SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Training”

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 145 records · Page 8

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1973

Development of simulation computer complex specification

The Training Simulation Computer Complex Study was one of three studies contracted in support of preparations for procurement of a shuttle mission simulator for shuttle crew training. The subject study was concerned with definition of the software loads to be imposed on the computer complex to be associated with the shuttle mission simulator and the development of procurement specifications based on the resulting computer requirements. These procurement specifications cover the computer hardware and system software as well as the data conversion equipment required to interface the computer to the simulator hardware. The development of the necessary hardware and software specifications required the execution of a number of related tasks which included, (1) simulation software sizing, (2) computer requirements definition, (3) data conversion equipment requirements definition, (4) system software requirements definition, (5) a simulation management plan, (6) a background survey, and (7) preparation of the specifications.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Time Requirements in Future Space Greenhouses - What Can We Infer from Current Analog and Space Missions?

Efficient crop production will be required to advance humanity’s presence in space, and for this, accurate predictions of crew time in future space greenhouse modules will be crucial to design and operate these plant growth systems, and schedule crop production. Crew time estimates will also be critical for deciding priorities of automating different aspects of space crop production. Because it is difficult to capture in operational environments, crew time for plant cultivation has only been sporadically recorded in past analog and space missions. We propose a methodology for efficient categorizing and reporting of crew time in space plant growth systems: first identify the different tasks needed to operate the greenhouse module, second define a representative time period for data collection, third accurately report crew time for individual tasks - and their occurrence, and fourth use collected data to improve greenhouse modules and plant growth system designs. Using data from various analog facilities and from the Veggie hardware on ISS, and assumptions for different mission scenarios, we discuss how crew time for plant cultivation can be reduced with adequate choices of crops, automation, artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual assistants, and sufficient crew training. This has major implications for the design of future space greenhouse modules. For example, missions on future space stations or during interplanetary travel would save significant crew time by including leafy greens and microgreens for astronaut’s diet supplement, with automated watering, health and environmental checks, as well as AI managing maintenance schedules, and a virtual assistant for repair activities. This work was funded by NASA Space Biology through NASA postdoctoral program / USRA, by NASA’s Space Biology and Human Research Programs, and by the European Union Horizon 2020 program via the COMPET-07-2014 - Space exploration – Life-support subprogram (reference number: 636501).

Lucie Poulet↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Time Requirements in Future Space Greenhouses: What Can We Infer from Current Analog and Space Missions?

Veggie↗

NASA NTRS2015

Robonaut 2 - Building a Robot on the International Space Station

In 2010, the Robonaut Project embarked on a multi‐phase mission to perform technology demonstrations on‐board the International Space Station (ISS), showcasing state of the art robotics technologies through the use of Robonaut 2 (R2). This phased approach implements a strategy that allows for the use of ISS as a test bed during early development to both demonstrate capability and test technology while still making advancements in the earth based laboratories for future testing and operations in space. While R2 was performing experimental trials onboard the ISS during the first phase, engineers were actively designing for Phase 2, Intra‐Vehicular Activity (IVA) Mobility, that utilizes a set of zero‐g climbing legs outfitted with grippers to grasp handrails and seat tracks. In addition to affixing the new climbing legs to the existing R2 torso, it became clear that upgrades to the torso to both physically accommodate the climbing legs and to expand processing power and capabilities of the robot were required. In addition to these upgrades, a new safety architecture was also implemented in order to account for the expanded capabilities of the robot. The IVA climbing legs not only needed to attach structurally to the R2 torso on ISS, but also required power and data connections that did not exist in the upper body. The climbing legs were outfitted with a blind mate adapter and coarse alignment guides for easy installation, but the upper body required extensive rewiring to accommodate the power and data connections. This was achieved by mounting a custom adapter plate to the torso and routing the additional wiring through the waist joint to connect to the new set of processors. In addition to the power and data channels, the integrated unit also required updated electronics boards, additional sensors and updated processors to accommodate a new operating system, software platform, and custom control system. In order to perform the unprecedented task of building a robot in space, extensive practice sessions and meticulous procedures were required. Since crew training time is at a premium, the R2 team took a skills‐based training approach to ensure the astronauts were proficient with a basic skill set while refining the detailed procedures over several practice sessions and simulations. In addition to the crew activities, meticulous ground procedures were required in order to upgrade firmware on the upper body motor drivers. The new firmware for the IVA mobility unit needed to be deployed using the old software system. This also provided an opportunity to upgrade the upper body joints with new software and allowed for limited insight into the success of the updates. Complete verification that the updated firmware was successfully loaded was not confirmed until the rewiring of the upper body torso was complete.

