SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human operator support”

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 55 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Detection and Mitigation of Human Factor Errors in Nuclear Power Plants: A Review

Human factors and ergonomics have played an essential role in increasing the safety and performance of operators in the nuclear energy industry. In this critical review, we examine how artificial intelligence (AI) technologies can be leveraged to mitigate human errors, thereby improving the safety and performance of operators in nuclear power plants (NPPs). First, we discuss the various causes of human errors in NPPs. Next, we examine the ways in which AI has been introduced to and incorporated into different types of operator support systems to mitigate these human errors. We specifically examine (1) operator support systems, including decision support systems, (2) sensor fault detection systems, (3) operation validation systems, (4) operator monitoring systems, (5) autonomous control systems, (6) predictive maintenance systems, (7) automated text analysis systems, and (8) safety assessment systems. Finally, we provide some of the shortcomings of the existing AI technologies and discuss the challenges still ahead for their further adoption and implementation to provide future research directions.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

NASA NTRS2010

A Technique for the Assessment of Flight Operability Characteristics of Human Rated Spacecraft

In support of new human rated spacecraft development programs, the Mission Operations Directorate at NASA Johnson Space Center has implemented a formal method for the assessment of spacecraft operability. This "Spacecraft Flight Operability Assessment Scale" defines six key themes of flight operability, with guiding principles and goals stated for each factor. A standardized rating technique provides feedback that is useful to the operations, design and program management communities. Applicability of this concept across the program structure and life cycle is addressed. Examples of operationally desirable and undesirable spacecraft design characteristics are provided, as is a sample of the assessment scale product.

Crocker, Alan↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA Human Health and Performance Strategy

In May 2007, what was then the Space Life Sciences Directorate, issued the 2007 Space Life Sciences Strategy for Human Space Exploration. In January 2012, leadership and key directorate personnel were once again brought together to assess the current and expected future environment against its 2007 Strategy and the Agency and Johnson Space Center goals and strategies. The result was a refined vision and mission, and revised goals, objectives, and strategies. One of the first changes implemented was to rename the directorate from Space Life Sciences to Human Health and Performance to better reflect our vision and mission. The most significant change in the directorate from 2007 to the present is the integration of the Human Research Program and Crew Health and Safety activities. Subsequently, the Human Health and Performance Directorate underwent a reorganization to achieve enhanced integration of research and development with operations to better support human spaceflight and International Space Station utilization. These changes also enable a more effective and efficient approach to human system risk mitigation. Since 2007, we have also made significant advances in external collaboration and implementation of new business models within the directorate and the Agency, and through two newly established virtual centers, the NASA Human Health and Performance Center and the Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation. Our 2012 Strategy builds upon these successes to address the Agency s increased emphasis on societal relevance and being a leader in research and development and innovative business and communications practices. The 2012 Human Health and Performance Vision is to lead the world in human health and performance innovations for life in space and on Earth. Our mission is to enable optimization of human health and performance throughout all phases of spaceflight. All HHPD functions are ultimately aimed at achieving this mission. Our activities enable mission success, optimizing human health and productivity in space before, during, and after the actual spaceflight experience of our crews, and include support for ground-based functions. Many of our spaceflight innovations also provide solutions for terrestrial challenges, thereby enhancing life on Earth. Our strategic goals are aimed at leading human exploration and ISS utilization, leading human health and performance internationally, excelling in management and advancement of innovations in health and human system integration, and expanding relevance to life on Earth and creating enduring support and enthusiasm for space exploration.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA Human Health and Performance Strategy

