Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Engineering”

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 649 records · Page 36
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis I Orion ESM Propulsion System Engine Performance

NASA's Orion spacecraft transports humans and cargo into cislunar space for the Artemis program. The European Service Module (ESM), supplied by ESA and its European industry partners, provides Orion with power and in-space propulsion. The Orion-ESM propulsion system is a bipropellant hypergolic propulsion system using monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (MON-3). Primary translational propulsion is provided by the Orbital Maneuvering System Engine(OMS-E), with backup translational propulsion provided by eight Auxiliary thrusters (AUX). Attitude control and small translational maneuvers are provided by twenty four Reaction Control System (RCS) engines. The 2022 Artemis I mission was the first integrated flight test of the Orion-ESM spacecraft and its propulsion system. The OMS-E used on Artemis I was a refurbished Space Shuttle OMS-E that previously flew on nineteen missions ranging f rom STS-41G in 1984 to STS-112 in 2002. The Auxiliary engines are modified Aerojet Rocketdyne R4D-11 engines produced specifically for the Orion program. The RCS engines are Ariane Group engines originally used for the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) program. This paper will discuss the unique operational requirements for each engine on Orion and the development and qualification effort sat both the engine and system-level that were completed to enable a successful Artemis I mission. Next the paper will evaluate the in-f light performance of the engines during the Artemis I mission showing nominal performance as expected. Additionally, comparisons to models will be presented showing very good correlation. Finally, the paper will address the plan for the engines on future Orion missions and the evolution of the system operation.

liquid propulsion systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis I Orion ESM Propulsion System Engine Performance

NASA's Orion spacecraft transports humans and cargo into cislunar space for the Artemis program. The European Service Module (ESM), supplied by ESA and its European industry partners, provides Orion with power and in-space propulsion. The Orion-ESM propulsion system is a bipropellant hypergolic propulsion system using monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (MON-3). Primary translational propulsion is provided by the Orbital Maneuvering System Engine (OMS-E), with backup translational propulsion provided by eight Auxiliary thrusters (AUX). Attitude control and small translational maneuvers are provided by twenty-four Reaction Control System (RCS) engines. The 2022 Artemis I mission was the first integrated flight test of the Orion-ESM spacecraft and its propulsion system. The OMS-E used on Artemis I was a refurbished Space Shuttle OMS-E that previously flew on nineteen missions ranging from STS-41G in 1984 to STS-112 in 2002. The Auxiliary engines are modified Aerojet Rocketdyne R4D-11 engines produced specifically for the Orion program. The RCS engines are Ariane Group engines originally used for the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) program. This paper will discuss the unique operational requirements for each engine on Orion and the development and qualification effort sat both the engine and system-level that were completed to enable a successful Artemis I mission. Next the paper will evaluate the in-f light performance of the engines during the Artemis I mission showing nominal performance as expected. Additionally, comparisons to models will be presented showing very good correlation. Finally, the paper will address the plan for the engines on future Orion missions and the evolution of the system operation.

liquid propulsion systems↗
NASA NTRS1996

Bioregenerative life support systems for long-term space habitation: a conceptual approach

Life support systems represent one of the most critical aspects of human space exploration. Future long-term missions such as the establishment of human-tended Lunar and Martian bases require closed life support systems. A conceptual approach to an Engineered Closed/Controlled EcoSystem incorporating bioregenerative capabilities by integrating humans, plants, and waste management processes is presented. The integration of physical/chemical and biological waste treatment processes is suitable for supporting plant growth through hydroponics and materially closing the human and plant metabolic loops. This conceptual design separates wastes into individual loops for treatment according to the specific metabolic needs of humans and plants. The means through which an integrated Engineered Closed/Controlled EcoSystem meets the life support objectives of long-term space habitation are summarized.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS2008

Design Development Test and Evaluation (DDT and E) Considerations for Safe and Reliable Human Rated Spacecraft Systems

A team directed by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) collected methodologies for how best to develop safe and reliable human rated systems and how to identify the drivers that provide the basis for assessing safety and reliability. The team also identified techniques, methodologies, and best practices to assure that NASA can develop safe and reliable human rated systems. The results are drawn from a wide variety of resources, from experts involved with the space program since its inception to the best-practices espoused in contemporary engineering doctrine. This report focuses on safety and reliability considerations and does not duplicate or update any existing references. Neither does it intend to replace existing standards and policy.

