Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Systems”

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 577 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1991

Power Supply for a Manned International Asteroid Mission

A feasibility study considering the exploitation of a near Earth asteroid was performed. The power requirements and proposed power systems for the crew vehicle, cargo vehicles, mining and processing equipment are described. A photovoltaic power system was selected to meet the 52.1 kWe and the 3.9 kWe power requirements of the crew and cargo vehicles, respectively. A nuclear power plant using a thermodynamic Rankine cycle with a total mass of 62.1 tons was chosen to provide the 7.225 MWe and the 5.5 MWth required for the mining and processing activities at the asteroid.

Weingartner, Stefan↗
NASA NTRS2002

CATS-based Agents That Err

This report describes preliminary research on intelligent agents that make errors. Such agents are crucial to the development of novel agent-based techniques for assessing system safety. The agents extend an agent architecture derived from the Crew Activity Tracking System that has been used as the basis for air traffic controller agents. The report first reviews several error taxonomies. Next, it presents an overview of the air traffic controller agents, then details several mechanisms for causing the agents to err in realistic ways. The report presents a performance assessment of the error-generating agents, and identifies directions for further research. The research was supported by the System-Wide Accident Prevention element of the FAA/NASA Aviation Safety Program.

Callantine, Todd J.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Situation Awareness of Onboard System Autonomy

We have developed intelligent agent software for onboard system autonomy. Our approach is to provide control agents that automate crew and vehicle systems, and operations assistants that aid humans in working with these autonomous systems. We use the 3 Tier control architecture to develop the control agent software that automates system reconfiguration and routine fault management. We use the Distributed Collaboration and Interaction (DCI) System to develop the operations assistants that provide human services, including situation summarization, event notification, activity management, and support for manual commanding of autonomous system. In this paper we describe how the operations assistants aid situation awareness of the autonomous control agents. We also describe our evaluation of the DCI System to support control engineers during a ground test at Johnson Space Center (JSC) of the Post Processing System (PPS) for regenerative water recovery.

Schreckenghost, Debra↗
NASA NTRS1997

Mars Aerocapture Studies for the Design Reference Mission

The recent discovery of possible fossilized microbes in a Martian meteorite sample and the spectacular success of the Mars Pathfinder mission have substantially increased public interest and support for future robotic and manned exploration of Mars. NASA is currently refining a plan known as the Design Reference Mission (DRM) in which the first human landing would occur in 2014 after a series of cargo launches which would place surface systems and an Earth return vehicle at Mars two years prior to the crew's arrival. At each subsequent launch opportunity (which occur approximately every twenty-six months), an additional Earth return vehicle, surface facility and crew would depart for Mars, with each crew employing the systems launched during the previous opportunity. The mission design calls for a long-duration surface stay, rapid crew transits, in-situ manufacture of the Mars ascent propellant, nuclear thermal propulsion for the trans-Mars injection burn, and the use of aerocapture for both the cargo and crew vehicles at Mars.

Lyne, James Evans↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis Deep Space Habitation: Enabling a Sustained Human Presence on the Moon and Beyond

