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 433 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

Surface Support Systems for Co-Operative and Integrated Human/Robotic Lunar Exploration

Human and robotic partnerships to realize space goals can enhance space missions and provide increases in human productivity while decreasing the hazards that the humans are exposed to. For lunar exploration, the harsh environment of the moon and the repetitive nature of the tasks involved with lunar outpost construction, maintenance and operation as well as production tasks associated with in-situ resource utilization, make it highly desirable to use robotic systems in co-operation with human activity. A human lunar outpost is functionally examined and concepts for selected human/robotic tasks are discussed in the context of a lunar outpost which will enable the presence of humans on the moon for extended periods of time.

Mueller, Robert P.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Comparing Theoretically Scaled Biomechanical Models

BACKGROUND An investigation into incorporating space suit aspects required a 50th-percentile male model which was not part of the existing dataset of models. Previously, theoretical models for 5th-percentile female and 95th-percentile male were created utilizing a scaled test subject as close as possible to the target height and weight. Scaling factors were created by taking the height ratio and applying it uniformly to the model body segments, then fine tuning to ensure the theoretical model’s height is as expected. This study was initiated to examine the existing method of isometrically scaling in OpenSim [1,2] and to create alternative methods which do not rely on an existing subject being close in height and weight to the theoretical model of interest. Generating a theoretical biomechanical model provides additional abilities without the reliance on available OpenSim models or real subjects. Gained abilities include creating different percentile models and attaining representative anthropometry for any target height/weight, such as targeting specific crew populations or gaps within the current dataset. METHODS AND RESULTS This study includes 3 methods for generating the theoretical model; utilizing the modified unscaled OpenSim Full Body Rajagopal Model (FBRM) [3,4], a dataset of scaled OpenSim models, and existing scaling factors from Dumas et al. [5]. All methods use the Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel (ANSUR II) [6] as an input of necessary anthropometric measurements. The following measurements are retrieved from the ANSUR II collection: mass, stature, cervicale height, acromial height, axilla height, waist height, trochanterion height, lateral femoral epicondyle height, lateral malleolus height, acromion-radiale length, radiale-stylion length, palm length, ball of foot length, bicristal breadth, bimalleolar breadth. Some of the measurements are direct segment lengths and others are utilized to derive segment lengths. Height, weight, and age ranges are the required inputs to parse the collection for a mean value of the measurements. A simple iterative process may be necessary for the output of mean mass and stature consistent with the theoretical model of interest. In some cases, one may specify exact values instead of a range but that is dependent upon whether those exact values pertain to a single subject from the ANSUR II collection. Equations from Dumas et al. were used to calculate scaling factors for the two methods that utilize OpenSim scaled and unscaled models. In the third method, Dumas’ scaling factors were used directly instead of generating our own. After scaling factors are achieved, they are applied along with the mass and segment lengths retrieved from ANSUR II in order to calculate the segment mass, Center of Mass (CoM), mass Moment of Inertia (MoI), and the joint location in the parent frame. The theoretical models from the different methods were compared to the previous existing method of isometrically scaling in OpenSim, as well as the standards found in NASA STD-3000 [7] and the NASA Human Integration Design Handbook [8]. The whole-body center of mass is the main comparison performed between the models and the standards. The body segment mass properties were also compared when possible. In some cases, the standards do not provide complete data, or the center of mass location is not provided with respect to the appropriate joint coordinate system. For a 50th-percentile male subject, results from isometric scaling in OpenSim and the method utilizing the unscaled FBRM were compared to the standards in NASA STD-3000. According to the standard, the whole-body vertical CoM location was taken from the head vertex to the CoM. The standards provide 80.2 cm for the CoM vertical component whereas isometric scaling in OpenSim and utilizing the unscaled FBRM provide 82.2 and 82.3 cm, respectively. Through definition, the whole-body CoM in the medial/lateral direction agreed across the models. Investigation is on-going to clearly identify the reference point pertaining to dorsal/ventral whole-body CoM position in standards and relate that to the theoretical models. REFERENCES [1] Delp, S.L., et al., “OpenSim: Open-source Software to Create and Analyze Dynamic Simulations of Movement”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, (2007). [2] Seth, A., Hicks J.L., Uchida, T.K., Habib, A., Dembia, C.L., Dunne, J.J., Ong, C.F., DeMers, M.S., Rajagopal, A., Millard, M., Hamner, S.R., Arnold, E.M., Yong, J.R., Lakshmikanth, S.K., Sherman,n M.A., Delp, S.L. OpenSim: Simulating musculoskeletal dynamics and neuromuscular control to study human and animal movement. Plos Computational Biology, 14(7). (2018) [3] R. K. Huffman, W. K. Thompson, C. A. Gallo, L. J. Quiocho, “Improvement of Scaling and Inverse Kinematic Results with Additional Upper Body Joints Added to Opensim Rajagopal Model”, NASA Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop, (2019). [4] Huffman R.K., Thompson W., Gallo C., “Modified OpenSim Rajagopal Full Body Model”, New Technology Report, MSC-26872-1. (August 2020). [5] Dumas R., Cheze L. and Verriest J., 2007. “Adjustments to McConville et al. and Young et al. body segment inertial parameters”. Journal of Biomechanics 40, pp. 543-553 [6] Gordon C.C., 2012 “Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics”, US Army Natick Soldier RD&E Center. [7] NASA STD-3000/REV-B, 1995. “The Man-System Integration Standards” [8] NASA/SP-2010-3407/REV-1, 2014. “The Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)”

