SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Flight crew”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 469 records · Page 26

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1996

STS-76 Mission Highlights Resource Tape

The flight crew of the STS-76 mission, Cmdr. Kevin P. Chilton, Pilot Richard A. Searfoss, and Mission Specialists Shannon W. Lucid, Linda M. Godwin, Michael R. Clifford, and Ronald M. Sega, present a video mission over-view of their space flight. Images include: pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew can be seen being readied in the white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters. Once in orbit, various view of the Mir Space Station can be seen as the shuttle begins its approach and docking. There several views of Godwin and Clifford as they spent six hours spacewalking in Atlantis's cargo bay and on the exterior of the Mir's docking module. The mission ending re-entry and landing can also be seen.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2004

Role of Meteorology in Flights of a Solar-Powered Airplane

In the summer of 2001, the Helios prototype solar-powered uninhabited aerial vehicle (UAV) [a lightweight, remotely piloted airplane] was deployed to the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), at Kauai, Hawaii, in an attempt to fly to altitudes above 100,000 ft (30.48 km). The goal of flying a UAV to such high altitudes has been designated a level-I milestone of the NASA Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program. In support of this goal, meteorologists from NASA Dryden Flight Research Center were sent to PMRF, as part of the flight crew, to provide current and forecast weather information to the pilots, mission directors, and planners. Information of this kind is needed to optimize flight conditions for peak aircraft performance and to enable avoidance of weather conditions that could adversely affect safety. In general, the primary weather data of concern for ground and flight operations are wind speeds (see Figure 1). Because of its long wing span [247 ft (.75 m)] and low weight [1,500 to 1,600 lb (about 680 to 726 kg)], the Helios airplane is sensitive to wind speeds exceeding 7 kn (3.6 m/s) at the surface. Also, clouds are of concern because they can block sunlight needed to energize an array of solar photovoltaic cells that provide power to the airplane. Vertical wind shear is very closely monitored in order to prevent damage or loss of control due to turbulence.

Donohue, Casey↗

NASA NTRS1975

Crew procedures development techniques

The study developed requirements, designed, developed, checked out and demonstrated the Procedures Generation Program (PGP). The PGP is a digital computer program which provides a computerized means of developing flight crew procedures based on crew action in the shuttle procedures simulator. In addition, it provides a real time display of procedures, difference procedures, performance data and performance evaluation data. Reconstruction of displays is possible post-run. Data may be copied, stored on magnetic tape and transferred to the document processor for editing and documentation distribution.

Arbet, J. D.↗

NASA NTRS1996

STS-77 Post Flight Presentation

The flight crew of the STS-77 mission, Cmdr. John H. Casper, Pilot Curtis L. Brown, Jr., and Mission Specialists Andrew S.W. Thomas, Ph.D., Daniel W. Bursch, Mario Runco, Jr., and Marc Garneau, Ph.D., present a video mission over-view of their space flight. Images include: pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew can be seen being readied in the white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters. Following an on-time launch, the crew of Endeavor are shown setting up a variety of experiments that will operate for much of the mission. Also seen is the deployment and inflation of the Spartan Satellite, experiments being conducted in the Spacehab module, thruster firing to stabilized the shuttle, and the mission ending re-entry and landing of the shuttle Endeavor. The crew than answers questions from the press.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1996

STS-77 Mission Highlights Resource Tape

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2017

Quantifying Pilot Contribution to Flight Safety during Hydraulic Systems Failure

Accident statistics cite the flight crew as a causal factor in over 60% of large transport aircraft fatal accidents. Yet, a well-trained and well-qualified pilot is acknowledged as the critical center point of aircraft systems safety and an integral safety component of the entire commercial aviation system. The latter statement, while generally accepted, cannot be verified because little or no quantitative data exists on how and how many accidents/incidents are averted by crew actions. A joint NASA/FAA high-fidelity motion-base human-in-the-loop test was conducted using a Level D certified Boeing 737-800 simulator to evaluate the pilot's contribution to safety-of-flight during routine air carrier flight operations and in response to aircraft system failures. To quantify the human's contribution, crew complement (two-crew, reduced crew, single pilot) was used as the independent variable in a between-subjects design. This paper details the crew's actions, including decision-making, and responses while dealing with a hydraulic systems leak - one of 6 total non-normal events that were simulated in this experiment.