As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, so too does its roadmap toward a sustained crewed presence on the surface of the Moon and eventual human missions to Mars. The first launch of the Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle, the contract award for the first demonstrations of a Human Landing System, and the beginning of construction on the initial elements of the lunar Gateway have marked major milestones toward NASA’s near-term exploration goals: a long-duration outpost in orbit around the Moon and the next footsteps on the lunar surface. At the same time, NASA is in the early phases of planning the capabilities that will be needed for long-term exploration. Among the common elements that will be required by long-duration stays on the lunar surface, transit to Mars, and Martian surface expeditions will be new habitats unlike any flown to date. NASA is currently working on development of both architectures for those habitats and on the technological advancements that will enable them, with an eye toward systems that will not only extend mission operations but also provide for living quarters that will keep the crew happy and healthy throughout their expeditions. Beyond the Gateway habitation needs, these capabilities will need to be defined and advanced to support the initial lunar surface missions and to prepare for human missions to the Mars system. The Surface Habitat is the current concept in consideration to serve as this initial surface habitat that will extend the crew mission durations. It will provide 30-to-60-day habitability for a crew of up to four allowing for the astronauts to explore farther and longer on each visit to the lunar surface. NASA is also currently reviewing opportunities to use current or near-term in-space habitation systems as proving grounds or precursors for keeping astronauts safe and healthy during future transits to Mars. Already, the International Space Station (ISS) is being used for implementation of next-generation life-support systems that will inform those used in exploration habitats, and the operations approach for ISS is providing lessons-learned for future science operations around or on the Moon.1U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright While a suite of habitation concepts is currently under study within NASA, the agency is also working closely with U.S. industry through the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) activity to understand their concepts for commercially provided habitation capabilities as well as close coordination with international partners to understand their desires for in-space and surface habitation. This paper will provide a status of these concepts and partnership activities as well as potential future technology and architecture development paths.

Habitat↗
NASA NTRS1969

Stochastic crew motion modeling.

Representative data of actual forces and moments applicable to large spacecraft attitude control system for typical crew activities obtained through simulation programs

Hendricks, T. C.↗
NASA NTRS2011

MLAS and LAS: Project Comparison of Lessons Learned

The development of new and safer manned space vehicles is a top priority at NASA. Recently two different approaches of how to accomplish this mission of keeping astronauts safe was successfully demonstrated. With work already underway on an Apollo-like launch abort system for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), an alternative design concept named the Max Launch Abort System, or MLAS, was developed as a parallel effort. The Orion system, managed by the Constellation office, is based on the design of a single solid launch abort motor in a tower positioned above the capsule. The MLAS design takes a different approach placing the solid launch abort motor underneath the capsule. This effort was led by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). Both escape systems were designed with the Ares I Rocket as the launch vehicle and had the same primary requirement to safely propel a crew module away from any emergency event either on the launch pad or during accent. Beyond these two parameters, there was little else in common between the two projects, except that they both concluded in successful launches that will further promote the development of crew launch abort systems. This presentation will compare both projects from the standpoint of technical requirements; program management and flight test objectives and highlight the synergistic lessons learned by two engineers who worked on each program.

Dittemore, Gary↗
NASA NTRS2011

Comparison of Two Recent Launch Abort Platforms

The development of new and safer manned space vehicles is a top priority at NASA. Recently two different approaches of how to accomplish this mission of keeping astronauts safe was successfully demonstrated. With work already underway on an Apollo-like launch abort system for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), an alternative design concept named the Max Launch Abort System, or MLAS, was developed as a parallel effort. The Orion system, managed by the Constellation office, is based on the design of a single solid launch abort motor in a tower positioned above the capsule. The MLAS design takes a different approach placing the solid launch abort motor underneath the capsule. This effort was led by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). Both escape systems were designed with the Ares I Rocket as the launch vehicle and had the same primary requirement to safely propel a crew module away from any emergency event either on the launch pad or during accent. Beyond these two parameters, there was little else in common between the two projects, except that they both concluded in successful launches that will further promote the development of crew launch abort systems. A comparison of these projects from the standpoint of technical requirements; program management and flight test objectives will be done to highlight the synergistic lessons learned by two engineers who worked on each program. This comparison will demonstrate how the scope of the project architecture and management involvement in innovation should be tailored to meet the specific needs of the system under development.

