SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Joel Wells, NASA Public Affairs, introduces STS-102 Commander Jim Wetherbee in this post-landing press conference. Commander Wetherbee gives a brief statement about the success of the mission and answers questions from the press.
Joel Wells, NASA Public Affairs, introduces the STS-104 crew, Commander Steven Lindsey, Pilot Charles Hobaugh, and Mission Specialists Mike Gernhardt, Jim Reilly, and Janet Kavandi, in this post-landing press conference. Commander Lindsey makes a brief statement about the mission and each crewmember's role in the activities. The crew then answers questions from the press.
The crew of the STS-114 Discovery continues to answer questions from the news media about the upcoming mission. Commander Collins thanks NASA for enabling the astronauts to express their thoughts and feelings about procedures during spaceflight and she is also very happy to work for NASA. Pilot James Kelly talks about the pictures that they are now able to take of the external tank. Mission Specialists Wendy Lawrence and Steve Robinson discuss the items that they will be bringing up to the International Space Station. Robinson also talks about mementos of the Space Shuttle Columbia crew that they will be taking to the International Space Station.
NASA's Constellation Program has made the most progress in a generation towards building an integrated human-rated spacecraft and launch vehicle. During that development, it became clear that NASA's human-rating requirements lacked the specificity necessary to defend a program plan, particularly human-rating test flight plans, from severe budget challenges. This paper addresses the progress Constellation achieved, problems encountered in clarifying and defending a human-rating certification plan, and discusses key considerations for those who find themselves in similar straits with future human-rated spacecraft and vehicles. We assert, and support with space flight data, that NASA's current human-rating requirements do not adequately address "unknown-unknowns", or the unexpected things the hardware can reveal to the designer during test.
NASA supports research to mitigate risks to health and performance on extended missions. Typically these risks are investigated independently. In reality, physiological systems are tightly coupled, and related to psychological and inter-individual factors (team cohesion, conflict). We draw on ideas from network theory to assess these interactions and better design a research framework to address them.
The NASA Human Research Program works to mitigate risks to health and performance on extended missions. However, research should be directed not only to mitigating known risks, but also to providing crews with tools to assess and enhance resilience, as a group and individually. We can draw on ideas from complexity theory to assess resilience. The entire crew or the individual crewmember can be viewed as a complex system composed of subsystems; the interactions between subsystems are of crucial importance. Understanding the interactions can provide important information even in the absence of complete information on the component subsystems. Enabled by advances in noninvasive measurement of physiological and behavioral parameters, subsystem monitoring can be implemented within a mission and during training to establish baselines. Coupled with mathematical modeling, this can provide assessment of health and function. Since the web of physiological systems (and crewmembers) can be interpreted as a network in mathematical terms, we can draw on recent work that relates the structure of such networks to their resilience (ability to self-organize in the face of perturbation). Some of the many parameters and interactions to choose from include: sleep cycles, coordination of work and meal times, cardiorespiratory rhythms, circadian rhythms and body temperature, stress markers and cognition, sleep and performance, immune function and nutritional status. Tools for resilience are then the means to measure and analyze these parameters, incorporate them into models of normal variability and interconnectedness, and recognize when parameters or their couplings are outside of normal limits.
This presentation is the first in a series of demonstrators showcasing electric propulsion technologies in aircraft.
This Crew Debrief Data provides support for design and development of vehicles, hardware, requirements, procedures, processes, issue resolution, lessons learned, consolidation and trending for current Programs; and much of the data is also used to support development of future Programs.
This presentation reviews voluntary safety reports received by NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System pertaining to safety issues related to Ground Operations.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Technology Capability Level-2 National Campaign (TCL2nc) was conducted at six different test-sites located across the USA, during May and June of 2017. The campaign resulted in over 240 data collection flights using 24 different aircraft and involving 23 flight crews. Flights not only varied in duration, but also in the environments and terrains over which they flew. The TCL2nc highlighted beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) and altitude-stratified operations, and saw five partners bring their own, independently built, UAS Service Supplier (USS) for use during the flight tests. This document presents data collected during the TCL2nc that informs the 'Operator' section of the 'Requirements/Best Practices' from the UTM Technical Capability Matrix and Guidelines to Operate (Rios, version as of March 2017). A review of the data collected indicated that although teams were well qualified on paper (in terms of both completing training and having experience with flying UAS vehicles), greater consideration should be given to the unique perspectives and backgrounds of future UAS operators. Overall, teams looked at a variety of sources for information, including USS client-displays, and participants became more mindful of the need to be aware of other vehicles, highlighting the value of reporting information. Observations found that flight crews' time to respond to a UTM issue depended heavily on the team structure, communication efficiency, and crew procedures. These points are discussed in more detail below.
The Technology Capability Level-2 National Campaign (TCL2nc) was conducted at six different test sites located across the USA, during May and June of 2017. The campaign resulted in over 250 data collection flights using 26 different aircraft and involving 23 flight crews. Flights not only varied in duration, but also in the environments and terrains over which they flew. The TCL2nc highlighted beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) and altitude-stratified operations, and saw five partners bring their own, independently built, UTM Service Supplier (USS) for use during the flight tests. This document presents data collected during the TCL2nc that informs the 'Operator' section of the 'Requirements/Best Practices' from the UTM Technical Capability Matrix and Guidelines to Operate (Rios, version as of March 2017). A review of the data collected indicated that although teams were well qualified on paper (in terms of both completing training and having experience with flying UAS vehicles), greater consideration should be given to the unique perspectives and backgrounds of future UAS operators. Overall, teams looked at a variety of sources for information, including USS client-displays, and participants became more aware of the need to be aware of other vehicles, highlighting the value of reporting information. Observations found that flight crews' time to respond to a UTM issue depended heavily on the team structure, communication efficiency, and crew procedures.