Kramer, Lynda J.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Debris/ice/TPS assessment and integrated photographic analysis for Shuttle Mission STS-62

A pre-launch debris inspection of the pad and Shuttle vehicle was conducted on 2 March 1994. The detailed walkdown of Launch Pad 39B and MLP-1 also included the primary flight elements OV-102 Columbia (16th flight), ET-62 (LWT 55), and BI-064 SRB's. There were no significant facility or vehicle anomalies. After the launch on March 4th, a debris inspection of Pad 39B was performed. Damage to the pad overall was minimal. On-orbit photographs taken by the flight crew and two films from the ET/ORB umbilical cameras of the External Tank after separation from the Orbiter revealed no major damage or lost flight hardware that would have been a safety of flight concern. Orbiter performance on final approach appeared normal. Infrared imagery of landing gear deployment showed the loss of thermal barrier from the nose gear wheel well. The missing thermal barrier material was not recovered. The Solid Rocket Boosters were inspected at Hanger AF after retrieval. Both frustums had a combined total of 44 MSA-2 debonds over fasteners. Significant amounts of BTA had been applied to closeouts on the RH frustum, forward skirt, and aft skirt. Hypalon paint was blistered/missing over the areas were the BTA had been applied. The underlying BTA was not sooted (IFA STS-62-B-1). Investigation of this condition has concluded there was insufficient heat rates to cause blistering of the Hypalon until late in the ascent phase. A post landing inspection of OV-102 was conducted after the landing at KSC. The Orbiter TPS sustained a total of 97 hits, of which 16 had a major dimension of 1 inch or larger. The Orbiter lower surface had a total of 36 hits, of which 7 had a major dimension of 1 inch or larger. Based on these numbers and comparison to statistics from previous missions of similar configuration, both the total number of debris hits and the number of hits 1 inch or larger was less than average. Six thermal barriers, total size approximately 36 in. x 3 in. x 1.5 in., and one corner tile piece 4 in. x 4 in., were missing from the nose landing gear doors. Runway infrared cameras recorded these objects falling from the Orbiter when the nose landing gear doors were opened on final approach. A search of the area under the flight path failed to recover the missing thermal batteries, which may be submerged in the large body of water south of the runway. The cause for the loss of the material was attributed to the way the substrate was prepared for bonding at the vendor. Orbiter post landing microchemical sample results revealed a variety of residuals in the Orbiter window samples. These were attributed to SRB BSM exhaust, Orbiter TPS, window protective covers and processing, natural landing site products, and paints/primers from various sources. The residual sampling data do not indicate a single source of damaging debris and all of these materials have been documented previously in analyses for post landing sample reports. Data from residual sampling also showed no trends when compared to previous mission data. A total of ten Post Launch Anomalies, including one IFA, were observed during the STS-62 mission assessment.

Katnik, Gregory N.↗

NASA NTRS1996

STS-78 Flight Day 12

On this twelfth day of the STS-78 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Terence T. Henricks, Pilot Kevin R. Kregel, Payload Cmdr. Susan J. Helms, Mission Specialists Richard M. Linnehan, Charles E. Brady, Jr., and Payload Specialists Jean-Jacques Favier, Ph.D. and Robert B. Thirsk, M.D., are awakened by the Canadian national anthem, 'Oh Canada.' This morning, Thirsk is shown delivering a holiday message to Prime Minister Jean Chretien and other dignitaries gathered at Parliament Hill in Ottawa. The crew is then shown celebrating Canada Day aboard the Space Shuttle. Also this morning, Mission Specialist Susan Helms discusses the progress of Columbia's flight with WBBM Radio in Chicago.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2008

Spacecraft Materials in the Space Flight Environment: International Space Station - May 2002 to May 2007