In May 2007, what was then the Space Life Sciences Directorate, issued the 2007 Space Life Sciences Strategy for Human Space Exploration. In January 2012, leadership and key directorate personnel were once again brought together to assess the current and expected future environment against its 2007 Strategy and the Agency and Johnson Space Center goals and strategies. The result was a refined vision and mission, and revised goals, objectives, and strategies. One of the first changes implemented was to rename the directorate from Space Life Sciences to Human Health and Performance to better reflect our vision and mission. The most significant change in the directorate from 2007 to the present is the integration of the Human Research Program and Crew Health and Safety activities. Subsequently, the Human Health and Performance Directorate underwent a reorganization to achieve enhanced integration of research and development with operations to better support human spaceflight and International Space Station utilization. These changes also enable a more effective and efficient approach to human system risk mitigation. Since 2007, we have also made significant advances in external collaboration and implementation of new business models within the directorate and the Agency, and through two newly established virtual centers, the NASA Human Health and Performance Center and the Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation. Our 2012 Strategy builds upon these successes to address the Agency's increased emphasis on societal relevance and being a leader in research and development and innovative business and communications practices. The 2012 Human Health and Performance Vision is to lead the world in human health and performance innovations for life in space and on Earth. Our mission is to enable optimization of human health and performance throughout all phases of spaceflight. All HH&P functions are ultimately aimed at achieving this mission. Our activities enable mission success, optimizing human health and productivity in space before, during, and after the actual spaceflight experience of our crews, and include support for ground-‐ based functions. Many of our spaceflight innovations also provide solutions for terrestrial challenges, thereby enhancing life on Earth. Our strategic goals are aimed at leading human exploration and ISS utilization, leading human health and performance internationally, excelling in management and advancement of innovations in health and human system integration, and expanding relevance to life on Earth and creating enduring support and enthusiasm for space exploration.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗

NASA NTRS2024

Assessments of Physiology and Cognition in Hybrid-Reality Environments (APACHE) – A VR “Sandbox” for Planetary Spacewalk Research

Human Performance↗

NASA NTRS1999

Human Engineering Operations and Habitability Assessment: A Process for Advanced Life Support Ground Facility Testbeds

Design and Human Engineering (HE) processes strive to ensure that the human-machine interface is designed for optimal performance throughout the system life cycle. Each component can be tested and assessed independently to assure optimal performance, but it is not until full integration that the system and the inherent interactions between the system components can be assessed as a whole. HE processes (which are defining/app lying requirements for human interaction with missions/systems) are included in space flight activities, but also need to be included in ground activities and specifically, ground facility testbeds such as Bio-Plex. A unique aspect of the Bio-Plex Facility is the integral issue of Habitability which includes qualities of the environment that allow humans to work and live. HE is a process by which Habitability and system performance can be assessed.

Connolly, Janis H.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessments of Physiology and Cognition in Hybrid-Reality Environments (APACHE)

