Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Response and Metrics”

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.

112 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1994

Implementing Software Safety in the NASA Environment

Until recently, NASA did not consider allowing computers total control of flight systems. Human operators, via hardware, have constituted the ultimate safety control. In an attempt to reduce costs, NASA has come to rely more and more heavily on computers and software to control space missions. (For example. software is now planned to control most of the operational functions of the International Space Station.) Thus the need for systematic software safety programs has become crucial for mission success. Concurrent engineering principles dictate that safety should be designed into software up front, not tested into the software after the fact. 'Cost of Quality' studies have statistics and metrics to prove the value of building quality and safety into the development cycle. Unfortunately, most software engineers are not familiar with designing for safety, and most safety engineers are not software experts. Software written to specifications which have not been safety analyzed is a major source of computer related accidents. Safer software is achieved step by step throughout the system and software life cycle. It is a process that includes requirements definition, hazard analyses, formal software inspections, safety analyses, testing, and maintenance. The greatest emphasis is placed on clearly and completely defining system and software requirements, including safety and reliability requirements. Unfortunately, development and review of requirements are the weakest link in the process. While some of the more academic methods, e.g. mathematical models, may help bring about safer software, this paper proposes the use of currently approved software methodologies, and sound software and assurance practices to show how, to a large degree, safety can be designed into software from the start. NASA's approach today is to first conduct a preliminary system hazard analysis (PHA) during the concept and planning phase of a project. This determines the overall hazard potential of the system to be built. Shortly thereafter, as the system requirements are being defined, the second iteration of hazard analyses takes place, the systems hazard analysis (SHA). During the systems requirements phase, decisions are made as to what functions of the system will be the responsibility of software. This is the most critical time to affect the safety of the software. From this point, software safety analyses as well as software engineering practices are the main focus for assuring safe software. While many of the steps proposed in this paper seem like just sound engineering practices, they are the best technical and most cost effective means to assure safe software within a safe system.

Wetherholt, Martha S.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Human Factors and Habitability Challenges for Mars Missions

As NASA is planning to send humans deeper into space than ever before, adequate crew health and performance will be critical for mission success. Within the NASA Human Research Program (HRP), the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) team is responsible for characterizing the risks associated with human capabilities and limitations with respect to long-duration spaceflight, and for providing mitigations (e.g., guidelines, technologies, and tools) to promote safe, reliable and productive missions. SHFH research includes three domains: Advanced Environmental Health (AEH), Advanced Food Technology (AFT), and Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE). The AEH portfolio focuses on understanding the risk of microbial contamination of the spacecraft and on the development of standards for exposure to potential toxins such as chemicals, bacteria, fungus, and lunar/Martian dust. The two risks that the environmental health project focuses on are adverse health effects due to changes in host-microbe interactions, and risks associated with exposure to dust in planetary surface habitats. This portfolio also proposes countermeasures to these risks by making recommendations that relate to requirements for environmental quality, foods, and crew health on spacecraft and space missions. The AFT portfolio focuses on reducing the mass, volume, and waste of the entire integrated food system to be used in exploration missions, and investigating processing methods to extend the shelf life of food items up to five years, while assuring that exploration crews will have nutritious and palatable foods. The portfolio also delivers improvements in both the food itself and the technologies for storing and preparing it. SHFE sponsors research to establish human factors and habitability standards and guidelines in five risk areas, and provides improved design concepts for advanced crew interfaces and habitability systems. These risk areas include: Incompatible vehicle/habitat design, inadequate human-computer interaction, inadequate critical task design, inadequate human-automation/robotic interaction, and performance errors due to training deficiencies. To address the identified research gaps within each risk, SHFH's research plan includes studies in the laboratory, in analogs, and on International Space Station (ISS). In addition to establishing and maintaining the risk-based research portfolio, SHFH is also implementing a qualitative approach to determine how we at NASA evaluate human performance. Via interviews with experts, such as trainers, flight controllers, and flight surgeons, we are collecting the metrics by which they assess human performance, evidence of performance issues, and potential or actual consequences. The Human Performance Data Project will determine what human performance data have been collected in the past at NASA, and what data should be collected in the future in order to complete our knowledgebase and reduce risks related to human factors and habitability.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Thermal Assessment of Traverse and Geology Task Iterations During Simulated Lunar Extravehicular Activity

