Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Systems Integration”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

Immersive Simulations and Engineering Environment (iSEE): Improving Fidelity of Virtual Reality Simulations

The Immersive Simulation and Engineering Environment (iSEE) provides Kennedy Space Center (KSC) with accurate Human Systems Integration (HSI) analysis of the stresses on a human body incurred from physical work, along with accessibility and reach factors. Human Factors engineers can observe the simulations conducted by iSEE and work with the gathered data to help make the working environment at KSC safer. The software that runs the HSI analysis, however, provides users with a low fidelity virtual environment. Previously, this led to the addition and implementation of other iSEE programs that were capable of higher-fidelity simulations. The difficulties of streamlining the workflow in the lab with these new programs is currently being addressed.

Sein, Alexandr↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Communication Delay on Human Spaceflight Missions

Missions onboard the International Space Station rely on the real-time availability of a large ground team of system experts to command the vehicle, solve safety-critical problems, and guide the crew during complex operations. Also, in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), supplies can be sent and crews evacuated quite quickly if needed. Future missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit (BLEO) will not have this 24/7, real-time safety net as communication latency increases, resupply difficulty increases, and evacuation opportunities diminish. There are few, if any, terrestrial analogs for human spaceflight missions BLEO that reflect the conditions—including extreme environments, long mission durations, and small crew sizes – that make these missions so high risk. Studies on specific conditions, such as communication delays and asynchronous interactions, have been performed in NASA Earth-based analog missions and have found that communication delays can disrupt ground-crew interactions and adversely impact team performance. However, there are gaps and limitations in studies conducted to date, notably on human spacecraft system failure response and recovery, the impacts of shorter lunar-relevant communication delays on complex operations, and the effectiveness of countermeasures. The work presented here breaks down real anomalies that occurred on ISS and Apollo missions and creates example scenarios fort Lunar Surface and Mars missions to explore the impact of communication delays of varying length on onboard operations and mission outcomes. Our analyses indicate that short communication delays (e.g., seconds to a minute) adversely impact the ability for ground to provide real-time oversight and guidance and to catch quickly emerging problems in time. Longer communication delays (e.g., up to 40 minutes on Mars missions) call for a shift of responsibility for tactical operations from ground to crew; crew must make time-critical decisions independently and respond to time-critical vehicle anomalies to prevent consequences.

human-systems integration↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Communication Delay on Human Spaceflight Missions

Missions onboard the International Space Station rely on the real-time availability of a large ground team of system experts to command the vehicle, solve safety-critical problems, and guide the crew during complex operations. Also, in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), supplies can be sent and crews evacuated quite quickly if needed. Future missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit (BLEO) will not have this 24/7, real-time safety net as communication latency increases, resupply difficulty increases, and evacuation opportunities diminish. There are few, if any, terrestrial analogs for human spaceflight missions BLEO that reflect the conditions—including extreme environments, long mission durations, and small crew sizes – that make these missions so high risk. Studies on specific conditions, such as communication delays and asynchronous interactions, have been performed in NASA Earth-based analog missions and have found that communication delays can disrupt ground-crew interactions and adversely impact team performance. However, there are gaps and limitations in studies conducted to date, notably on human spacecraft system failure response and recovery, the impacts of shorter lunar-relevant communication delays on complex operations, and the effectiveness of countermeasures. The work presented here breaks down real anomalies that occurred on ISS and Apollo missions and creates example scenarios fort Lunar Surface and Mars missions to explore the impact of communication delays of varying length on onboard operations and mission outcomes. Our analyses indicate that short communication delays (e.g., seconds to a minute) adversely impact the ability for ground to provide real-time oversight and guidance and to catch quickly emerging problems in time. Longer communication delays (e.g., up to 40 minutes on Mars missions) call for a shift of responsibility for tactical operations from ground to crew; crew must make time-critical decisions independently and respond to time-critical vehicle anomalies to prevent consequences.

human-systems integration↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Impact of Delayed Communication on NASA’s Human-Systems Operations: Preliminary Results of a Systematic Review