Dittemore, Gary D.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Flight crew aiding for recovery from subsystem failures

Some of the conceptual issues associated with pilot aiding systems are discussed and an implementation of one component of such an aiding system is described. It is essential that the format and content of the information the aiding system presents to the crew be compatible with the crew's mental models of the task. It is proposed that in order to cooperate effectively, both the aiding system and the flight crew should have consistent information processing models, especially at the point of interface. A general information processing strategy, developed by Rasmussen, was selected to serve as the bridge between the human and aiding system's information processes. The development and implementation of a model-based situation assessment and response generation system for commercial transport aircraft are described. The current implementation is a prototype which concentrates on engine and control surface failure situations and consequent flight emergencies. The aiding system, termed Recovery Recommendation System (RECORS), uses a causal model of the relevant subset of the flight domain to simulate the effects of these failures and to generate appropriate responses, given the current aircraft state and the constraints of the current flight phase. Since detailed information about the aircraft state may not always be available, the model represents the domain at varying levels of abstraction and uses the less detailed abstraction levels to make inferences when exact information is not available. The structure of this model is described in detail.

Hudlicka, E.↗
NASA NTRS1993

High level organizing principles for display of systems fault information for commercial flight crews

Advanced fault management aiding concepts for commercial pilots are being developed in a research program at NASA Langley Research Center. One aim of this program is to re-evaluate current design principles for display of fault information to the flight crew: (1) from a cognitive engineering perspective and (2) in light of the availability of new types of information generated by advanced fault management aids. The study described in this paper specifically addresses principles for organizing fault information for display to pilots based on their mental models of fault management.

Rogers, William H.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Engineering of the Magnetized Target Fusion Propulsion System

Engineering details are presented for a magnetized target fusion (MTF) propulsion system designed to support crewed missions to the outer solar system. Basic operation of an MTF propulsion system is introduced. Structural, thermal, radiation-management and electrical design details are presented. The propellant storage and supply system design is also presented. A propulsion system mass estimate and associated performance figures are given. The advantages of helium-3 as a fusion fuel for an advanced MTF system are discussed.

Statham, G.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Engineering of the Magnetized Target Fusion Propulsion System

Engineering details are presented for a magnetized target fusion (MTF) propulsion system designed to support crewed missions to the outer solar system. Structural, thermal and radiation-management design details are presented. Propellant storage and supply options are also discussed and a propulsion system mass estimate is given.

Statham, G.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Medical Operations Console Procedure Evaluation: BME Response to Crew Call Down for an Emergency

International Space Station (ISS) Mission Operations are managed by multiple flight control disciplines located at the lead Mission Control Center (MCC) at NASA-Johnson Space Center (JSC). ISS Medical Operations are supported by the complementary roles of Flight Surgeons (Surgeon) and Biomedical Engineer (BME) flight controllers. The Surgeon, a board certified physician, oversees all medical concerns of the crew and the BME provides operational and engineering support for Medical Operations Crew Health Care System. ISS Medical Operations is currently addressing the coordinated response to a crew call down for an emergent medical event, in particular when the BME is the only Medical Operations representative in MCC. In this case, the console procedure BME Response to Crew Call Down for an Emergency will be used. The procedure instructs the BME to contact a Surgeon as soon as possible, coordinate with other flight disciplines to establish a Private Medical Conference (PMC) for the crew and Surgeon, gather information from the crew if time permits, and provide Surgeon with pertinent console resources. It is paramount that this procedure is clearly written and easily navigated to assist the BME to respond consistently and efficiently. A total of five BME flight controllers participated in the study. Each BME participant sat in a simulated MCC environment at a console configured with resources specific to the BME MCC console and was presented with two scripted emergency call downs from an ISS crew member. Each participant used the procedure while interacting with analog MCC disciplines to respond to the crew call down. Audio and video recordings of the simulations were analyzed and each BME participant's actions were compared to the procedure. Structured debriefs were conducted at the conclusion of both simulations. The procedure was evaluated for its ability to elicit consistent responses from each BME participant. Trials were examined for deviations in procedure task completion and/or navigation, in particular the execution of the Surgeon call sequence. Debrief comments were used to analyze unclear procedural steps and to discern any discrepancies between the procedure and generally accepted BME actions. The sequence followed by BME participants differed considerably from the sequence intended by the procedure. Common deviations included the call sequence used to contact Surgeon, the content of BME and crew interaction and the gathering of pertinent console resources. Differing perceptions of task priority and imprecise language seem to have caused multiple deviations from the procedure s intended sequence. The study generated 40 recommendations for the procedure, of which 34 are being implemented. These recommendations address improving the clarity of the instructions, identifying training considerations, expediting Surgeon contact, improving cues for anticipated flight control team communication and identifying missing console tools.