Miller, James↗
NASA NTRS2008

Design Development Test and Evaluation (DDT and E) Considerations for Safe and Reliable Human Rated Spacecraft Systems

A team directed by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) collected methodologies for how best to develop safe and reliable human rated systems and how to identify the drivers that provide the basis for assessing safety and reliability. The team also identified techniques, methodologies, and best practices to assure that NASA can develop safe and reliable human rated systems. The results are drawn from a wide variety of resources, from experts involved with the space program since its inception to the best-practices espoused in contemporary engineering doctrine. This report focuses on safety and reliability considerations and does not duplicate or update any existing references. Neither does it intend to replace existing standards and policy.

Miller, James↗
NASA NTRS2010

Verification and Implementation of Operations Safety Controls for Flight Missions

There are several engineering disciplines, such as reliability, supportability, quality assurance, human factors, risk management, safety, etc. Safety is an extremely important engineering specialty within NASA, and the consequence involving a loss of crew is considered a catastrophic event. Safety is not difficult to achieve when properly integrated at the beginning of each space systems project/start of mission planning. The key is to ensure proper handling of safety verification throughout each flight/mission phase. Today, Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) operations engineers continue to conduct these flight product reviews across all open flight products. As such, these reviews help ensure that each mission is accomplished with safety requirements along with controls heavily embedded in applicable flight products. Most importantly, the S&MA operations engineers are required to look for important design and operations controls so that safety is strictly adhered to as well as reflected in the final flight product.

Smalls, James R.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Human Factors in Training - Space Medicine Proficiency Training

The early Constellation space missions are expected to have medical capabilities very similar to those currently on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS). For Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) missions to ISS, medical equipment will be located on ISS, and carried into CEV in the event of an emergency. Flight Surgeons (FS) on the ground in Mission Control will be expected to direct the Crew Medical Officer (CMO) during medical situations. If there is a loss of signal and the crew is unable to communicate with the ground, a CMO would be expected to carry out medical procedures without the aid of a FS. In these situations, performance support tools can be used to reduce errors and time to perform emergency medical tasks. Work on medical training has been conducted in collaboration with the Medical Training Group at the Space Life Sciences Directorate and with Wyle Lab which provides medical training to crew members, Biomedical Engineers (BMEs), and to flight surgeons under the JSC Space Life Sciences Directorate s Bioastronautics contract. The space medical training work is part of the Human Factors in Training Directed Research Project (DRP) of the Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Project under the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP). Human factors researchers at Johnson Space Center have recently investigated medical performance support tools for CMOs on-orbit, and FSs on the ground, and researchers at the Ames Research Center performed a literature review on medical errors. The work proposed for FY10 continues to build on this strong collaboration with the Space Medical Training Group and previous research. This abstract focuses on two areas of work involving Performance Support Tools for Space Medical Operations. One area of research building on activities from FY08, involved the feasibility of just-in-time (JIT) training techniques and concepts for real-time medical procedures. In Phase 1, preliminary feasibility data was gathered for two types of prototype display technologies: a hand-held PDA, and a Head Mounted Display (HMD). The PDA and HMD were compared while performing a simulated medical procedure using ISS flight-like medical equipment. Based on the outcome of Phase 1, including data on user preferences, further testing was completed using the PDA only. Phase 2 explored a wrist-mounted PDA, and compared it to a paper cue card. For each phase, time to complete procedures, errors, and user satisfaction ratings were captured.

Connell, Erin↗
NASA NTRS2014

The Ergonomics of Human Space Flight: NASA Vehicles and Spacesuits

Space...the final frontier...these are the voyages of the starship...wait, wait, wait...that's not right...let's try that again. NASA is currently focusing on developing multiple strategies to prepare humans for a future trip to Mars. This includes (1) learning and characterizing the human system while in the weightlessness of low earth orbit on the International Space Station and (2) seeding the creation of commercial inspired vehicles by providing guidance and funding to US companies. At the same time, NASA is slowly leading the efforts of reestablishing human deep space travel through the development of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) known as Orion and the Space Launch System (SLS) with the interim aim of visiting and exploring an asteroid. Without Earth's gravity, current and future human space travel exposes humans to micro- and partial gravity conditions, which are known to force the body to adapt both physically and physiologically. Without the protection of Earth's atmosphere, space is hazardous to most living organisms. To protect themselves from these difficult conditions, Astronauts utilize pressurized spacesuits for both intravehicular travel and extravehicular activities (EVAs). Ensuring a safe living and working environment for space missions requires the creativity of scientists and engineers to assess and mitigate potential risks through engineering designs. The discipline of human factors and ergonomics at NASA is critical in making sure these designs are not just functionally designed for people to use, but are optimally designed to work within the capacities specific to the Astronaut Corps. This lecture will review both current and future NASA vehicles and spacesuits while providing an ergonomic perspective using case studies that were and are being carried out by the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) at NASA's Johnson Space Center.