Throughout the history of human spaceflight, NASA has relied on a team of ground-based experts on Earth to manage its missions, vehicles, and crews to ensure crew safety and mission success. However, as missions progress beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), this paradigm of dependence on ground must evolve. Beyond LEO, in missions to the moon and Mars, crews will confront new challenges: limited evacuation options, reduced resupply capabilities, and significant communication delays that impede real-time support from experts on the ground. This reduction in ground support amplifies the likelihood that crews will be unable to adequately respond to unanticipated, safety-critical events. Understanding the scope of these risks and identifying effective countermeasures hinges on understanding the impact of communication delays on complex operations, especially in urgent, unforeseen events. Real-time communication currently provides the crew with continuous access to a large, extensively resourced ground team skilled in anomaly resolution. However, as communication delays grow, the need to transfer some responsibilities from ground experts to onboard crew becomes evident. NASA has been exploring this shift in operational responsibilities and its effectiveness in managing complex operations for decades. Nevertheless, a comprehensive understanding of the specific challenges posed by communication delays and the necessary countermeasures to mitigate them remains a gap. In this paper, we present an update on our systematic review of the literature on communication delays, the first in-depth review since 2013 (Rader et al.). We introduce a coding taxonomy to capture key constructs from papers of interest and discuss preliminary findings. These preliminary results suggest two significant research gaps: limited studies have been conducted 1) with lunar-like latencies and 2) on problem-solving strategies for the maximum latencies expected in Mars missions. We outline plans and propose recommendations to address these gaps through ongoing and future research.

human-systems integration↗
NASA NTRS2013

Human Centered Hardware Modeling and Collaboration

In order to collaborate engineering designs among NASA Centers and customers, to in clude hardware and human activities from multiple remote locations, live human-centered modeling and collaboration across several sites has been successfully facilitated by Kennedy Space Center. The focus of this paper includes innovative a pproaches to engineering design analyses and training, along with research being conducted to apply new technologies for tracking, immersing, and evaluating humans as well as rocket, vehic le, component, or faci lity hardware utilizing high resolution cameras, motion tracking, ergonomic analysis, biomedical monitoring, wor k instruction integration, head-mounted displays, and other innovative human-system integration modeling, simulation, and collaboration applications.

Stambolian Damon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS: Teams Risk

BACKGROUNDThe Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogsof the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.METHODSWe followed best practices for data harmonization. Characteristics of each research setting were assessed for harmonization potential, and we deemed NEK-SIRIUS 17 as inappropriate due to study aims, length, and data quality. Common variables of interest were identified. Study characteristics and key variables with which datafiles could be merged were defined as “meta-data.” HFBP-EM data from all settings were processed under a common format. We then created a harmonized team-level database designed to facilitate analyses that address HRP research gaps related to HRP’s Team risk. In this database, team cohesion, processes, performance, psychological safety, and group living were operationalized as the team mean of the crew responses for each data collection (e.g., on mission day 7). Data collected on the International Space Station (ISS) included a subset of scale items administered to participants. Data collected from ISS team members within +/- 7 days of the first data collection and every following 30 +/-4 days were aggregated to the team level. We generated figures that display the mean and variability of team constructs across research settings. We also generated plots of changes in team constructs with mission day and with percentage of the mission completed. Where possible, we compared data from spaceflight analogs with data from astronauts aboard the ISS. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe team-level harmonized database was structured such that each row represents data for a team on a specific mission day. Team constructs (e.g., team cohesion) were included as columns (i.e., wide format) with repeated measures across mission days given in rows (i.e., long format). The database included data from 18 crews: five, 4-person American crews in HERA C4, four 4-person American crews in HERA C5, one 6-person multinational crew in NEK-SIRIUS 19, and eight, 2–11-person multinational crews aboard the ISS. Results provide insights into mission and campaign differences in team functioning and performance. For example, between campaign differences were observed for team processes—the interdependent team actions that orchestrate taskwork in pursuit of the team’s goals [1]. Greater between-team variability on team processes was detected during HERA C4 than during C5, and a downward trend was observed over the duration of C4, but not C5 or SIRIUS 19. This may be due to the campaign-level differences such as the sleep deprivation implemented during C4. Responses on the subset of team process items administered on the ISS indicate between-crew variability more like those observed in C4 than C5 and NEK, with some, but not all ISS crews demonstrating a downward trend over time. Additional findings will be presented. REFERENCESMarks, M. A., et al (2001) Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS Teams Risk

