Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Number of 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.

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

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Water System Architectures for Moon and Mars Bases

Water systems for human bases on the moon and Mars will recycle multiple sources of wastewater. Systems for both the moon and Mars will also store water to support and backup the recycling system. Most water system requirements, such as number of crew, quantity and quality of water supply, presence of gravity, and surface mission duration of 6 or 18 months, will be similar for the moon and Mars. If the water system fails, a crew on the moon can quickly receive spare parts and supplies or return to Earth, but a crew on Mars cannot. A recycling system on the moon can have a reasonable reliability goal, such as only one unrecoverable failure every five years, if there is enough stored water to allow time for attempted repairs and for the crew to return if repair fails. The water system that has been developed and successfully operated on the International Space Station (ISS) could be used on a moon base. To achieve the same high level of crew safety on Mars without an escape option, either the recycling system must have much higher reliability or enough water must be stored to allow the crew to survive the full duration of the Mars surface mission. A three loop water system architecture that separately recycles condensate, wash water, and urine and flush can improve reliability and reduce cost for a Mars base.

moon base↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Introduction to the IMPACT Probabilistic Risk and Tradespace Analysis Tool for Medical System Design

Background: Probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) is a method for estimating risk in complex engineered systems that, at a basic level, focuses on what can go wrong and the likelihood and consequences of those occurrences. NASA has used PRA as an integral component of medical system risk estimation and design for spaceflight. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a novel tool to meet these goals for exploration missions. Overview: IMPACT performs hundreds of thousands of Monte Carlo simulations of missions to build aggregate pictures of medical risk. These simulations are based on 120 possible medical conditions (the IMPACT Condition List) selected in a consensus-based process because they are of highest likelihood and/or consequence for exploration spaceflight. The conditions are then tied to clinical capabilities which can be used for management (e.g., inserting an IV) and then to over 600 specific resources needed to deliver a capability (e.g., an angiocath or an ultrasound). Different mission profiles can be simulated with user-specified inputs such as mission duration, destination, number of crew and pre-existing medical conditions, and EVA frequency. While the IMPACT evidence base is designed for exploration environments, these user inputs allow the tool to be used across a broad range of missions. IMPACT’s primary outcome metrics include loss of crew life (LOCL, a measure of in-flight mortality due to medical conditions), need for evacuation (RTDC, return to definitive care), and crew disability (TTL, task time lost based on how medical conditions impact the ability to perform over 1000 specific exploration mission crew tasks). In addition to modeling medical risk, IMPACT also accepts user-specified constraints, such as limitations of mass or volume, and will output a recommended clinical capability set and specific medical resources that meet the mission constraints. Discussion: This abstract will provide an introduction to IMPACT and describe the nature of the underlying medical evidence. It will also detail potential use cases for how this tool can be utilized by NASA or commercial spaceflight providers.

Ben Easter↗
NASA NTRS2023

Commercial Low-Earth Orbit Destination (CLD) Capabilities of Interest and Resource Needs

The Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Development Program team has been working with NASA and the International Space Station (ISS) National Lab (NL) stakeholders to identify capabilities of interest to both conduct research/technology demonstrations and estimate the resources that will be needed from Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs). Through a series of one-on-one and working group meetings with users/stakeholders, hardware items of interest to the user community were identified and converted into capabilities (e.g., centrifugation, microscope, pressure chamber, etc.). In parallel, resources needed to operate the research equipment (e.g., crew time, number of experiments, volume, etc.) were estimated in order for the CLD providers to better understand NASA’s potential future service requirements. The capabilities and the resources included in this White Paper do not represent NASA requirements. Instead, they constitute a preliminary set of potential capability and resource needs collated to guide CLD providers in appropriately sizing and outfitting their CLD designs. NASA is requesting feedback from industry on how these capabilities and resources align with their own needs as well as those of their non-NASA customers. Information on how the capabilities/resources impact the CLD designs is also requested. After assessing industry’s feedback to this white paper, NASA plans to issue a preliminary set of requirements for review.