NASA is planning to return to the Moon in the mid-2020s as a stepping stone to Mars missions in the 2030s. Spacewalks, or extravehicular activities (EVAs), performed on the Moon and Mars will differ in a variety of ways from those that have been performed in decades past. NASA has identified multiple risks to human health and performance associated with a crewed mission to Mars, especially those associated with exploration EVAs which are expected to be a primary mission activity. Crew may be expected to conduct up to 24 hours of EVA per person per week, where the likelihood of injury and/or mental mistakes are increased compared to ground-based training or current microgravity EVAs and the consequences of which can be catastrophic. Current test environments for exploration EVA research and technology development are large, costly facilities that are limited in their availability or capabilities. Spacesuit testing in a reduced gravity environment such as NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, while a good representation of the crew’s physical workload during exploration EVAs, typically has small datasets and is difficult to integrate physiological sensors or other types of crew performance measures. Meanwhile, scientific field-based testing such as NASA’s Desert Research and Technology Studies offers an operationally relevant environment for exploration EVAs, particularly for cognitive workload, but is also limited by small datasets, lack of a pressurized spacesuit, and obtrusive measures. The limitations of current analogs for exploration EVAs identify a need for a new test environment that can approximate both the physical and cognitive demands associated with exploration EVAs to enable rapid, controlled, and repeatable evaluations of human health and performance risks of exploration missions. In response, the Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations Laboratory (H-3PO) at NASA Johnson Space Center has developed a hybrid reality exploration EVA analog named the Assessments of Physiology And Cognition in Hybrid-reality Environments (APACHE) to address these limitations using a combination of virtual, physical, and hybrid reality techniques. The APACHE facility resides at NASA Johnson Space Center and serves as a large “sandbox” for EVA research and simulation. At its center is a roughly 15x20ft space surrounded by a 14” tall sandbox partially filled with lunar regolith simulant to emulate the physical feeling of walking on a planetary surface and to allow for simulated geology operations. Nearby, a curved passive treadmill (Skillmill Connect, Technogym, Fairfield, NJ) and an omnidirectional treadmill (Infinadeck, Infinadeck, Rocklin, CA) are included to enable exploration of these large virtual environments while also imposing the physical demands, representative timelines, and cognitive burdens required to navigate and traverse these distances during exploration EVA. A 6DOF motion platform is used to simulate rover operations and supports various human performance evaluations and associated risks. Lastly, APACHE can support two extravehicular (EV) crewmembers working in tandem. A computer workstation is located nearby and also supports an intravehicular (IV) crewmember as part of a full mission simulation. The IV crewmember has direct video and audio communication with the EV crew in VR to provide operational and procedural support. The software used in APACHE was created by the JSC Engineering Directorate, in partnership with Buendea, powered by a custom Unreal Engine 5 (UE5.3, Epic Games) project. APACHE currently utilizes the HTC Vive Pro Eye in a wireless configuration for VR simulations. There are two virtual environments that subjects can explore within APACHE, a Lunar and Martian surface. The virtual Lunar surface was created from LIDAR data of the Lunar South Pole to create roughly 16 sq km of explorable terrain. The virtual Martian surface contains roughly 400 sq km of explorable terrain derived from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter LIDAR data of the Jezero Crater. The immersion and related cognitive burdens of conducting a planetary EVA is simulated through a series of EVA-relevant tasks performed in the VR environment, using these high-fidelity visual representations. Additionally, APACHE includes biosensor driven informatics, such as real-time heart rate monitoring and/or derived values from model simulations, for active monitoring by the EV crew and added cognitive demand. A “Wizard of Oz” control panel enables test operators to activate contingency events such as simulated spacesuit malfunctions, loss of communications, and/or limited visibility. Embedded performance measures such as accuracy, completeness, and execution time have been developed for various exploration tasks to objectively quantify crew performance during an EVA and compare impacts to performance when different environmental stressors, both physical and cognitive, are added to or removed from the simulation. Additionally, validated cognitive and operational performance measures such as the Digit Symbol Substitution Task have been recreated and embedded in VR for direct and relatively unobtrusive measurement of motor perception. The APACHE environment currently supports multiple research studies at NASA. Examples include the CHAPEA project, a series of simulated year-long missions on Mars by a 4-person crew; and the CO2 Contingency Walk Back Study, an investigation of elevated CO2 exposure on crew performance during a contingency EVA scenario. APACHE also provides a test environment to support the development of the Crew State and Risk Model, which is a collection of individualized, mathematical models of crew physical and cognitive state; and the Personalized EVA Informatics and Decision Support system, an operational tool for flight controllers, and eventually a self-reliant Martian crew, to make biomedically-informed decisions in real-time to optimize the EVA planning and execution with respect to crew health and performance. Some technical challenges associated with developing the APACHE environment, as well as current limitations, include VR limitless natural walking with a hybrid spacesuit simulator, optimizing performance for wireless PC VR streaming while maintaining a high degree of visual fidelity, and the integration of various physiological (metabolic masks) and psychometric (eye tracking) sensors with the VR headset.