Reid, Christopher R.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Aviation Simulators for the Desktop: Panel and Demonstrations

Panel Members are: Christine M. Mitchell (Georgia Tech), Michael T. Palmer (NASA Langley), Greg Pisani (NASA Ames), and Amy R. Pritchett (MIT). The Panel members are affiliated with aviation human factors groups from NASA Ames, NASA Langley, MITCHELL Department of Aerospace and Aeronautical Engineering, and Georgia Technics Center for Human-Machine Systems Research. Panelists will describe the simulator(s) used in their respective institutions including a description of the FMS aircraft models, software, hardware, and displays. Panelists will summarize previous, on-going, and planned empirical studies conducted with the simulators. Greg Pisanich will describe two NASA Ames simulation systems: the Stone Soup Simulator (SSS), and the Airspace Operations Human Factors Simulation Laboratory. The the Stone Soup Simulator is a desktop-based, research flight simulator that includes mode control, flight management, and datalink functionality. It has been developed as a non-proprietary simulator that can be easily distributed to academic and industry researchers who are collaborating on NASA research projects. It will be used and extended by research groups represented by at least two panelists (Mitchell and Palmer). The Airspace Operations Simulator supports the study of air traffic control in conjunction with the flight deck. This simulator will be used provide an environment in which many AATT and free flight concepts can be demonstrated and evaluated. Mike Palmer will describe two NASA Langley efforts: The Langley Simulator and MD-11 extensions to the NASA Amesbury simulator. The first simulator is publicly available and combines a B-737 model with a high fidelity flight management system. The second simulator enhances the S3 simulator with MD-11 electronic flight displays together with modifications to the flight and FMS models to emulate MD-11 dynamics and operations. Chris Mitchell will describe GT-EFIRT (Georgia Tech-Electronic Flight Instrument Research Tool) and B-757 enhancements to the NASA Ames S3. GT-EFIRT is a medium fidelity simulator used to conduct preliminary studies of the CATS (crew activity tracking system). Like the Langley efforts with S3, the Georgia Tech enhancements will allow it to emulate the dynamics and operations of a widely used glass cockpit. Amy Pritchett will describe the MIT simulator(s) that have been used in a range of research investigating cockpit displays, warning devices, and flight deck-ATC interaction.

Pisanich, Greg↗
NASA NTRS2023

Human Landing System (HLS) Program Non-Design Driver Lunar Environments

The purpose of this white paper is to provide a source of information on lunar environments which, according to scientific and engineering consensus, should not impact human-class spacecraft design. Additionally, comparisons are shown between the Apollo missions and Artemis mission parameters for solar lighting angles at the landing sites and plasma region exposure.

HLS↗
NASA NTRS2010

Functional Mobility Testing: Quantification of Functionally Utilized Mobility Among Unsuited and Suited Subjects

A novel approach was used in this test for the creation of mobility requirements to be fed into the Human-Systems Integration Requirements and Engineering Requirements Documents. Existing suits may not provide adequate mobility to perform all functional tasks required in future missions. Looking solely at maximum unsuited mobility could be unrealistic and unnecessary to design into a suit. The new approach focused instead on functional range of motion. Setting design requirements based on the mobility necessary to perform a broad spectrum of functional tasks should save resources while still providing a suit capable of performing all tasks that a suited crewmember is likely to encounter. Unsuited functional mobility testing revealed some interesting nuances of human movement including variances in mobility utilized when completing functional tasks as well as the impact of compound joint motions and the influence of joint loading on range of motion. Suited requirements must reflect the fact that altered movement strategies are utilized while wearing a space suit. Improved methods for the creation of space suit design requirements should lead to improved suit performance while maintaining crewmember safety and reducing overall costs.