Johnson-Troop↗
NASA NTRS2010

Modeling the Impact of Space Suit Components and Anthropometry on the Center of Mass of a Seated Crewmember

The Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) is the energy-absorbing strut concept that dampens Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) landing loads to levels sustainable by the crew. Significant COM variations across suited crew configurations would amplify the inertial effects of the pallet and potentially create unacceptable crew loading during launch and landing. The objective of this study was to obtain data needed for dynamic simulation models by quantifying the effects of posture, suit components, and the expected range of anthropometry on the COM of a seated individual. Several elements are required for the COM calculation of a suited human in a seated position: anthropometry, body segment mass, suit component mass, suit component location relative to the body, and joint angles defining the seated posture. Three-dimensional (3D) human body models, suit mass data, and vector calculus were utilized to compute the COM positions for 12 boundary manikins in two different seated postures. The analysis focused on two objectives: (1) quantify how much the wholebody COM varied from the smallest to largest subject and (2) quantify the effects of the suit components on the overall COM in each seat configuration. The location of the anterior-posterior COM varied across all boundary manikins by about 7 cm, and the vertical COM varied by approximately 9 to 10 cm. The mediolateral COM varied by 1.2 cm from the midline sagittal plane for both seat configurations. The suit components caused an anterior shift of the total COM by approximately 2 cm and a shift to the right along the mediolateral axis of 0.4 cm for both seat configurations. When the seat configuration was in the standard posture the suited vertical COM shifted inferiorly by as much as 1 cm, whereas in the CEV posture the vertical COM had no appreciable change. These general differences were due to the high proportion of suit mass located in the boots and lower legs and their corresponding distance from the body COM, as well as to the prevalence of suit components on the right side of the body.

Blackledge, Christopher↗
NASA NTRS2012

An Affordability Comparison Tool (ACT) for Space Transportation

NASA bas recently emphasized the importance of affordability for Commercial Crew Development Program (CCDP), Space Launch Systems (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). System architects and designers are challenged to come up with architectures and designs that do not bust the budget. This paper describes the Affordability Comparison Tool (ACT) analyzes different systems or architecture configurations for affordability that allows for a comparison of: total life cycle cost; annual recurring costs, affordability figures-of-merit, such as cost per pound, cost per seat, and cost per flight, as well as productivity measures, such as payload throughput. Although ACT is not a deterministic model, the paper develops algorithms and parametric factors that use characteristics of the architectures or systems being compared to produce important system outcomes (figures-of-merit). Example applications of outcome figures-of-merit are also documented to provide the designer with information on the relative affordability and productivity of different space transportation applications.

McCleskey, C. M.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Architecting the Human Space Flight Program with Systems Modeling Language (SysML)

The next generation of missions in NASA's Human Space Flight program focuses on the development and deployment of highly complex systems (e.g., Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Space Launch System, 21st Century Ground System) that will enable astronauts to venture beyond low Earth orbit and explore the moon, near-Earth asteroids, and beyond. Architecting these highly complex system-of-systems requires formal systems engineering techniques for managing the evolution of the technical features in the information exchange domain (e.g., data exchanges, communication networks, ground software) and also, formal correlation of the technical architecture to stakeholders' programmatic concerns (e.g., budget, schedule, risk) and design development (e.g., assumptions, constraints, trades, tracking of unknowns). This paper will describe how the authors have applied System Modeling Language (SysML) to implement model-based systems engineering for managing the description of the End-to-End Information System (EEIS) architecture and associated development activities and ultimately enables stakeholders to understand, reason, and answer questions about the EEIS under design for proposed lunar Exploration Missions 1 and 2 (EM-1 and EM-2).

scheduling↗