Human Performance↗

NASA NTRS2014

Exploration Technologies for Operations

Although the International Space Station (ISS) assembly has been completed, the Operations support teams continue to seek more efficient and effective ways to prepare for and conduct the ISS operations and future exploration missions beyond low earth orbit. This search for improvement has led to a significant collaboration between the NASA research and advanced software development community at NASA Ames Research Center and the Mission Operations community at NASA Johnson Space Center. Since 2001, NASA Ames Research Center has been developing and applying its advanced intelligent systems and human systems integration research to mission operations tools for several of the unmanned Mars missions operations. Since 2006, NASA Ames Research Center has also been developing and applying its advanced intelligent systems and human systems integration research to mission operations tools for manned operations support with the Mission Operations Directorate at NASA Johnson Space Center. This paper discusses the completion of the development and deployment of a variety of intelligent and human systems technologies adopted for manned mission operations. The technologies associated with the projects include advanced software systems for operations and human-centered computing. Human-centered computing looks to the processes and procedures that people do to perform any given job, then attempts to identify opportunities to improve these processes and procedures. In particular, for mission operations, improvements are quantified by specifically identifying how a tool can increase a persons efficiency, enhance a persons functional capability, andor improve the assurance of a persons decisions. The Ames development team has collaborated with the Mission Operations team to identify areas of efficiencies through technology infusion applications in support of the Plan, Train, and Fly activities of human-spaceflight mission operations. The specific applications discussed in this paper are in the areas of mission planning systems, mission operations design modeling and workflow automation, advanced systems monitoring, mission control technologies, search tools, training management tools, spacecraft solar array management, spacecraft power management, and spacecraft attitude planning. We discuss these specific projects between the Ames Research Center and the Johnson Space Centers Mission Operations Directorate, and how these technologies and projects are enhancing the mission operations support for the International Space Station. We also discuss the challenges, problems, and successes associated with long-distance and multi-year development projects between the research team at Ames and the Mission Operations customers at Johnson Space center. Finally, we discuss how these technology infusion applications and underlying technologies might be used in the future to support on-board operations of the crew and spacecraft systems as human exploration expands beyond low earth orbit to destinations in the solar system where communications delays will require more on-board autonomy and planning by the crew. Longer communications delays will require that the ground mission operations support will be primarily strategic in nature, while the tactical level of planning, systems monitoring and control, and failure analysisisolationrecovery will be the responsibility of both the spacecraft autonomous systems and the crew. Our expectation is that the technologies

mission operations↗

NASA NTRS2005

How Can The Past Influence the Future? Industrial and Human Engineering for Spacecraft Design, Maintainability, and Operational Support

No abstract available

Ewald, Jeffrey R.↗

NASA NTRS2003

A Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) of Human Space Missions for the Advanced Integration Matrix (AIM)

The Advanced Integration Matrix (AIM) Project u7ill study and solve systems-level integration issues for exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), through the design and development of a ground-based facility for developing revolutionary integrated systems for joint human-robotic missions. This paper describes a Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) of human space missions that was developed to help define the direction and priorities for AIM. Risk analysis is required for all major NASA programs and has been used for shuttle, station, and Mars lander programs. It is a prescribed part of early planning and is necessary during concept definition, even before mission scenarios and system designs exist. PRA cm begin when little failure data are available, and be continually updated and refined as detail becomes available. PRA provides a basis for examining tradeoffs among safety, reliability, performance, and cost. The objective of AIM's PRA is to indicate how risk can be managed and future human space missions enabled by the AIM Project. Many critical events can cause injuries and fatalities to the crew without causing loss of vehicle or mission. Some critical systems are beyond AIM's scope, such as propulsion and guidance. Many failure-causing events can be mitigated by conducting operational tests in AIM, such as testing equipment and evaluating operational procedures, especially in the areas of communications and computers, autonomous operations, life support, thermal design, EVA and rover activities, physiological factors including habitation, medical equipment, and food, and multifunctional tools and repairable systems. AIM is well suited to test and demonstrate the habitat, life support, crew operations, and human interface. Because these account for significant crew, systems performance, and science risks, AIM will help reduce mission risk, and missions beyond LEO are far enough in the future that AIM can have significant impact.

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRS2007

A Return to Innovative Engineering Design, Critical Thinking and Systems Engineering