Scott A. England↗
NASA NTRS2012

Supersonic Retropropulsion Technology Development in NASA's Entry, Descent, and Landing Project

NASA's Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) space technology roadmap calls for new technologies to achieve human exploration of Mars in the coming decades [1]. One of those technologies, termed Supersonic Retropropulsion (SRP), involves initiation of propulsive deceleration at supersonic Mach numbers. The potential benefits afforded by SRP to improve payload mass and landing precision make the technology attractive for future EDL missions. NASA's EDL project spent two years advancing the technological maturity of SRP for Mars exploration [2-15]. This paper summarizes the technical accomplishments from the project and highlights challenges and recommendations for future SRP technology development programs. These challenges include: developing sufficiently large SRP engines for use on human-scale entry systems; testing and computationally modelling complex and unsteady SRP fluid dynamics; understanding the effects of SRP on entry vehicle stability and controllability; and demonstrating sub-scale SRP entry systems in Earth's atmosphere.

Edquist, Karl T.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Using A Model-Based Systems Engineering Approach For Exploration Medical System Development

NASA's Human Research Program's Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) element is defining the medical system needs for exploration class missions. ExMC's Systems Engineering (SE) team will play a critical role in successful design and implementation of the medical system into exploration vehicles. The team's mission is to "Define, develop, validate, and manage the technical system design needed to implement exploration medical capabilities for Mars and test the design in a progression of proving grounds." Development of the medical system is being conducted in parallel with exploration mission architecture and vehicle design development. Successful implementation of the medical system in this environment will require a robust systems engineering approach to enable technical communication across communities to create a common mental model of the emergent engineering and medical systems. Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) improves shared understanding of system needs and constraints between stakeholders and offers a common language for analysis. The ExMC SE team is using MBSE techniques to define operational needs, decompose requirements and architecture, and identify medical capabilities needed to support human exploration. Systems Modeling Language (SysML) is the specific language the SE team is utilizing, within an MBSE approach, to model the medical system functional needs, requirements, and architecture. Modeling methods are being developed through the practice of MBSE within the team, and tools are being selected to support meta-data exchange as integration points to other system models are identified. Use of MBSE is supporting the development of relationships across disciplines and NASA Centers to build trust and enable teamwork, enhance visibility of team goals, foster a culture of unbiased learning and serving, and be responsive to customer needs. The MBSE approach to medical system design offers a paradigm shift toward greater integration between vehicle and the medical system and directly supports the transition of Earth-reliant ISS operations to the Earth-independent operations envisioned for Mars. Here, we describe the methods and approach to building this integrated model.

Hanson, A.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Mitigations to Reduce the Law of Unintended Consequences for Autonomy and Other Technological Advances

The United Nations states that Earth’s population is expected to reach just under 10 billion people (9.7) by the year 2050. To meet the demands of 10 billion people, governments, multinational corporations and global leaders are relying on autonomy and technological advances to augment and/or accommodate human efforts to meet the required needs of daily living. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) gene-edited plants and cloning will be utilized to expand human food supply. Biomimetic implants are expected to improve life expectancy with 3D printed body parts. Human functioning will be extended with wearables and cybernetic implants continuing humanity’s path toward transhumanism. Families will be strengthened with 3 parent households. Disease will surely be eradicated using the CRISPR-CAS9 genetic engineering revolution to design out undesirable human traits and to design in new capabilities. With autonomous cars, trucks and buses on our roads and on-demand autonomous aircraft delivering pizzas, medical prescriptions and groceries in the air and multi-planet vehicles traversing space, utopia will finally arrive! Or will it? All of these powerful, man-made, technological systems will experience unintended consequences with certainty. Instead of over-reacting with hysteria and fear, we should be seeking answers to the following questions - “What skills are required to architect socially-healthy technological systems for 2050?” “What mindsets should we embody to ameliorate hubris syndrome and to build our future technological systems with deliberation, soberness and social responsibility?”