International Space Station↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRS2024

Trade Space Analyses: Balancing Crew and Mission Design Parameters

In 2020, the Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations and the Agency’s Federated Board requested an assessment to develop a methodology for trade space analysis comparing crew size for Mars missions against mission design parameters. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conducted an assessment to develop a methodology for systematic, repeatable trade space analysis for crew size and developed an initial set of human performance models and a list of candidate crew tasks for NASA’s first mission to Mars. This report contains the results of the NESC assessment.

Humans to Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Viability of Small Dimension Crew Quarters for Surface Habitation

During early planning for the Artemis program’s sustained phase of lunar activity, NASA planners have been held to work towards a NASA reference lunar lander concept. With this activity taking place prior to the awarding of a lander contract, NASA planners cannot assume which of several potential landers will be available. This has limited habitation team engineers to a 12-metric ton mass limit for the reference concept of the lunar Surface Habitat. Consequently, minimal approaches have been applied to many habitat systems and it is important to determine acceptable volume for crew quarters. A number of both NASA and non-NASA surface habitat concepts have proposed relatively small crew quarters due to this constraint. Consequently, there is a need to collect objective test data to confirm or refute the validity of small crew quarters. NASA-STD-3001 is looked to for guidance in its many standards but offers little to no help. While prior versions called for private habitation, the current version – Revision B – calls for “individual privacy” to “accommodate social retreat.” Proposed Revision C modifications change the language slightly to “accommodate sleep and social retreat.” This is not enough guidance to determine the size of a crew quarters or even its capabilities. Unfortunately, only a small number of US spacecraft have included crew quarters, primarily the International Space Station and the Skylab Space Station. The space shuttle orbiter sometimes flew a set of private bunks that some might consider a crew quarters. All of these are dramatically smaller than US standards for minimum jail cells. The first opportunity for NASA to test a small crew quarters in a surface habitat application has been created through the Exploration Atmospheres test series, which is evaluating human performance under reduced cabin pressures. The test is converting the 20-Foot Vacuum Chamber at Johnson Space Center into a habitat, with the lower level outfitted as an EVA test area and the upper two levels for human habitation. The test will place eight people (six test subjects and two technicians) inside the chamber for eleven days. All eight will sleep in private quarters during the test. Volume limitations in the chamber forced extremely small crew quarters, measuring approximately 2 meters in length, 0.85 meters in height, and 0.9 meters in width. The test cabin pressure of 8.2 psi and elevated oxygen also introduces significant material limitations, limiting outfitting options. Nonetheless, the crew quarters design requirements were to accommodate visual separation, auditory separation, olfactory separation, tactile separation, air flow control, lighting control, single person personal computing, physical work surface access, sleep accommodations, non-sleep rest/relaxation, meditation, stretching, two-person meetings, snacking, changing clothes, viewing appearance, video communication, and audio communication. This paper will detail the acceptability of the crew quarters as measured in the October 2021 Exploration Atmosphere test. Based on this data, the viability of the type of crew quarters used in the 20 Foot Chamber will be assessed. Design recommendations for a 30-60-day Surface Habitat crew quarters will be provided, along with recommendations for future testing.

Crew Quarters↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Humans to Mars, but How Many? Using Imprint Human Performance Models to Inform Crew Size

HUMANS TO MARS, BUT HOW MANY? USING IMPRINT HUMAN PERFORMANCE MODELS TO INFORM CREW SIZE Missions to Mars will differ from previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner due to long communication delays. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, that crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise of the Mission Control Central (MCC) team NASA currently relies upon. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is developing a methodology for assessing the trade space of factors that affect the number of crew for future missions. This methodology includes the consideration of results from three human performance models developed using the Improved Performance Research and Integration Tool (IMPRINT) modeling platform as well as a custom-built model on expertise trained within the crew. The custom-built crew expertise model results will be presented in the training sub-tag. Here we present results of the three IMPRINT models. Two of these models were built using IMPRINT’s Operations Model capability, with detailed task networks for specific systems and scenarios allowing for a comprehensive mental workload analysis on certain crew positions. The third model was built using IMPRINT’s Force Model capability, allowing for a higher-level manpower analysis based on crew engagement in activities performed over a longer Mars transit scenario, and how those activities may be impacted by unplanned events and new tasking unique to the Mars mission. Differences between the models will be presented, as well as examples of model results and a discussion of how those results may inform future Mars mission manpower requirements, system design, and operating procedures.