F N Matari↗
NASA NTRS2012

Certification of COTS Software in NASA Human Rated Flight Systems

Adoption of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products in safety critical systems has been seen as a promising acquisition strategy to improve mission affordability and, yet, has come with significant barriers and challenges. Attempts to integrate COTS software components into NASA human rated flight systems have been, for the most part, complicated by verification and validation (V&V) requirements necessary for flight certification per NASA s own standards. For software that is from COTS sources, and, in general from 3rd party sources, either commercial, government, modified or open source, the expectation is that it meets the same certification criteria as those used for in-house and that it does so as if it were built in-house. The latter is a critical and hidden issue. This paper examines the longstanding barriers and challenges in the use of 3rd party software in safety critical systems and cover recent efforts to use COTS software in NASA s Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) project. It identifies some core artifacts that without them, the use of COTS and 3rd party software is, for all practical purposes, a nonstarter for affordable and timely insertion into flight critical systems. The paper covers the first use in a flight critical system by NASA of COTS software that has prior FAA certification heritage, which was shown to meet the RTCA-DO-178B standard, and how this certification may, in some cases, be leveraged to allow the use of analysis in lieu of testing. Finally, the paper proposes the establishment of an open source forum for development of safety critical 3rd party software.

Goforth, Andre↗
NASA NTRS2005

Opportunities for Launch Site Integrated System Health Engineering and Management

The launch site processing flow involves operations such as functional verification, preflight servicing and launch. These operations often include hazards that must be controlled to protect human life and critical space hardware assets. Existing command and control capabilities are limited to simple limit checking durig automated monitoring. Contingency actions are highly dependent on human recognition, decision making, and execution. Many opportunities for Integrated System Health Engineering and Management (ISHEM) exist throughout the processing flow. This paper will present the current human-centered approach to health management as performed today for the shuttle and space station programs. In addition, it will address some of the more critical ISHEM needs, and provide recommendations for future implementation of ISHEM at the launch site.

Waterman, Robert D.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Reducing the Risk of Human Missions to Mars Through Testing

During the summer of 2002 the NASA Deputy Administrator charted an internal NASA planning group to develop the rationale for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. This team, termed the Exploration Blueprint, performed architecture analyses to develop roadmaps for how to accomplish the first steps beyond Low-Earth Orbit through the human exploration of Mars. The previous NASA Exploration Team (NEXT) activities laid the foundation and framework for development of NASA s Integrated Space Plan. The reference missions resulting from the analysis performed by the Exploration Blueprint team formed the basis for requirement definition, systems development, technology roadmapping, and risk assessments for future human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Emphasis was placed on developing recommendations on what could be done now to effect future exploration activities. The Exploration Blueprint team embraced the Stepping Stone approach to exploration where human and robotic activities are conducted through progressive expansion outward beyond low- Earth orbit. Results from this study produced a long-term strategy for exploration with near-term implementation plans, program recommendations, and technology investments. Specific results included the development of a common exploration crew vehicle concept, a unified space nuclear strategy, focused bioastronautics research objectives, and an integrated human and robotic exploration strategy. Recommendations from the Exploration Blueprint included the endorsement of the Nuclear Systems Initiative, augmentation of the bioastronautics research, a focused space transportation program including heavy-lift launch and a common exploration vehicle design for ISS and exploration missions, as well as an integrated human and robotic exploration strategy for Mars. Following the results of the Exploration Blueprint study, the NASA Administrator has asked for a recommendation by June, 2003 on the next steps in human and robotic exploration in order to put into context an updated Integrated Space Transportation Plan (post- Columbia) and guide Agency planning. NASA was on the verge of committing significant funding in programs that would be better served if longer term goals were better known including the Orbital Space Plane, research on the ISS, National Aerospace Initiative, Shuttle Life Extension Program, Project Prometheus, as well as a wide range of technology development throughout the Agency. Much of the focus during this period was on integrating the results from the previous studies into more concrete implementation strategies in order to understand the relationship between NASA programs, timing, and resulting budgetary implications. This resulted in an integrated approach including lunar surface operations to retire risk of human Mars missions, maximum use of common and modular systems including what was termed the exploration transfer vehicle, Earth orbit and lunar surface demonstrations of long-life systems, collaboration of human and robotic missions to vastly increase mission return, and high-efficiency transportation systems (nuclear) for deep-space transportation and power. The data provided in this summary viewgraph presentation was developed to begin to address one of the key elements of the emerging implementation strategy, namely how lunar missions help retire risk of human missions to Mars. During this process the scope of the activity broadened into the issue of how testing in general, in various venues including the Moon, can help reduce the risk for Mars missions.