The performance of ISS spacecraft materials and systems on prolonged exposure to the low-Earth orbit (LEO) space flight is reported in this paper. In-flight data, flight crew observations, and the results of ground-based test and analysis directly supporting programmatic and operational decision-making are presented. The space flight environments definitions (both natural and induced) used for ISS design, material selection, and verification testing are shown, in most cases, to be more severe than the actual flight environment accounting for the outstanding performance of ISS as a long mission duration spacecraft. No significant ISS material or system failures have been attributed to spacecraft-environments interactions. Nonetheless, ISS materials and systems performance data is contributing to our understanding of spacecraft material interactions in the spaceflight environment so as to reduce cost and risk for future spaceflight projects and programs. Orbital inclination (51.6o) and altitude (nominally near 360 km) determine the set of natural environment factors affecting the functional life of materials and systems on ISS. ISS operates in an electrically conducting environment (the F2 region of Earth s ionosphere) with well-defined fluxes of atomic oxygen, other charged and neutral ionospheric plasma species, solar UV, VUV, and x-ray radiation as well as galactic cosmic rays, trapped radiation, and solar cosmic rays (1-4). The LEO micrometeoroid and orbital debris environment is an especially important determinant of spacecraft design and operations (5, 6). The magnitude of several environmental factors varies dramatically with latitude and longitude as ISS orbits the Earth (1-4). The high latitude orbital environment also exposes ISS to higher fluences of trapped energetic electrons, auroral electrons, solar cosmic rays, and galactic cosmic rays (1-4) than would be the case in lower inclination orbits, largely as a result of the overall shape and magnitude of the geomagnetic field (1-4). As a result, ISS exposure to many environmental factors can vary dramatically along a particular orbital ground track, and from one ground track to the next, during any 24-hour period.

Golden, John↗

NASA NTRS2009

Environmental Effects on ISS Materials Aging (1998 to 2008)

The performance of ISS spacecraft materials and systems on prolonged exposure to the low- Earth orbit (LEO) space flight are reported in this paper. In-flight data, flight crew observations, and the results of ground-based test and analysis directly supporting programmatic and operational decision-making are described. The space flight environments definitions (both natural and induced) used for ISS design, material selection, and verification testing are shown, in most cases, to be more severe than the actual flight environment accounting, in part, for the outstanding performance of ISS as a long mission duration spacecraft. No significant ISS material or system failures have been attributed to spacecraft-environments interactions. Nonetheless, ISS materials and systems performance data is contributing to our understanding of spacecraft material interactions with the spaceflight environment so as to reduce cost and risk for future spaceflight projects and programs. Orbital inclination (51.6 deg) and altitude (nominally near 360 km) determine the set of natural environment factors affecting the functional life of materials and systems on ISS. ISS operates in an electrically conducting environment (the F2 region of Earth s ionosphere) with well-defined fluxes of atomic oxygen, other charged and neutral ionospheric plasma species, solar UV, VUV, and x-ray radiation as well as galactic cosmic rays, trapped radiation, and solar cosmic rays. The LEO micrometeoroid and orbital debris environment is an especially important determinant of spacecraft design and operations. The magnitude of several environmental factors varies dramatically with latitude and longitude as ISS orbits the Earth. The high latitude orbital environment also exposes ISS to higher fluences of trapped energetic electrons, auroral electrons, solar cosmic rays, and galactic cosmic rays than would be the case in lower inclination orbits, largely as a result of the overall shape and magnitude of the geomagnetic field. As a result, ISS exposure to many environmental factors can vary dramatically along a particular orbital ground track, and from one ground track to the next, during any 24-hour period. The induced environment results from ISS interactions with the natural environment as well as environmental factors produced by ISS itself and visiting vehicles fleet. Examples include ram-wake effects, hypergolic thruster plume impingement, materials out-gassing, venting and dumping of fluids, and specific photovoltaic (PV) power system interactions with the ionospheric plasma (7-11). Vehicle size (L) and velocity (V), combined with the magnitude and direction of the geomagnetic field (B) produce operationally significant magnetic induction voltages (VxB.L) in ISS conducting structure during flight through high latitudes (> +45deg) during each orbit. Finally, an induced ionizing radiation environment is produced by cosmic ray interaction with the relatively thick ISS structure and shielding materials. The intent of this review article is, therefore, to provide a summary of selected aspects and elements of the ISS vehicle with regard to LEO space environment effects, associated with the much larger and more complicated vehicle that ISS has become since 1998, but also with an eye towards performance life extension to the year 2016 and beyond.

