events. These improved MTTR values can then be applied to candidate element sub-system architectures, along with component Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) data to generate distributions for potential required system crew repair time estimates for a given mission. The authors applied these modeling methods to a case study of a crewed mission to the planned SH and produced expected corrective maintenance crew time distributions. The results produced an expected corrective maintenance crew time at over 24 hours per mission, and a maintenance crew time distribution that reflects the importance of planning for sufficient maintenance requirements each mission. Repair time distributions can then be used to develop more accurate crew schedules and to assess potential available utilization time.

Crew Time↗
NASA NTRS1992

Crew decision making under stress

Flight crews must make decisions and take action when systems fail or emergencies arise during flight. These situations may involve high stress. Full-missiion flight simulation studies have shown that crews differ in how effectively they cope in these circumstances, judged by operational errors and crew coordination. The present study analyzed the problem solving and decision making strategies used by crews led by captains fitting three different personality profiles. Our goal was to identify more and less effective strategies that could serve as the basis for crew selection or training. Methods: Twelve 3-member B-727 crews flew a 5-leg mission simulated flight over 1 1/2 days. Two legs included 4 abnormal events that required decisions during high workload periods. Transcripts of videotapes were analyzed to describe decision making strategies. Crew performance (errors and coordination) was judged on-line and from videotapes by check airmen. Results: Based on a median split of crew performance errors, analyses to date indicate a difference in general strategy between crews who make more or less errors. Higher performance crews showed greater situational awareness - they responded quickly to cues and interpreted them appropriately. They requested more decision relevant information and took into account more constraints. Lower performing crews showed poorer situational awareness, planning, constraint sensitivity, and coordination. The major difference between higher and lower performing crews was that poorer crews made quick decisions and then collected information to confirm their decision. Conclusion: Differences in overall crew performance were associated with differences in situational awareness, information management, and decision strategy. Captain personality profiles were associated with these differences, a finding with implications for crew selection and training.

Orasanu, J.↗