The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogs of the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, And ISS: Behavioral Medicine Risk

The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures used to assess behavioral health and performance risks related to future exploration class space missions. The HFBP-EM addresses the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) campaigns 4 and 5, and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogs of spaceflight environments. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected in spaceflight as part of the HRP Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are the same across studies, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, and mission length) and implementation of the measures require that the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project was to develop a harmonized database of analyzable HFBP-EM data from spaceflight and analog settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance outcomes within and between mission settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of BMed related measures including depression, neurobehavioral function, mood, cognition, and operationally relevant individual performance over time and by campaign and mission.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Preliminary Design of an 'Autonomous Medical Response Agent' Interface Prototype for Long Duration Spaceflight

Major challenges for astronauts in future long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs) will be that crewmembers are not expected to be medical professionals, may be under high workload and stress, are facing physiological challenges caused by spaceflight, and will have limited, delayed voice communications with medical support from Earth. An autonomous medical response agent (AMRA) is envisioned to help astronauts address medical complaints, develop a differential diagnosis, and guide self-treatment until a healthy state is restored. AMRA develops a process of personalized diagnosis and treatment through a Bayesian predictive control system that recommends therapeutic control actions including diagnostic tests and treatments to crewmembers (Menon, 2020). The Human Computer Interaction (HCI) lab from NASA Ames Research Center’s Human Systems Integration Division (Code TH) has collaborated with Nahlia Inc in human-centered design augmentation research for AMRA. The project, titled Design of ‘Autonomous Medical Response Agent Interface Prototype for Long Duration Spaceflight, has been funded by the Translational Research Institute for Space Health (TRISH) and introduces an interactive user-interface prototype that guides astronauts through self-diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation while communicating with remote specialists in ground support (most notably a patient’s flight surgeon). Our project develops the interaction design for the crewmember using AMRA through user research, iterative design, and usability testing to evaluate the user interface and workflow designed. The interface design deliverable for this project, titled AMRA Aggregate Information Display (AMRA AID) is an integrated information display system for comprehensive autonomous medical guidance, diagnosis, and treatment of in-flight medical conditions experienced by crewmembers. AMRA AID demonstrates how we might ensure crew autonomy, increase the crew’s medical capabilities, and decrease cognitive burden within a front-end user interface. AMRA AID refrains from relying on input from ground or mission control for self-treatment of medical issues—though ground awareness and communication with ground is maintained as a means of ensuring trust between mission control and crew. AMRA AID demonstrates how the crew’s on-board medical system might integrate with information from vehicle monitoring and crew schedule, without assuming causal relationships. AMRA AID’s comprehensive view enables efficient information access for both crew and ground support, reducing cognitive burden in the event of an unplanned or emergency medical incident and enabling informed analytical decisions to be made based on both crew and vehicle health. Human-centered design augmentation advanced within the prototype included: enhanced workflow and treatment guidance for two medical scenarios for a non-specialist user base with various levels of medical training, interaction design which considered speech (conversational user interface) elements and on-screen interactions to be developed in future iterations of the project, communication design and functional requirements relevant to self-care versus caring for another astronaut, as well as user testing of the prototype with an international space medical community. This project arrives at critical findings regarding usability needs, communication requirements, and integrated information requirements for a future technology interface functioning to increase confidence between ground support and LDEM crewmembers.

TRISH↗
NASA NTRS2005

Cognition in Space Workshop: Metrics and Models - 1

"Cognition in Space Workshop I: Metrics and Models" was the first in a series of workshops sponsored by NASA to develop an integrated research and development plan supporting human cognition in space exploration. The workshop was held in Chandler, Arizona, October 25-27, 2004. The participants represented academia, government agencies, and medical centers. This workshop addressed the following goal of the NASA Human System Integration Program for Exploration: to develop a program to manage risks due to human performance and human error, specifically ones tied to cognition. Risks range from catastrophic error to degradation of efficiency and failure to accomplish mission goals. Cognition itself includes memory, decision making, initiation of motor responses, sensation, and perception. Four subgoals were also defined at the workshop as follows: (1) NASA needs to develop a human-centered design process that incorporates standards for human cognition, human performance, and assessment of human interfaces; (2) NASA needs to identify and assess factors that increase risks associated with cognition; (3) NASA needs to predict risks associated with cognition; and (4) NASA needs to mitigate risk, both prior to actual missions and in real time. This report develops the material relating to these four subgoals.