Alred, John↗

NASA NTRS2010

Correlated Topics in a Scalable Multidimensional Text Cube: Algorithms and Aviation Safety Case Study

As world-wide air traffic continues to grow even at a modest pace, the overall complexity of the system will increase significantly. This increased complexity can lead to a larger number of fatalities per year even if the extremely low fatality rate that we currently enjoy is maintained. One important source of information about the safety of the aviation system is in Aviation Safety Text Reports which are written by members of the flight crew, air traffic controllers, and other parties involved with the aviation system. These anonymized narrative reports contain fixed-field contextual information about the flight but also contain free-form narratives that describe, in the author s own words, the nature of the safety incident and, in many cases, the contributing factors that led to the safety incident. Several thousand such reports are filed each month, each of which is read and analyzed by highly trained experts. However, it is possible that there are emerging safety issues due to the fact that they may be reported very infrequently and in different contexts with different descriptions. The goal of this research paper is to develop correlated topic models which uncover correlations in the subspaces defined by the intersection of numerous fixed fields and discovered correlated topics. This task requires the discovery of latent topics in the text reports and the creation of a topic cube. Furthermore, because the number of potential cells in the topic cube is very large, we discuss novel methods of pruning the search space in the topic cells, thereby making the analysis feasible. We demonstrate the new algorithms on an analysis of pilot fatigue and its contributing factors, as well as the safety incidents that are correlated with this phenomenon.

Zhao, Bo↗

NASA NTRS2016

Deploying a Route Optimization EFB Application for Commercial Airline Operational Trials

The Traffic Aware Planner (TAP), developed for NASA Langley Research Center to support the Traffic Aware Strategic Aircrew Requests (TASAR) project, is a flight-efficiency software application developed for an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB). Tested in two flight trials and planned for operational testing by two commercial airlines, TAP is a real-time trajectory optimization application that leverages connectivity with onboard avionics and broadband Internet sources to compute and recommend route modifications to flight crews to improve fuel and time performance. The application utilizes a wide range of data, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) traffic, Flight Management System (FMS) guidance and intent, on-board sensors, published winds and weather, and Special Use Airspace (SUA) schedules. This paper discusses the challenges of developing and deploying TAP to various EFB platforms, our solutions to some of these challenges, and lessons learned, to assist commercial software developers and hardware manufacturers in their efforts to implement and extend TAP functionality in their environments. EFB applications (such as TAP) typically access avionics data via an ARINC 834 Simple Text Avionics Protocol (STAP) server hosted by an Aircraft Interface Device (AID) or other installed hardware. While the protocol is standardized, the data sources, content, and transmission rates can vary from aircraft to aircraft. Additionally, the method of communicating with the AID may vary depending on EFB hardware and/or the availability of onboard networking services, such as Ethernet, WIFI, Bluetooth, or other mechanisms. EFBs with portable and installed components can be implemented using a variety of operating systems, and cockpits are increasingly incorporating tablet-based technologies, further expanding the number of platforms the application may need to support. Supporting multiple EFB platforms, AIDs, avionics datasets, and user interfaces presents a challenge for software developers and the management of their code baselines. Maintaining multiple baselines to support all deployment targets can be extremely cumbersome and expensive. Certification also needs to be considered when developing the application. Regardless of whether the software is itself destined to be certified, data requirements in support of the application and user interface elements may introduce certification requirements for EFB manufacturers and the airlines. The example of TAP, the challenges faced, solutions implemented, and lessons learned will give EFB application and hardware developers insight into future potential requirements in deploying TAP or similar flight-deck EFB applications.

Roscoe, David A.↗

NASA NTRS2021

GA-ASI Final Report and Program Wrap-up for NASA System Integration and Operationalization (SIO)