Morris, A. Terry↗
NASA NTRS2008

The Next Giant Leap: NASA's Ares Launch Vehicles Overview

The next chapter in NASA's history also promises to write the next chapter in America's history, as the Agency makes measurable strides toward developing new space transportation capabilities that wi!! put astronauts on course to explore the Moon as the next giant leap toward the first human footprint on Mars. This paper will present top-level plans and progress being made toward fielding the Ares I crew launch vehicle in the 2013 timeframe and the Ares V cargo launch vehicle in the 2018 timeframe. It also gives insight into the objectives for the first test flight, known as the Ares I-X, which is scheduled for April 2009. The U.S. strategy to scientifically explore space will fuel innovations such as solar power and water recycling, as well as yield new knowledge that directly benefits life on Earth. For the Ares launch vehicles, NASA is building on heritage hardware and unique capabilities; as well as almost 50 years of lessons learned from the Apollo Saturn, Space Shuttle, and commercial launch vehicle programs. In the Ares I Project's inaugural year, extensive trade studies and evaluations were conducted to improve upon the designs initially recommended by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, resulting in significant reduction of near-term and long-range technical and programmatic risks; conceptual designs were analyzed for fitness against requirements; and the contractual framework was assembled to enable a development effort unparalleled in American space flight since the Space Shuttle. The Exploration Launch Projects team completed the Ares I System Requirements Review (SRR) at the end of 2006--the first such engineering milestone for a human-rated space transportation system in over 30 years.

Cook, Stephen A.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Structural Verification of the First Orbital Wonder of the World - The Structural Testing and Analysis of the International Space Station (ISS)

The International Space Station (ISS) can be considered one of the structural engineering wonders of the world. On par with the World Trade Center, the Colossus of Rhodes, the Statue of Liberty, the Great Pyramids, the Petronas towers and the Burj Khalifa skyscraper of Dubai, the ambition and scope of the ISS structural design, verification and assembly effort is a truly global success story. With its on-orbit life projected to be from its beginning in 1998 to the year 2020 (and perhaps beyond), all of those who participated in its development can consider themselves part of an historic engineering achievement representing all of humanity. The structural design and verification of the ISS could be the subject of many scholarly papers. Several papers have been written on the structural dynamic characterization of the ISS once it was assembled on-orbit [1], but the ground-based activities required to assure structural integrity and structural life of the individual elements from delivery to orbit through assembly and planned on-orbit operations have never been totally summarized. This paper is intended to give the reader an overview of some of the key decisions made during the structural verification planning for the elements of the U.S. On-Orbit Segment (USOS) as well as to summarize the many structural tests and structural analyses that were performed on its major elements. An effort is made for this paper to be summarily comprehensive, but as with all knowledge capture efforts of this kind, there are bound to be errors of omission. Should the reader discover any of these, please feel free to contact the principal author. The ISS (Figure 1) is composed of pre-integrated truss segments and pressurized elements supplied by NASA, the Russian Federal Space Agency (RSA), the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Each of these elements was delivered to orbit by a launch vehicle and connected to one another either robotically or autonomously. The primary structure of each element was assembled and verified by teams of responsible structural engineers within and among their respective agencies and agency contractors.

Zipay, John J.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Comparing NASA and ESA Cost Estimating Methods for Human Missions to Mars

To compare working methodologies between the cost engineering functions in NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and ESA European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), as well as to set-up cost engineering capabilities for future manned Mars projects and other studies which involve similar subsystem technologies in MSFC and ESTEC, a demonstration cost estimate exercise was organized. This exercise was a direct way of enhancing not only cooperation between agencies but also both agencies commitment to credible cost analyses. Cost engineers in MSFC and ESTEC independently prepared life-cycle cost estimates for a reference human Mars project and subsequently compared the results and estimate methods in detail. As a non-sensitive, public domain reference case for human Mars projects, the Mars Direct concept was chosen. In this paper the results of the exercise are shown; the differences and similarities in estimate methodologies, philosophies, and databases between MSFC and ESTEC, as well as the estimate results for the Mars Direct concept. The most significant differences are explained and possible estimate improvements identified. In addition, the Mars Direct plan and the extensive cost breakdown structure jointly set-up by MSFC and ESTEC for this concept are presented. It was found that NASA applied estimate models mainly based on historic Apollo and Space Shuttle cost data, taking into account the changes in technology since then. ESA used models mostly based on European satellite and launcher cost data, taking into account the higher equipment and testing standards for human space flight. Most of NASA's and ESA s estimates for the Mars Direct case are comparable, but there are some important, consistent differences in the estimates for: 1) Large Structures and Thermal Control subsystems; 2) System Level Management, Engineering, Product Assurance and Assembly, Integration and Test/Verification activities; 3) Mission Control; 4) Space Agency Program Level activities.

Hunt, Charles D.↗