Diftler, Myron↗

NASA NTRS1987

Orbital transfer vehicle concept definition and system analysis study. Volume 4, Appendix A: Space station accommodations. Revision 1

Orbit Transfer Vehicle (OTV) processing at the space station is divided into two major categories: OTV processing and assembly operations, and support operations. These categories are further subdivided into major functional areas to allow development of detailed OTV processing procedures and timelines. These procedures and timelines are used to derive the specific space station accommodations necessary to support OTV activities. The overall objective is to limit impact on OTV processing requirements on space station operations, involvement of crew, and associated crew training and skill requirements. The operational concept maximizes use of automated and robotic systems to perform all required OTV servicing and maintenance tasks. Only potentially critical activities would require direct crew involvement or supervision. EVA operations are considered to be strictly contingency back-up to failure of the automated and robotic systems, with the exception of the initial assembly of Space-Based OTV accommodations at the space station, which will require manned involvement.

Randall, Roger M.↗

NASA NTRS1975

Apollo Soyuz test project press kit: USA-USSR

The goals and program of the mission are described. Operations from preflight crew training through splashdown are included. Spacecraft and launch vehicle configurations are given. The 27 joint and unilateral experiments to be performed are described. A flight plan and a schedule of activities is included, together with brief crew biographies. The ground support system is discussed; it includes control centers in Houston and Moscow, and an ATS satellite to relay ground-air-ground communications. The global tracking network and the television transmission system are also described.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2002

STS-112 Crew Interviews - Wolf

STS-112 Mission Specialist David Wolf is seen during this preflight interview, where he first answers questions on his career path and role models. Other questions cover mission goals, ISS (International Space Station) Expedition 5 spacecrew, crew training, the S1 Truss and its radiators, the MBS (Mobile Base Structure), his experience onboard Mir, and his EVAs (extravehicular activities) on the coming mission. The EVAs are the subject of several questions. Wolf discusses his crew members, and elsewhere discusses Pilot Pamela Melroy's role as an IV crew member during EVAs. In addition, Wolf answers questions on transfer operations, the SHIMMER experiment, and his thoughts on multinational crews and crew bonding.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1990

Shuttle rendezvous and proximity operations

Shuttle rendezvous and proximity operations trajectory control techniques are reviewed and it is noted that they have been affected by many factors including Shuttle system design constraints such as limited forward RCS and single point radar failures. Crew training requirements and mission operations constraints such as large launch windows, flexibility, and contingency profile interrupts are also integral factors. The resulting trajectory control design primarily uses ground support for the launch and orbit adjust phases, standardized crew techniques utilizing onboard software for the relative navigation flight phase, and mission unique manual control for a flexible proximity operations phase.

Pearson, Don J.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Potential roles for EVA and telerobotics in a unified worksite

Although telerobotics and extravehicular activity (EVA) are often portrayed as competitive approaches to space operations, ongoing research in the Space Systems Laboratory (SSL) has demonstrated the utility of cooperative roles in an integrated EVA/telerobotic work site. Working in the neutral buoyancy simulation environment, tests were performed on interactive roles or EVA subjects and telerobots in structural assembly and satellite servicing tasks. In the most elaborate of these tests to date, EVA subjects were assisted by the SSL's Beam Assembly Teleoperator (BAT) in several servicing tasks planned for Hubble Space Telescope, using the high-fidelity crew training article in the NASA Marshall Neutral Buoyancy Simulator. These tests revealed several shortcomings in the design of BAT for satellite servicing and demonstrated the utility of a free-flying or RMS-mounted telerobot for providing EVA crew assistance. This paper documents the past tests, including the use of free-flying telerobots to effect the rescue of a simulated incapacitated EVA subject, and details planned future efforts in this area, including the testing of a new telerobotic system optimized for the satellite servicing role, the development of dedicated telerobotic devices designed specifically for assisting EVA crew, and conceptual approaches to advanced EVA/telerobotic operations such as the Astronaut Operations Vehicle.