The NASA SIO demonstration flight of April 3, 2020 represents a successful culmination of 18 months of coordinated effort between GA-ASI, NASA, the FAA, Collins Aerospace, and Honeywell Aerospace to operate a Medium Altitude, Long Endurance (MALE) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) safely in the National Airspace System (NAS) using industry leading prototype technologies. The GA-ASI team consisted of technical experts, program managers, engineers, mechanics, flight technicians, flight crews, and numerous other subject matter experts. This final report describes the most significant and potentially impactful aspects of the planning, integration, test, and flight aspects of this effort. GA-ASI successfully integrated the key technologies needed for UAS to fly in the NAS onto our prototype SkyGuardian UAS, which was designed to meet the most stringent airworthiness standards applicable to an aircraft of its size category. A proven Detect and Avoid (DAA) system, developed by GA-ASI and utilizing Honeywell Aerospace technology was integrated onto SkyGuardian for the first time, along with datalink radios from Collins Aerospace that meet the new civil standard for Control and Non-Payload Communication (CNPC) links. GA-ASI also obtained approvals from the FAA and FCC to operate the reconfigured UAS. The SIO demonstration flight represented a commercial aerial surveying operation conducted at medium altitude (>10,000ft above mean sea level). The aircraft’s onboard sensors were used to capture photographic, infrared and radar imagery of public and commercial infrastructure and land, and to subsequently produce the types of data products that would provide business value to potential customers. These survey services would supplement or replace services currently provided by manned airplanes and helicopters, small drones or satellites. A “virtual” mission was also planned, to show what additional survey data could have been captured during the flight if additional sensors had been installed on the aircraft’s external hardpoints. This revision of the final report focuses on information of value to the wider UAS community, and avoids propriety data to facilitate broad dissemination. It also includes a description of GA-ASI’s engagement with the FAA following the SIO flight, which led to the award of an updated Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category (SAC-EC) and a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) allowing operation of the SkyGuardian UAS using its DAA system to satisfy right-of-way rules, instead of a chase plane. The associated operational limitations are described to illustrate the further steps that would be needed to remove those limitations for unhindered commercial operations.

Flight demonstration↗

NASA NTRS2024

Considerations for Using Autonomous Flight Termination Software in Crewed Launch Vehicles

Autonomous flight termination systems (AFTS) are being progressively employed onboard launch vehicles to replace ground personnel and infrastructure needed to terminate flight or destruct the vehicle should an anomaly occur. This automation uses on-board real-time data and encoded logic to determine if the flight should be self-terminated. For uncrewed launch vehicles, FTS systems are required to protect the public and governed by the United States Space Force (USSF). For crewed missions, NASA must augment range AFTS requirements for crew safety and certify each flight according to human rating standards, thus adding unique requirements for reuse of software originally intended for uncrewed missions. This bulletin summarizes new information relating to AFTS to raise awareness of key distinctions, summarize considerations and outline best practices for incorporating AFTS into human-rated systems.

Avionics↗

NASA NTRS1980

Astronaut crew selection

Thirty-five astronaut candidates were selected by NASA in January 1978, and in August 1979 they completed their initial training and evaluation candidacy status to become designated astronauts eligible for selection to flight crews. The astronauts have been chosen in groups, and to date there have been a total of eight groups selected. This paper examines the basis for the selection criteria, the physiological makeup of the astronauts that types them to the criteria, and some of the testing and evaluation criteria used for the selection.

Griggs, S. D.↗

NASA NTRS1999

STS-88 Mission Highlights Resources Tape

The STS-88 flight crew, Commander Robert D. Cabana, Pilot Frederick W. Sturckow, and Mission Specialists Nancy J. Currie, James H. Newman, Jerry L. Ross, and Sergei Krikalev present a video overview of their space flight. This is the first of three videos which show the highlights of the Endeavour mission. Important visual images include pre-launch activities such as the eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters. Once on-orbit crew members are seen delivering and connecting the UNITY Connecting Module to the ZARYA Control Module.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1995

STS-74 Flight Day 6

On this sixth day of the STS-74 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Kenneth Cameron, Pilot James Halsell, and Mission Specialists William McArthur, Jerry Ross, and Chris Hadfield and the Mir 20 cosmonauts, Cmdr. Yuri Gidzenko, Flight Engineer Sergei Avdeyev, and Cosmonaut-Researcher (ESA) Thomas Reiter, were greeted and briefly interviewed by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, on the 50th anniversary of the United Nations via a radio satellite hookup. An additional interview with other journalists from different areas of the United States and Canada was also presented.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1997

STS-87 Day 14 Highlights

On this fourteenth day of the STS-87 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Kevin R. Kregel, Pilot Steven W. Lindsey, Mission Specialists Winston E. Scott, Kalpana Chawla, and Takao Doi, and Payload Specialist Leonid K. Kadenyuk focus on completion of hands-on sample processing in the microgravity glovebox facility. They also prepare the spacesuits and tools that will be used for the EVA by Scott and Doi. The crew take time out from their schedule to discuss the mission with reporters from the U.S., Japan and the Ukraine during the traditional in-flight news conference.

Source record↗