Donna L Dempsey↗
NASA NTRS2025

Humans to Mars, but How Many? Trade Space Analyses for Mars Mission Crew Size

Missions to Mars will differ from previous human spaceflight missions in that the crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner due to the long communication delays. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, that crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise of the Mission Control Central (MCC) team NASA currently relies upon. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) developed a methodology for assessing the trade space of factors that affect the number of crew for Mars missions based on human performance and expertise modeling. This methodology includes the consideration of results from three human performance models developed using the Improved Performance Research and Integration Tool (IMPRINT) modeling platform as well as a custom-built model on expertise trained within the crew based on NASA’s crew qualification and responsibilities matrix (CQRM). We present example model results and discuss implications on trade space analyses for Mars mission crew size.

Mars Mission↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Humans to Mars, but How Many? Using Training Requirements Modeling to Inform Crew Size

Missions to Mars will differ from previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner due to the long communication delays. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, that crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise of the Mission Control Central (MCC) team NASA currently relies upon. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is developing a methodology for assessing the trade space of factors that affect the number of crew for future missions. This methodology includes the consideration of results from three human performance models developed using the Improved Performance Research and Integration Tool (IMPRINT) modeling platform as well as a custom-built model on expertise trained within the crew. The IMPRINT results will be presented in the modeling and simulation sub-tag. Here we present results of a model based on NASA’s crew qualification and responsibility matrix (CQRM), a tool used to identify the crew qualifications for each area of responsibility (operation, system, and payload) for a mission. The model outputs an optimized allocation of training assignments along with a flight-assigned CQRM that can be used to consider the expertise that can be trained within a crew of a given size. We discuss the CQRM model result implications on the trade space for Mars mission crew size.

Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Humans to Mars, but How Many? Using Training Requirements Modeling to Inform Crew Size

Missions to Mars will differ from previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner due to the long communication delays. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, that crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise of the Mission Control Central (MCC) team NASA currently relies upon. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is developing a methodology for assessing the trade space of factors that affect the number of crew for future missions. This methodology includes the consideration of results from three human performance models developed using the Improved Performance Research and Integration Tool (IMPRINT) modeling platform as well as a custom-built model on expertise trained within the crew. The IMPRINT results will be presented in the modeling and simulation sub-tag. Here we present results of a model based on NASA’s crew qualification and responsibility matrix (CQRM), a tool used to identify the crew qualifications for each area of responsibility (operation, system, and payload) for a mission. The model outputs an optimized allocation of training assignments along with a flight-assigned CQRM that can be used to consider the expertise that can be trained within a crew of a given size. We discuss the CQRM model result implications on the trade space for Mars mission crew size.