Drake, Bret G.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Pressure Shell Approach to Integrated Environmental Protection

The next generation of exploration mission human systems will require environmental protection such as radiation protection that is effective and efficient. In order to continue human exploration, habitat systems will require special shells to protect astronauts from hostile environments. The Pressure Shell Approach to integrated environmental (radiation) protection is a multi-layer shell that can be used for multifunctional environmental protection. Self-healing, self-repairing nano technologies and sensors are incorporated into the shell. This shell consists of multiple layers that can be tailored for specific environmental protection needs. Mainly, this innovation focuses on protecting crew from exposure to micrometeorites, thermal, solar flares, and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) radiation. The Pressure Shell Approach consists of a micrometeoroid and secondary ejecta protection layer; a thin, composite shell placed in between two layers that is non-structural; an open cavity layer that can be filled with water, regolith, or polyethylene foam; a thicker composite shell that is a structural load bearing that is placed between two layers; and a bladder coating on the interior composite shell. This multi-layer shell creates an effective radiation protection system. Most of its layers can be designed with the materials necessary for specific environments. In situ materials such as water or regolith can be added to the shell design for supplemental radiation protection.

Kennedy, Kriss J.↗
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 NTRS1998

Integrating Oracle Human Resources with Other Modules

One of the most challenging aspects of implementing an enterprise-wide business system is achieving integration of the different modules to the satisfaction of diverse customers. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) implementation of the Oracle application suite demonstrates the need to coordinate Oracle Human Resources Management System (HRMS) decision across the Oracle modules.

Oracle human resources↗
NASA NTRS2021

Collaborative Communications Between A Human and A Resilient Safety Support System

Successful introductory UAM integration into the NAS will be contingent on resilient safety systems that support reduced-crew flight operations. In this paper, we present a system that performs three functions: 1) monitors an operator’s physiological state; 2) assesses when the operator is experiencing anomalous states; and 3) mitigates risks by a combination of dynamic, context-based unilateral or collaborative dynamic function allocation of operational tasks. The monitoring process receives high data-rate sensor values from eye-tracking and electrocardiogram sensors. The assessment process takes these values and performs a classification that was developed using machine learning algorithms. The mitigation process invokes a collaboration protocol called DFACCto which, based on context, performs vehicle operations that the operator would otherwise routinely execute. This system has been demonstrated in a UAM flight simulator for an operator incapacitation scenario. The methods and initial results as well as relevant UAM and AAM scenarios will be described.

Advanced air mobility↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Collaborative Communications Between a Human and a Resilient Safety Support System

Successful introductory UAM integration into the NAS will be contingent on resilient safety systems that support reduced-crew flight operations. In this paper, we present a system that performs three functions: 1) monitors an operator’s physiological state; 2) assesses when the operator is experiencing anomalous states; and 3) mitigates risks by a combination of dynamic, context-based unilateral or collaborative dynamic function allocation of operational tasks. The monitoring process receives high data-rate sensor values from eye-tracking and electrocardiogram sensors. The assessment process takes these values and performs a classification that was developed using machine learning algorithms. The mitigation process invokes a collaboration protocol called DFACC to which, based on context, performs vehicle operations that the operator would otherwise routinely execute. This system has been demonstrated in a UAM flight simulator for an operator incapacitation scenario. The methods and initial results as well as relevant UAM and AAM scenarios will be described.