Akin, David↗

NASA NTRS1999

The evolution of Crew Resource Management training in commercial aviation

In this study, we describe changes in the nature of Crew Resource Management (CRM) training in commercial aviation, including its shift from cockpit to crew resource management. Validation of the impact of CRM is discussed. Limitations of CRM, including lack of cross-cultural generality are considered. An overarching framework that stresses error management to increase acceptance of CRM concepts is presented. The error management approach defines behavioral strategies taught in CRM as error countermeasures that are employed to avoid error, to trap errors committed, and to mitigate the consequences of error.

Non-NASA Center↗

NASA NTRS2002

An Illumination Modeling System for Human Factors Analyses

Seeing is critical to human performance. Lighting is critical for seeing. Therefore, lighting is critical to human performance. This is common sense, and here on earth, it is easily taken for granted. However, on orbit, because the sun will rise or set every 45 minutes on average, humans working in space must cope with extremely dynamic lighting conditions. Contrast conditions of harsh shadowing and glare is also severe. The prediction of lighting conditions for critical operations is essential. Crew training can factor lighting into the lesson plans when necessary. Mission planners can determine whether low-light video cameras are required or whether additional luminaires need to be flown. The optimization of the quantity and quality of light is needed because of the effects on crew safety, on electrical power and on equipment maintainability. To address all of these issues, an illumination modeling system has been developed by the Graphics Research and Analyses Facility (GRAF) and Lighting Environment Test Facility (LETF) in the Space Human Factors Laboratory at NASA Johnson Space Center. The system uses physically based ray tracing software (Radiance) developed at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, a human factors oriented geometric modeling system (PLAID) and an extensive database of humans and environments. Material reflectivity properties of major surfaces and critical surfaces are measured using a gonio-reflectometer. Luminaires (lights) are measured for beam spread distribution, color and intensity. Video camera performances are measured for color and light sensitivity. 3D geometric models of humans and the environment are combined with the material and light models to form a system capable of predicting lighting conditions and visibility conditions in space.

Huynh, Thong↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Medical System Requirements Development for Lunar Operations

The major health hazards of spaceflight include higher levels of damaging radiation, altered gravity, extended periods of isolation and confinement, a closed and potentially hostile living environment, and the stress associated with being a long distance from Earth. As we increase the duration of lunar stays with foreseeable communication latencies and disruptions, there will be a progressive need for crew to maintain their own health and independently respond to critical medical events. The Exploration Medical Capability element of the NASA Human Research Program is developing a set of Medical System requirements for lunar transit and surface operations. These requirements specify the capabilities, processes and procedures of a habitat Medical System needed for a range of conditions known to occur during spaceflight. Requirement text is written so as not to constrain innovative design solutions necessary for a resilient system. The requirement set includes attributes and functions the Medical System imposes on eight additional habitat systems. A key property of the Medical System is the provision of medical knowledge that will be stored, updated, analyzed, and secured within a Habitat Data System. A Task Performance Support System will aid in medical data acquisition and interpretation, crew training, medical condition prevention, diagnosis and treatment, provide interactive procedures, and track medical inventory. A Wellness System will focus on the provision of countermeasures to prevent, mitigate or treat adverse physical and behavioral health effects while the Medical System recommends adjustments to these countermeasures to maintain crew health. An Environmental Monitoring System will share out-of-bounds readings of air and water quality, acoustics, and radiation exposure levels with the Medical System to help identify issues before they affect crew health and performance. A Communications System will provide secured and private consultations between crew and the ground medical team and their loved ones on Earth. The Medical System also imposes requirements on a Research & Testbed System, fostering advanced medical science such as human research. A Waste Management System provides biohazard waste containment and waste disposal options (recycle and reuse). An Extravehicular Activity System supports crew health during lunar surface activities. And finally, a Maintenance Support System ensures that medical equipment is performing as expected. These requirements are being specifically developed for lunar surface operations but could help to identify Medical System requirements for any space habitat (e.g., I-Hab, commercial endeavors, etc.).