Mars↗
NASA NTRS2018

Meal Replacement Mass Reduction Integration and Acceptability Study

The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and future exploration missions are mass constrained; therefore we are challenged to reduce the mass of the food system by 10% while maintaining safety, nutrition, and acceptability to support crew health and performance for exploration missions. Meal replacement with nutritionally balanced, 700-900 calorie bars was identified as a method to reduce mass. However, commercially available products do not meet the requirements for a meal replacement in the spaceflight food system. The purpose of this task was to develop a variety of nutritionally balanced, high quality, breakfast replacement bars, which enable a 10% food mass savings. To date, six nutrient-dense meal replacement bars have been developed, all of which meet spaceflight nutritional, microbiological, sensory, and shelf-life requirements. The four highest scoring bars were evaluated based on final product sensory acceptability, nutritional stability, qualitative stability of analytical measurements (i.e. color and texture), and microbiological compliance over a period of two years to predict long-term acceptability. All bars maintained overall acceptability throughout the first year of storage, despite minor changes in color and texture. However, added vitamins C, B1, and B9 degraded rapidly in fortified samples of Banana Nut bars, indicating the need for additional development. In addition to shelf-life testing, four bar varieties were evaluated in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA), campaign 3, to assess the frequency with which actual meal replacement options may be implemented, based on impact to satiety and psychosocial measurements. Crewmembers (n=16) were asked to consume meal replacement bars every day for the first fifteen days of the mission and every three days for the second half of the mission. Daily surveys assessed the crew's responses to bar acceptability, mood, food fatigue and perceived stress. Preliminary results indicate that the majority of crew members were noncompliant with daily meal replacement during the first half of the mission. Several crew members chose to forgo the meal, resulting in caloric deficits that were higher on skipped-bar days. Body mass loss was significant throughout the mission. Although there was no significant difference in body mass loss overall between the first half and second half of the mission, a higher number of individual crew members lost more body mass in the first half of the mission. Analysis is still ongoing, but current trends suggest that daily involuntary meal replacement can lead to greater individual impacts on body mass and psychological factors, while meal replacement on a more limited basis may be acceptable to most crew for missions up to 30 days. This data should be considered in Orion mass trades with health and human performance.

Sirmons, T.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The System Modeling and Analysis of Resiliency in STEReO (SMARt-STEReO)

Wildfire emergency response has remained rooted in relatively low-tech solutions for coordination between ground and aerial assets. These low-tech solutions are robust for the remote environments in which wildfires are usually fought, but limit strategic cross-organizational support and the ability to deploy and effectively utilize aerial assets. As aircraft become more advanced and new technology, including drones, become available to firefighters, a new, more modern method of asset coordination is needed. NASA is working on a project called ‘Scalable Traffic Management for Emergency Response Operations’ (STEReO) to integrate unmanned aerial systems (UAS)and UAS traffic management (UTM)into wildfire response. STEReO’s goals include simplifying the coordination of aerial assets, improving the existing UAS framework, and increasing the role of additional autonomous systems to reduce human risk and to increase system resilience. This paper describes the development of the ‘System Modeling and Analysis of Resiliency in STEReO’ (SMARt-STEReO) project, which aims to model wildfire response and to quantify the additional system resilience that STEReO technology provides firefighters. This paper verifies SMARt-STEReO and defines its scope; it includes experimental and statistical analysis of the impact that the addition of UAS has on both performance metrics and also on performance resiliency response to a given fault. SMARt-STEReO is a grid-based model of fire propagation that incorporates varying crew responses. Through the use of a Python package called ‘fmdtools’, the model easily allows for the addition of faults to the system. These faults allow analysts to investigate various response parameters. Factors including terrain, fuel type and wind speed can be modified to affect the fire propagation; additionally, the number of ground crews, engines, fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, and UAS can be changed to affect the crew response. The communication lines between actors mimic those used in real life situations. This paper explains the development of SMARt-STEReO including background research, verification and validation, and preliminary experimental analysis of system resilience to both a minor and major fault in systems with and without UAS.

Resiliency↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Autonomy Through Self-Scheduling: Operational Characterization

NASA’s future long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs) will encounter increasing communication transmission delays as they move farther from Earth-based ground stations. This necessitates a new approach, as crews can no longer rely on real-time support from ground planners and must self-schedule their own operational timelines effectively and efficiently. To enable this transition, our team has developed Playbook, a mission planning and scheduling tool. Our research focuses on quantifying scheduling performance using Playbook to inform the design and development of future features to streamline timeline creation. We also aim to propose standards and guidelines for autonomous crews in LDEMs. In the past year, we have focused on further validating and quantifying the effects of countermeasure aids on self-scheduling performance. There are two software aids in Playbook (self-scheduling platform): Suggested Fixes, which propose an edit to resolve violations within a timeline, and No-Go Zones, which highlight where activities should not be scheduled on a timeline. We have made significant progress in HERA Campaign 7 (C7) data collection, increasing the number of days crew must self-schedule from 4 to 8. As a result, almost 20% of the mission is self-scheduled by the analog astronauts. We have also started data collection on a controlled lab experiment designed to quantify performance effects due to the countermeasures. We expect to present the preliminary results from both efforts. Finally, we have conducted an exploratory analysis of NASA’s HERA Campaign 6 (C6), investigating the mission-level impacts of self-scheduling. We derived basic patterns and descriptive statistics to better characterize crew autonomy through self-scheduling. We also assessed if there are any individual indicators of preference for self-scheduling, such as experience or predilection for autonomy. Preliminary analysis indicates that the HERA C6 crew self-scheduled one out of four flexible activities, indicating unprompted adoption of self-scheduling as a concept of operation for crew autonomy.