Advanced Air Mobility,↗
NASA NTRS2002

Motion Planning in a Society of Intelligent Mobile Agents

The majority of the work on this grant involved formal modeling of human-computer integration. We conceptualize computer resources as a multiagent system so that these resources and human collaborators may be modeled uniformly. In previous work we had used modal for this uniform modeling, and we had developed a process-algebraic agent abstraction. In this work, we applied this abstraction (using CSP) in uniformly modeling agents and users, which allowed us to use tools for investigating CSP models. This work revealed the power of, process-algebraic handshakes in modeling face-to-face conversation. We also investigated specifications of human-computer systems in the style of algebraic specification. This involved specifying the common knowledge required for coordination and process-algebraic patterns of communication actions intended to establish the common knowledge. We investigated the conditions for agents endowed with perception to gain common knowledge and implemented a prototype neural-network system that allows agents to detect when such conditions hold. The literature on multiagent systems conceptualizes communication actions as speech acts. We implemented a prototype system that infers the deontic effects (obligations, permissions, prohibitions) of speech acts and detects violations of these effects. A prototype distributed system was developed that allows users to collaborate in moving proxy agents; it was designed to exploit handshakes and common knowledge Finally. in work carried over from a previous NASA ARC grant, about fifteen undergraduates developed and presented projects on multiagent motion planning.

Esterline, Albert C.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Human Motion Tracking at Marshall Space Flight Center's Collaborative Engineering Center ANVIL

The installation and use of electromagnetic human motion trackers requires a specially designed and metal-free environment for optimal performance. Such an area is not readily available at the Marshall Space Flight Center Collaborative Engineering Center ANVIL. Our paper details a systems engineering approach to installing and operating Ascension Technologies Ethernet MotionStar tracking system in a sub-optimal environment, used with the JACK human computer model's motion capture capabilities. We also discuss how this system is integrated into the Marshall Space Flight Center's Human Engineering process.

Henderson, Steven J.↗
NASA NTRS2026

Development of the Orion Life-Support Integration Facility (OLIF)

Testing the life support hardware of a vehicle that is going to take humans beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) in conditions similar to space is crucial. The Orion Life-Support Integration Facility (OLIF) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) was designed and built to test the Orion vehicle’s hardware and software as integrated systems to provide a complete Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) system-level qualification. The existing 11 Foot human rated vacuum chamber has been adapted to accommodate and integrate various qualification and flight like components of the Orion vehicle’s Air Revitalization System (ARS), Pressure Control System (PCS), Active Thermal Control System (ATCS) and the Orion Crew Survival System Suits (OCSS). The ultimate goal was to create an analog testbed that could safely support up to four test subjects in open “shirt-sleeve” or closed suit loop configurations and simulate Orion Cabin conditions. This integrated hardware/software ARS and PCS will help identify any technical issues that should be addressed prior to the Artemis-2 mission. This paper will discuss the history of Orion ECLSS hardware development testing in the 11 Foot Chamber, the challenge of integrating flight hardware and software control systems, and the capabilities that make it a unique, world class facility for NASA. It will provide an overview of past and future testing, and the lessons learned along the way.

Peter A Masi↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Designing Autonomy into Interfaces for Long-Duration Missions

As NASA develops technologies for long-duration crewed missions, we must understand how communication between ground control teams and astronauts differs from the current dynamic to adapt new concepts for long-duration mission operations. Today, ground control teams support astronauts with immediate availability to answer questions, resolve issues, and manage activities. In the near future, however, extended communication delays during long-duration missions will require astronauts to become more autonomous. As many of the responsibilities shift from the ground control teams to the astronauts on-board, the concept of operations must also change from how it functions today. With increased astronaut autonomy, software tools must be developed that enable efficient completion of mission tasks without increased mental workload. Designing software tools to facilitate crew autonomy requires development teams to know which data will enhance quick decision making while providing necessary context for situational awareness of systems being managed on-board. NASA's Autonomous Systems and Operations (ASO) team is presently developing a software interface tool, EXPRESS (EXpedite the PRocessing of Experiments for Space Station) 2.5 to enable a long-duration crew to schedule activities for and operate autonomous systems. This paper describes details of the integrated human factors approach that drove the design of the elements of the software tool, including self-managed scheduling, constraint-driven planning, autonomous system fault recovery, and recommended troubleshooting actions. Additionally, this paper will chronicle ASO modifications of the user interface after the team's first flight demonstration, how it was based on lessons learned during software development, as well as from crew feedback in order to develop the current version which will be demonstrated on ISS in 2021. In the upcoming ISS demonstration, the astronaut crew will be given scenarios for scheduling and operating autonomous system activities, including off-nominal scenarios and autonomous system recoveries. The demonstration of the EXPRESS 2.5 tool is a step towards improved levels of autonomy as our new journeys take us farther into space.