I believe we are facing a critical time where innovative engineering design is of paramount importance to the success of our aerospace industry. However, the very qualities and attributes necessary for enhancing, educating, and mentoring a creative spirit are in decline in important areas. The importance of creativity and innovation in this country was emphasized by a special edition of the Harvard Business Review OnPoint entitled: "The Creative Company" which compiled a series of past and present articles on the subject of creativity and innovation and stressed its importance to our national economy. There is also a recognition of a lack of engineering, critical thinking and problem-solving skills in our education systems and a trend toward trying to enhance those skills by developing K-12 educational programs such as Project Lead the Way, "Science for All Americans", Benchmarks 2061 , etc. In addition, with respect to spacecraft development, we have a growing need for young to mid-level engineers with appropriate experience and skills in spacecraft design, development, analysis, testing, and systems engineering. As the Director of Engineering at NASA's Johnson Space Center, I realized that sustaining engineering support of an operational human spacecraft such as the Space Shuttle is decidedly different than engineering design and development skills necessary for designing a new spacecraft such as the Crew Exploration Vehicle of the Constellation Program. We learned a very important lesson post Columbia in that the Space Shuttle is truly an experimental and not an operational vehicle and the strict adherence to developed rules and processes and chains of command of an inherently bureaucratic organizational structure will not protect us from a host of known unknowns let alone unknown unknowns. There are no strict rules, processes, or procedures for understanding anomalous results of an experiment, anomalies with an experimental spacecraft like Shuttle, or in the conceptual design of a spacecraft. Engineering design is as much an art as it is a science. The critical thinking skills necessary to uncover lurking problems in an experimental design and creatively develop solutions are some of the same skills necessary to design a new spacecraft. Thus, I believe engineers unfamiliar with or removed from design and development need time to transition and develop the required skill set to be effective spacecraft designers. I believe the creative process necessary in design can be enhanced and even taught as early as grades K-12 and should continue to be nurtured and developed at the university level and beyond. I am going to present a strategy for developing learning teams to address complex multidisciplinary problems and to creatively develop solutions to those problems rapidly at minimal cost. I will frame a real problem, the development of on-orbit thermal protection system repair of the Space Shuttle, and step through the series of skills necessary to enhance the creative process. The case study I will illustrate is based on a real project, the R&D Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) Repair Team's development of on-orbit repair concepts for damaged Space Shuttle RCC nose cap and/or leading edges.

Camarda, Charles J.↗

NASA NTRS2008

The Ares Projects: Progress Toward Exploration

Ares Projects are making great strides toward building a new generation of launch vehicles. Support ISS operations and human exploration of Moon and other destinations. Ares I-X flight test in 2009. Additional testing and development work is in progress. Ares launch vehicles continue on schedule to fulfill this strategic capability for the future. Capabilities will develop in environment of increasing challenges. NASA transitioning from performing space operations to expanding the Nation's frontiers.

Sumrall, Phil↗

NASA NTRS2012

Effective Utilization of Resources and Infrastructure for a Spaceport Network Architecture

Providing routine, affordable access to a variety of orbital and deep space destinations requires an intricate network of ground, planetary surface, and space-based spaceports like those on Earth (land and sea), in various Earth orbits, and on other extraterrestrial surfaces. Advancements in technology and international collaboration are critical to establish a spaceport network that satisfies the requirements for private and government research, exploration, and commercial objectives. Technologies, interfaces, assembly techniques, and protocols must be adapted to enable mission critical capabilities and interoperability throughout the spaceport network. The conceptual space mission architecture must address the full range of required spaceport services, from managing propellants for a variety of spacecraft to governance structure. In order to accomplish affordability and sustainability goals, the network architecture must consider deriving propellants from in situ planetary resources to the maximum extent possible. Water on the Moon and Mars, Mars' atmospheric CO2, and O2 extracted from lunar regolith are examples of in situ resources that could be used to generate propellants for various spacecraft, orbital stages and trajectories, and the commodities to support habitation and human operations at these destinations. The ability to use in-space fuel depots containing in situ derived propellants would drastically reduce the mass required to launch long-duration or deep space missions from Earth's gravity well. Advances in transformative technologies and common capabilities, interfaces, umbilicals, commodities, protocols, and agreements will facilitate a cost-effective, safe, reliable infrastructure for a versatile network of Earth- and extraterrestrial spaceports. Defining a common infrastructure on Earth, planetary surfaces, and in space, as well as deriving propellants from in situ planetary resources to construct in-space propellant depots to serve the spaceport network, will reduce exploration costs due to standardization of infrastructure commonality and reduction in number and types of interfaces and commodities.