analog↗
NASA NTRS1972

Cybernetic integration of experiments into the CVT system

The research to develop a cybernetic model which is a static aggregate of the existing interaction in the CVT is reported. The experiments involving man considered necessary for cybernetic integration are listed. Topics discussed include: the modeling dynamic interactions for two competing systems; aspects of man-man integration in the CVT; and establishment of optimum number of research crew for the CVT.

Helvey, T. C.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Earth orbital operations supporting manned interplanetary missions

The orbital operations required to accumulate, assemble, test, verify, maintain, and launch complex manned space systems on interplanetary missions from earth orbit are as vital as the flight hardware itself. Vast numbers of orbital crew are neither necessary nor desirable for accomplishing the required tasks. A suite of robotic techniques under human supervisory control, relying on sensors, software and manipulators either currently emergent or already applied in terrestrial settings, can make the job tractable. The mission vehicle becomes largely self-assembling, using its own rigid aerobrake as a work platform. The Space Station, having been used as a laboratory testbed and to house an assembly crew of four, is not dominated by the process. A feasible development schedule, if begun soon, could emplace orbital support technologies for exploration missions in time for a 2004 first interplanetary launch.

Sherwood, Brent↗
NASA NTRS1991

The automatic human

An overview is presented of the growth and role of automation in civil aircraft operations for both cockpit management and ground control. NASA has initiated a research program centered on furthering automation and developing a consistent and rational philosophy of human centered aircraft and air traffic control automation. Introduction of the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) has proved successful in bringing together pilots and ground controllers to report incidents of operational anomalies that can then be analyzed, leading to corrective action to prevent similar reoccurrences. Attention is given to the growing trend of extensive automation in the cockpit that appears to be leading to a diminution of management control of the aircraft by the decreasing number of flight crew members. A majority of reports indicate that there is a serious mismatch between new aircraft capabilities and ATC procedures, which were designed for older aircraft. ASRS has also kept research oriented toward real problems and community needs.

Billings, Charles↗
NASA NTRS1991

A decade on board America's Space Shuttle

Spectacular moments from a decade (1981-1991) of Space Shuttle missions, captured on film by the astronauts who flew the missions, are presented. First hand accounts of astronauts' experiences aboard the Shuttle are given. A Space Shuttle mission chronology featuring flight number, vehicle name, crew, launch and landing dates, and mission highlights is given in tabular form.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1992

Experimental evaluation of candidate graphical microburst alert displays

A piloted flight simulator experiment was conducted to evaluate issues related to the display of microburst alerts on electronic cockpit instrumentation. Issues addressed include display clarity, usefulness of multilevel microburst intensity information, and whether information from multiple sensors should be presented separately or 'fused' into combined alerts. Nine active airline pilots of 'glass cockpit' aircraft participated in the study. Microburst alerts presented on a moving map display were found to be visually clear and useful to pilots. Also, multilevel intensity information coded by colors or patterns was found to be important for decision making purposes. Pilot opinion was mixed on whether to 'fuse' data from multiple sensors, and some resulting design tradeoffs were identified. The positional information included in the graphical alert presentation was found useful by the pilots for planning lateral missed approach maneuvers, but may result in deviations which could interfere with normal airport operations. A number of flight crew training issues were also identified.

Wanke, Craig R.↗