technology↗

NASA NTRS2018

Arog Dual Purpose Habitat

Vision and Mission Statement Commonality of design between a space transit habitat and Mars surface habitat has the potential to reduce mission cost and risk by reducing crew training and increasing efficiency on arrival. Using the diverse array of talent and expertise available at the University of Michigan, BLiSS will explore the concept of commonality on every level of the design. System Definition We will design a habitation system that will house a human crew on either the Martian surface or a deep space transit. The system will be designed with a high degree of commonality between the two configurations. The team will validate the design through analysis and the construction of full scale mockups.

Nilton De Oliveira Renno↗

NASA NTRS1980

Shuttle mission simulator

The simulator was designed to provide real time simulation capability for all phases of the Shuttle Transportation System orbital missions including prelaunch, ascent, onorbit operations, deorbit, entry, approach/landing, and rollout. Full mission continuity is provided in transition between these mission phases. Dual fixed and motion base crew stations, instructor/operator stations, and computer systems allow parallel, simultaneous crew training with either complex capable of being individually integrated with the mission control center. This integrated training capability allows flight control personnel training in the air/ground interface areas of tracking, telemetry (vehicle systems monitoring), uplink command control, and communications. With the exception of the simulated Data Processing System, which utilizes actual flight computers and associated flight software, all orbiter onboard systems are functionally simulated with extensive simulated malfunction capabilities. Additionally, crew out-the-window visual scenes, and aural cues are rigorously simulated.

Olasky, C.↗

NASA NTRS1998

Crew Skills and Training

One of the major focus points for the workshop was the topic of crew skills and training necessary for the Mars surface mission. Discussions centered on the mix of scientific skills necessary to accomplish the proposed scientific goals, and the training environment that can bring the ground and flight teams to readiness. Subsequent discussion resulted in recommendations for specific steps to begin the process of training an experienced Mars exploration team.

Jones, Thomas↗

NASA NTRS2006

Conducting Closed Habitation Experiments: Experience from the Lunar Mars Life Support Test Project

The Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) was conducted from 1995 through 1997 at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to demonstrate increasingly longer duration operation of integrated, closed-loop life support systems that employed biological and physicochemical techniques for water recycling, waste processing, air revitalization, thermal control, and food production. An analog environment for long-duration human space travel, the conditions of isolation and confinement also enabled studies of human factors, medical sciences (both physiology and psychology) and crew training. Four tests were conducted, Phases I, II, IIa and III, with durations of 15, 30, 60 and 91 days, respectively. The first phase focused on biological air regeneration, using wheat to generate enough oxygen for one experimental subject. The systems demonstrated in the later phases were increasingly complex and interdependent, and provided life support for four crew members. The tests were conducted using two human-rated, atmospherically-closed test chambers, the Variable Pressure Growth Chamber (VPGC) and the Integrated Life Support Systems Test Facility (ILSSTF). Systems included test articles (the life support hardware under evaluation), human accommodations (living quarters, kitchen, exercise equipment, etc.) and facility systems (emergency matrix system, power, cooling, etc.). The test team was managed by a lead engineer and a test director, and included test article engineers responsible for specific systems, subsystems or test articles, test conductors, facility engineers, chamber operators and engineering technicians, medical and safety officers, and science experimenters. A crew selection committee, comprised of psychologists, engineers and managers involved in the test, evaluated male and female volunteers who applied to be test subjects. Selection was based on the skills mix anticipated for each particular test, and utilized information from psychological and medical testing, data on the knowledge, experience and skills of the applicants, and team building exercises. The design, development, buildup and operation of test hardware and documentation followed the established NASA processes and requirements for test buildup and operation.