Gill, Tracy↗

NASA NTRS2014

A Multifaceted Approach to Modernizing NASA's Advanced Multi-Mission Operations System (AMMOS) System Architecture

The Advanced Multi-Mission Operations Systems (AMMOS) is NASA's premier space mission operations product line offering for use in deep-space robotic and astrophysics missions. The general approach to AMMOS modernization over the course of its 29-year history exemplifies a continual, evolutionary approach with periods of sponsor investment peaks and valleys in between. Today, the Multimission Ground Systems and Services (MGSS) office-the program office that manages the AMMOS for NASA-actively pursues modernization initiatives and continues to evolve the AMMOS by incorporating enhanced capabilities and newer technologies into its end-user tool and service offerings. Despite the myriad of modernization investments that have been made over the evolutionary course of the AMMOS, pain points remain. These pain points, based on interviews with numerous flight project mission operations personnel, can be classified principally into two major categories: 1) information-related issues, and 2) process-related issues. By information-related issues, we mean pain points associated with the management and flow of MOS data across the various system interfaces. By process-related issues, we mean pain points associated with the MOS activities performed by mission operators (i.e., humans) and supporting software infrastructure used in support of those activities. In this paper, three foundational concepts-Timeline, Closed Loop Control, and Separation of Concerns-collectively form the basis for expressing a set of core architectural tenets that provides a multifaceted approach to AMMOS system architecture modernization intended to address the information- and process-related issues. Each of these architectural tenets will be further explored in this paper. Ultimately, we envision the application of these core tenets resulting in a unified vision of a future-state architecture for the AMMOS-one that is intended to result in a highly adaptable, highly efficient, and highly cost-effective set of multimission MOS products and services.

Estefan, Jeff A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Real-Time Science Decisioning During High Tempo-High Intensity Mission Operations and the Role of Analogs

Introduction: NASA’s VIPER mission presents a unique operational paradigm within the history of robotic spaceflight. The proximity of the Moon to the Earth and the terrain elements (surface characteristics, light/shadow dynamics, communication links) of the lunar South Polar landing site create unprecedented operational conditions between these two planetary bodies. Apollo era lunar science and exploration included humans in situ to operate instruments and assimilate observational inputs in real-time. Previous lunar orbital missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges, that were weeks in length. Mars rover missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges between Mars and Earth, that were hours, days, and weeks in length. In the case of the VIPER mission, our operational decisioning for rover driving and instrument commanding will be compressed to minute-scale timeframes. These operational conditions directly impact the manner and speed with which the VIPER Science Team (VST) is required to synthesize and analyze data and produce timely science-driven decisions throughout surface mission operations. The VST shall provide mission enhancing scientific input to guide rover traverse planning and drill site confirmation and selection throughout surface operations. Further, the VST input will be of vital importance to the mission’s ability to maximize science return and to meet broader NASA objectives for future lunar in-situ resource utilization (ISRU)and exploration activities. The VST co-located in the Mission Science Center (MSC) will be responsive to the tactical operational cadence of the Mission Operations Center (MOC) and will provide further strategic and Long-Term Planning (LTP) guidance to the mission. The VIPER Science Operations & Integration(SO&I)team has developed an architecture that is focused on the infusion of science-decisioning into the operational framework and execution cadence of VIPER. NASA analog research has played a significant role in the construction of the VIPER science operations systems. As an example, the SO&I team has led analog missions that have focused on bringing together expertise in the sciences (natural, applied and social) and in operations in service of learning how to build and hold together interdisciplinary work environments and what tools are needed to support high tempo, high intensity integrated decisioning. These experiences have provided an essential foundation of knowledge to the VIPER team. Those analogs that specifically influenced the VIPER science operations construct were identified through a process of comparative analysis to prioritize those that offered relevance in whole or in part, and those that did not. The analog research output that provided extensibility to the VIPER science operations architecture included remote teams of humans and robots in cooperation (synchronous and asynchronous) with simulated earthbound systems, engineering and science teams, and the integrated assembly of tools that supported scientific analysis and data synthesis and provided infrastructure for the remote testing framework. Analogs which included real-time data monitoring, synthesis, visualization and access in a democratized and operationalized manner were of particular interest to the development of the VIPER MSC toolset both in terms of the technology and the processes used to develop the supporting infrastructure. We anticipate that each subsequent mission to the lunar south pole, whether with robots or humans, will be able to optimize science and exploration return by evolving strategies to infuse real-time collaborative science-decisioning. Furthermore, these efforts will result in a foundation for science operations development in support of human-robotic exploration of deep space and Mars. NASA analogs can continue to provide the opportunity to prepare, test and iterate on the operational concepts and tools that will support these ever-expanding space exploration efforts. Our presentation will include an overview of the VIPER Science Operations & Integration development process and specifics on what aspects of analog research have had a significant impact on our work systems.