autonomy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors Research Needs for In-Time Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS) Design: Enabling the NASA “Sky for All” Future Airspace Vision

Integrated safety management will be paramount for safely enabling the envisioned transformations of the future National Airspace System. Addressing the increasing need for advanced data analytics and fusion of aviation safety data, managed by human decision-makers, is essential for realizing the vision. The proposal, if accepted, will discuss safety management system challenges and how the concept of In-time Aviation Safety Management Systems addresses the need. It will also discuss human factors challenges involved in future integrated safety management, including trust, over-reliance, human-optimized data visualization, human-autonomy teaming, training, communication and dissemination of data, situation awareness, task load, and accountability.

Lawrence J Prinzel III↗
NASA NTRS2006

Conducting Closed Habitation Experiments: Experience from the Lunar Mars Life Support Test Project

The Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) was conducted from 1995 through 1997 at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to demonstrate increasingly longer duration operation of integrated, closed-loop life support systems that employed biological and physicochemical techniques for water recycling, waste processing, air revitalization, thermal control, and food production. An analog environment for long-duration human space travel, the conditions of isolation and confinement also enabled studies of human factors, medical sciences (both physiology and psychology) and crew training. Four tests were conducted, Phases I, II, IIa and III, with durations of 15, 30, 60 and 91 days, respectively. The first phase focused on biological air regeneration, using wheat to generate enough oxygen for one experimental subject. The systems demonstrated in the later phases were increasingly complex and interdependent, and provided life support for four crew members. The tests were conducted using two human-rated, atmospherically-closed test chambers, the Variable Pressure Growth Chamber (VPGC) and the Integrated Life Support Systems Test Facility (ILSSTF). Systems included test articles (the life support hardware under evaluation), human accommodations (living quarters, kitchen, exercise equipment, etc.) and facility systems (emergency matrix system, power, cooling, etc.). The test team was managed by a lead engineer and a test director, and included test article engineers responsible for specific systems, subsystems or test articles, test conductors, facility engineers, chamber operators and engineering technicians, medical and safety officers, and science experimenters. A crew selection committee, comprised of psychologists, engineers and managers involved in the test, evaluated male and female volunteers who applied to be test subjects. Selection was based on the skills mix anticipated for each particular test, and utilized information from psychological and medical testing, data on the knowledge, experience and skills of the applicants, and team building exercises. The design, development, buildup and operation of test hardware and documentation followed the established NASA processes and requirements for test buildup and operation.

Barta, Daniel J.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Conducting Closed Habitation Experiments: Experience from the Lunar Mars Life Support Test Project

The Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) was conducted from 1995 through 1997 at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to demonstrate increasingly longer duration operation of integrated, closed-loop life support systems that employed biological and physicochemical techniques for water recycling, waste processing, air revitalization, thermal control, and food production. An analog environment for long-duration human space travel, the conditions of isolation and confinement also enabled studies of human factors, medical sciences (both physiology and psychology) and crew training. Four tests were conducted, Phases I, II, IIa and III, with durations of 15, 30,60 and 91 days, respectively. The first phase focused on biological air regeneration, using wheat to generate enough oxygen for one experimental subject. The systems demonstrated in the later phases were increasingly complex and interdependent, and provided life support for four crew members. The tests were conducted using two human-rated, atmospherically-closed test chambers, the Variable Pressure Growth Chamber (VPGC) and the Integrated Life Support Systems Test Facility (ILSSTF). Systems included test articles (the life support hardware under evaluation), human accommodations (living quarters, kitchen, exercise equipment, etc.) and facility systems (emergency matrix system, power, cooling, etc.). The test team was managed by a lead engineer and a test director, and included test article engineers responsible for specific systems, subsystems or test articles, test conductors, facility engineers, chamber operators and engineering technicians, medical and safety officers, and science experimenters. A crew selection committee, comprised of psychologists, engineers and managers involved in the test, evaluated male and female volunteers who applied to be test subjects. Selection was based on the skills mix anticipated for each particular test, and utilized information from psychological and medical testing, data on the knowledge, experience and skills of the applicants, and team building exercises. The design, development, buildup and operation of test hardware and documentation followed the established NASA processes and requirements for test buildup and operation.

Barta, Daniel J.↗