Barta, Daniel J.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Conducting Closed Habitation Experiments: Experience from the Lunar Mars Life Support Test Project

The Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) was conducted from 1995 through 1997 at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to demonstrate increasingly longer duration operation of integrated, closed-loop life support systems that employed biological and physicochemical techniques for water recycling, waste processing, air revitalization, thermal control, and food production. An analog environment for long-duration human space travel, the conditions of isolation and confinement also enabled studies of human factors, medical sciences (both physiology and psychology) and crew training. Four tests were conducted, Phases I, II, IIa and III, with durations of 15, 30,60 and 91 days, respectively. The first phase focused on biological air regeneration, using wheat to generate enough oxygen for one experimental subject. The systems demonstrated in the later phases were increasingly complex and interdependent, and provided life support for four crew members. The tests were conducted using two human-rated, atmospherically-closed test chambers, the Variable Pressure Growth Chamber (VPGC) and the Integrated Life Support Systems Test Facility (ILSSTF). Systems included test articles (the life support hardware under evaluation), human accommodations (living quarters, kitchen, exercise equipment, etc.) and facility systems (emergency matrix system, power, cooling, etc.). The test team was managed by a lead engineer and a test director, and included test article engineers responsible for specific systems, subsystems or test articles, test conductors, facility engineers, chamber operators and engineering technicians, medical and safety officers, and science experimenters. A crew selection committee, comprised of psychologists, engineers and managers involved in the test, evaluated male and female volunteers who applied to be test subjects. Selection was based on the skills mix anticipated for each particular test, and utilized information from psychological and medical testing, data on the knowledge, experience and skills of the applicants, and team building exercises. The design, development, buildup and operation of test hardware and documentation followed the established NASA processes and requirements for test buildup and operation.

Barta, Daniel J.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Fault Management Techniques in Human Spaceflight Operations

This paper discusses human spaceflight fault management operations. Fault detection and response capabilities available in current US human spaceflight programs Space Shuttle and International Space Station are described while emphasizing system design impacts on operational techniques and constraints. Preflight and inflight processes along with products used to anticipate, mitigate and respond to failures are introduced. Examples of operational products used to support failure responses are presented. Possible improvements in the state of the art, as well as prioritization and success criteria for their implementation are proposed. This paper describes how the architecture of a command and control system impacts operations in areas such as the required fault response times, automated vs. manual fault responses, use of workarounds, etc. The architecture includes the use of redundancy at the system and software function level, software capabilities, use of intelligent or autonomous systems, number and severity of software defects, etc. This in turn drives which Caution and Warning (C&W) events should be annunciated, C&W event classification, operator display designs, crew training, flight control team training, and procedure development. Other factors impacting operations are the complexity of a system, skills needed to understand and operate a system, and the use of commonality vs. optimized solutions for software and responses. Fault detection, annunciation, safing responses, and recovery capabilities are explored using real examples to uncover underlying philosophies and constraints. These factors directly impact operations in that the crew and flight control team need to understand what happened, why it happened, what the system is doing, and what, if any, corrective actions they need to perform. If a fault results in multiple C&W events, or if several faults occur simultaneously, the root cause(s) of the fault(s), as well as their vehicle-wide impacts, must be determined in order to maintain situational awareness. This allows both automated and manual recovery operations to focus on the real cause of the fault(s). An appropriate balance must be struck between correcting the root cause failure and addressing the impacts of that fault on other vehicle components. Lastly, this paper presents a strategy for using lessons learned to improve the software, displays, and procedures in addition to determining what is a candidate for automation. Enabling technologies and techniques are identified to promote system evolution from one that requires manual fault responses to one that uses automation and autonomy where they are most effective. These considerations include the value in correcting software defects in a timely manner, automation of repetitive tasks, making time critical responses autonomous, etc. The paper recommends the appropriate use of intelligent systems to determine the root causes of faults and correctly identify separate unrelated faults.

O'Hagan, Brian↗