D S S Lim↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human-Autonomy Teaming Research in Support of m:N Operations

Since 2019, the NASA and industry partners have been involved in research focused on a novel paradigm for operations of remotely piloted aircraft. This paradigm involves multiple people sharing a fleet of multiple vehicles between them. Referred to as m:N (pronounced “em-to-en”), this configuration describes a ratio where m is the number of operators and N is the number of vehicles. Through force and asset multiplication, the m:N concept seeks to enable a scalable and resilient operation of remotely crewed vehicles. The primary means of obtaining such a robust operation is through allowing a flexible crew of variable size to dynamically attend to the needs of assets in while performing real-time operator workload management. It is in that sense that assets are shared between operators: as needed (such as in events of elevated workload) an operator in an m:N context can “handoff” the responsibility for some amount of assets, nh < N, to be absorbed by the m – 1 crew members on staff. At some time later, these nh assets could be returned to their original owner or they may be further distributed to other crew if called for by the mission. During this panel, I will elaborate on the research activity undertaken by the Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) Laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center over the previous three years. The studies conducted by the HAT Lab range from interviews with subject matter experts, a cognitive walkthrough, a task analysis, and two simulation experiments to-date. During experimentation, pilots made use of an advanced Ground Control Station developed by the HAT Lab and industry partners to simulate m:N operations in two large, metropolitan areas of Southern California: Los Angeles and San Diego. Further experimentation planned over the next few years. Results from our research to-date indicates that pilots of a moderately sized fleet of about a dozen remotely crewed aircraft adequately maintained safety performance and situation awareness of their aircraft, even when presented with unexpected situations of heightened workload.

multi-vehicle control↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of a Human Systems Integration Plan

NASA defines Human Systems Integration (HSI) as part of the overall systems engineering and acquisition strategy for space systems. The HSI Plan defines how HSI activities will be implemented across the lifecycle of the mission, as required by NPR 7123.1C, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, and NPR 8705.2C Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems. The goal of this presentation is to share with government and industry how an HSI Plan can be implemented. The presentation will cover HSI implementation for flight systems, vehicle processing, and interfaces. These are divided into six NASA HSI Domains: human factors engineering, operations resources, safety, training, maintainability and supportability, habitability and environment. HSI activities go across the mission’s lifecycle from pre-formulation and acquisition through design, development, operations, maintenance, and decommissioning. The HSI Plan includes a description of the HSI activities and products that are essential for human rating, operability, maintainability, supportability, and affordability of the mission systems. It also describes the role of the HSI Team required as part of the Human Rating process. The HSI Plan utilizes the operational expertise within NASA to ensure designs and testing are successful, leading to acceptable human spaceflight vehicles.

Jackelynne Silva-Martinez↗

NASA NTRS2012

Evolution of Training in NASA's Mission Operations Directorate

NASA s Mission Operations Directorate provides all the mission planning, training, and operations support for NASA's human spaceflight missions including the International Space Station (ISS) and its fleet of supporting vehicles. MOD also develops and maintains the facilities necessary to conduct training and operations for those missions including the Mission Control Center, Space Station Training Facility, Space Vehicle Mockup Facility, and Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. MOD's overarching approach to human spaceflight training is to "train like you fly." This approach means not only trying to replicate the operational environment in training but also to approach training with the same mindset as real operations. When in training, this means using the same approach for executing operations, responding to off-nominal situations, and conducting yourself in the operations environment in the same manner as you would for the real vehicle.

Hutt, Jason↗