Spacewalks or extravehicular activities (EVA) in microgravity are mentally and physically demanding. Current microgravity EVAs are predominantly focused on upper body tasks on engineered surfaces; however, the introduction of gravity means that crew members during future lunar EVAs will be required to perform tasks that generate full body workloads such as navigating natural lunar terrain while conducting geological sampling. To date, only 12 people have walked on the surface of the Moon resulting in limited knowledge of suited thermal regulation under lunar-relevant physical workloads. To address this gap, a study is underway to focus on spacesuit operations with simulated lunar EVA workloads. This study presents methodology for collecting standard thermal measures during suit testing. In this pilot study, two suited subjects underwent simulated lunar EVAs using the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the effects of partial gravity. Each lunar EVA, lasting three to five hours, included various metabolically demanding EVA tasks. Subjects donned the NASA Mark III (MK III) space suit and were offloaded to 1/6th G (lunar gravity). A subset task circuit from one of these simulations replicated an EVA traverse to a lunar crater, taking a geological sample, and returning to base. The suited subject walked one 1500 m (0% grade) and three 500 m traverses at three different grades (10, 20, 30%). Between each traverse, subjects performed geology sampling tasks (0 and 10% grade). Thermal measurements included core and skin temperature, liquid cooling garment (LCG) inlet and outlet temperature, and spacesuit gas inlet and outlet temperature and humidity. Compared to baseline core temperature (S1 = 37.07±0.32 °C, S2 = 37.27±0.01 °C) and mean skin temperature (S1 = 32.38±0.34 °C, S2 = 33.62±0.03 °C), after a 1500 m traverse, each suited subject showed an increased core temperature (S1 = 37.23±0.12 °C, S2 = 37.41±0.11°C) and decreased mean skin temperature (S1 = 32.16±0.17 °C, S2 = 31.53±1.15 °C) at a delta LCG temperature (S1 = 1.86±0.24 °C, S2 = 2.20±0.76 °C) and delta suit humidity (S1 = 9.66±1.49 %, S2 = 11.50±1.58 %). Core temperature continued to increase from compounding traverse and geology tasks (S1 = 38.04±0.03 °C, S2 = 38.1±0.02 °C) accompanied by an increase in delta LCG temperature (S1 = 2.24±0.13 °C, S2 = 2.67±0.12 °C) and delta suit humidity (S1 = 28±2.42 %, S2 = 31±2.13 %). Conversely, as the circuit progressed, mean skin temperature continued to decrease due to sustained LCG heat rejection (S1 = 30.08±0.15 °C, S2 = 30.28±0.07 °C). During the simulated EVA circuit core temperature increased to elevated values and remained elevated as heat was retained while mean skin temperature decreased due to peripheral heat offloaded to the LCG. The thermal measures collected during this study provided critical heat loading dynamics during lunar EVA tasks. Including core and skin temperatures along with suited thermal measures provides a standard data collection scheme for human thermal metrics during EVA task management. Data collected in this configuration can be used to build future lunar EVA task circuits and human thermal predictions.

Bradley Hoffmann↗
NASA NTRS2022

Event Report for The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a powerful emerging technology area which requires special attention to using it ethically. AI ethics is still an emerging field, and the partners for this workshop and report seek to move AI ethics discussion ahead by experimenting with ways to measure AI ethics criteria. The following document describes the outcomes and learnings from The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop held at the National Institute for Aerospace (NIA), Hampton, Virginia on May 12th, 2022. The purpose of the workshop was for participants to evaluate and experiment-with the methodology and process presented by AIEthics.World in cooperation with Intel Corporation. The meeting participants learned about the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™ and applied the methodology to selected notional AI systems. The workshop facilitated the evaluation of the maturity of the AI system according to ethical considerations relevant to NASA, NIA and other participants. The workshop consisted of three main phases. The first phase focused on understanding and summarizing NASA’s ethical approaches, mission and values based on published documentation, discussions and individual insights & opinions of participants. This information was prioritized, weighted, ordered, and quantified in phase two, to formulate an alignment between human values (ethics) and their applicability to AI systems during all lifecycle phases. The first two phases were summarized as a form of ethical genealogy for artificial intelligence, specific to NASA’s ethical approaches. In the third and last phase of the workshop the participants evaluated notional examples of artificial intelligence to qualify and quantify its ability to adhere to the organizational ethics approaches, using the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™. The workshop uses the concept of genealogy, in the traditional sense: the study and traceability of lines of ancestors in the process of evolutionary development from earlier forms. However, as it is applied to an Ethical AI definition, it is providing the insights to the necessary and mandatory traceability of content, data, metrics, telemetry, elements, and structures which are used in the AI’s lifecycle to foster and measure AI ethics in all steps of its lifecycle. The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop provided NASA with the opportunity to apply the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™, in combination with existing and well-known decision-making and quality control methods to identify the metrics and measurements for an Ethical AI and assess its ethical condition and quality aligned with NASA ethics approaches. The result of the workshop is the capacity for NASA to apply the maturity model assessment to its AI Systems as desired and if necessary, publish the ability of these AI Systems to adhere to the organizational ethical goals. AI ethics frameworks need to be customized for each application domain, for example, individual NASA Mission Directorates. General principles that work in one area such as AI/Machine Learning-based text analysis (the ethics of information-extraction) may need to be adapted for another such as sense-and-avoid decision-making in a flight environment. The workshop was conducted among approximately twenty NASA subject matter experts, so the elements noted above should be considered examples, not definitive NASA ethical AI principles, genealogy, etc. Generating a definitive AI ethics framework for an organization as diverse as NASA would require far more discussion, debate, review, etc. However, the workshop provided valuable insight into mechanisms and processes for quantifying AI ethical qualities.

Artificial Intelligence↗