Discussion of ground support systems for the monitoring and recovery of manned spacecraft
This NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) video release presents a Johnson Space Center (JSC) press conference featuring Chuck Shaw, Lead Flight Director discussing the STS-37 Atlantis shuttle mission. Topics presented include overall mission objectives, flight crew, flight directors, primary payload (Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO)), Extravehicular Activities (EVA) Development Flight Experiment (EDFE), secondary payloads, Development Test Objectives (DTO's), Detailed Supplementary Objectives (DSO's), and flight day activities. Certain flight day activities including the Gamma Ray Observatory deployment and EVA movements and translations are presented as computerized simulations. The video ends with a summary of the key points of STS-37 and a question and answer period with questions posed from Johnson as well as other NASA centers. Questions include topics involving EVA safety, emergency EVA's, and what determines the day of primary payload deployment.
System diagnosis is an integral part of any Integrated System Health Management application. Diagnostic applications make use of system information from the design phase, such as safety and mission assurance analysis, failure modes and effects analysis, hazards analysis, functional models, fault propagation models, and testability analysis. In modern process control and equipment monitoring systems, topological and analytic , models of the nominal system, derived from design documents, are also employed for fault isolation and identification. Depending on the complexity of the monitored signals from the physical system, diagnostic applications may involve straightforward trending and feature extraction techniques to retrieve the parameters of importance from the sensor streams. They also may involve very complex analysis routines, such as signal processing, learning or classification methods to derive the parameters of importance to diagnosis. The process that is used to diagnose anomalous conditions from monitored system signals varies widely across the different approaches to system diagnosis. Rule-based expert systems, case-based reasoning systems, model-based reasoning systems, learning systems, and probabilistic reasoning systems are examples of the many diverse approaches ta diagnostic reasoning. Many engineering disciplines have specific approaches to modeling, monitoring and diagnosing anomalous conditions. Therefore, there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to building diagnostic and health monitoring capabilities for a system. For instance, the conventional approaches to diagnosing failures in rotorcraft applications are very different from those used in communications systems. Further, online and offline automated diagnostic applications are integrated into an operations framework with flight crews, flight controllers and maintenance teams. While the emphasis of this paper is automation of health management functions, striking the correct balance between automated and human-performed tasks is a vital concern.
The Basic Operational Robotics Instructional System (BORIS) is a six-degree-of-freedom rotational robotic manipulator system simulation used for training of fundamental robotics concepts, with in-line shoulder, offset elbow, and offset wrist. BORIS is used to provide generic robotics training to aerospace professionals including flight crews, flight controllers, and robotics instructors. It uses forward kinematic and inverse kinematic algorithms to simulate joint and end-effector motion, combined with a multibody dynamics model, moving-object contact model, and X-Windows based graphical user interfaces, coordinated in the Trick Simulation modeling environment. The motivation for development of BORIS was the need for a generic system for basic robotics training. Before BORIS, introductory robotics training was done with either the SRMS (Shuttle Remote Manipulator System) or SSRMS (Space Station Remote Manipulator System) simulations. The unique construction of each of these systems required some specialized training that distracted students from the ideas and goals of the basic robotics instruction.
The Technology Capability Level-3 (TCL3) flight tests were conducted at six different test sites located across the USA from March to May of 2018. The campaign resulted in over 830 data collection flights using 28 different aircraft and involving 20 flight crews. Flights not only varied in duration, but also in the environments and terrains over which they flew. The TCL3 tests highlighted four different types of tests: three tests focused on Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS); six tests focused on Sense and Avoid (SAA) technologies; six tests focused on USS Data and Information Exchange (DAT); and five tests focused on exploring fundamental Concepts of the project (CON). This document presents data collected during the TCL3 tests that informed the operator’s experiences—the quality of the unmanned aerial system (UAS) Service Supplier (USS) information that the operator was provided with, the usefulness of this information, and the usability of the automation, both while airborne and on the ground. It is intended to complement the reports written by the test sites and the quantitative reports and presentations of the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project. With the goal of instructing what the minimum information requirements and/or best practices might be in TCL3 operations, the driving enquiry was: How do you get the information you need, when you need it, to successfully fly a UAS in UTM airspace? This enquiry touches on two requirements for displays, which are to provide adequate situation awareness (SA) and to share information through a USS. The six test sites participating in the TCL3 tests flew a subset of the 20 tests (outlined above), with most sites working on a subset of each of the four types: Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS); DAT; CON; and Sense and Avoid (SAA). The, mainly qualitative, data addressed in this report was collected by the AOL (Airspace Operations Laboratory) both on-site and remotely for each test. The data consists of the contents of end-of-day debriefs, end-of-day surveys, observer notes, and flight test information, all submitted as part of the Data Management Plan (DMP).