Woolford, Barbara↗
NASA NTRS2013

Ubiquitous Wireless Smart Sensing and Control

Need new technologies to reliably and safely have humans interact within sensored environments (integrated user interfaces, physical and cognitive augmentation, training, and human-systems integration tools). Areas of focus include: radio frequency identification (RFID), motion tracking, wireless communication, wearable computing, adaptive training and decision support systems, and tele-operations. The challenge is developing effective, low cost/mass/volume/power integrated monitoring systems to assess and control system, environmental, and operator health; and accurately determining and controlling the physical, chemical, and biological environments of the areas and associated environmental control systems.

Wagner, Raymond↗
NASA NTRS2013

Ubiquitous Wireless Smart Sensing and Control. Pumps and Pipes JSC: Uniquely Houston

Need new technologies to reliably and safely have humans interact within sensored environments (integrated user interfaces, physical and cognitive augmentation, training, and human-systems integration tools).Areas of focus include: radio frequency identification (RFID), motion tracking, wireless communication, wearable computing, adaptive training and decision support systems, and tele-operations. The challenge is developing effective, low cost/mass/volume/power integrated monitoring systems to assess and control system, environmental, and operator health; and accurately determining and controlling the physical, chemical, and biological environments of the areas and associated environmental control systems.

Wagner, Raymond↗
NASA NTRS2018

An Analysis of the Role of Safety Nets in the National Airspace System

Safe operations of aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) may be attributed to many factors, including the application of a variety of safety nets (SNs) as a last line of defense. In preparation for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), a review of Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) reports for incidents with positive outcomes was conducted to investigate the importance of current safety nets. The examination of positive outcomes not only shows what went wrong, but also what went right to prevent accidents and “save the day.” More than 400 incident reports for 2015 from the voluntary ASRS reporting database were studied in detail to create event sequence diagrams (ESDs), illustrating the effectiveness of SNs. The developed ESDs are considered top-level, representative models and are limited with respect to being reliably quantitative because they are based on only reports from a single year. The ESDs could offer insights into human systems integration research, such as strategically using technologies as SNs without human interface or alleviating human workload with new technologies to provide resilient recovery from off-nominal conditions ensuring flight safety.

Geuther, Steven↗
NASA NTRS2014

Variable Vector Countermeasure Suit (V2Suit) for Space Habitation and Exploration

The Variable Vector Countermeasure Suit (V2Suit) for Space Habitation and Exploration is a visionary system concept that will revolutionize space missions by providing a platform for integrating sensors and actuators with daily astronaut intravehicular activities to improve human health and performance. The V2Suit uses control moment gyroscopes (CMGs) within a miniaturized module placed on body segments to provide a viscous resistance during movements _ a countermeasure to the sensorimotor and musculoskeletal adaptation performance decrements that manifest themselves while living and working in microgravity and during gravitational transitions during long-duration spaceflight, including post-flight recovery and rehabilitation. Through an integrated design, system initialization, and control systems approach the V2Suit is capable of generating this viscous resistance along an arbitrarily specified direction of down. When movements are made, for example, parallel to that down direction a resistance is applied, and when the movement is perpendicular to that direction no resistance is applied. The V2Suit proposes to be a countermeasure to this spaceflight-related adaptation and de-conditioning and the unique sensorimotor characteristics associated with living and working in 0-G, which are critical for future long-duration space missions. This NIAC Phase II project leveraged the study results from Phase I and focused on detailing several aspects of the V2Suit concept, including a wearable CMG architecture, control steering laws, human-system integration evaluations, developing a brassboard prototype unit as a proof-of-concept, as well as evaluating the concept in the context of future space exploration missions. A human mission to Mars, such as that outlined in the Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0, provides a framework for determining the concept of operations and requirements for the V2Suit system. Mars DRA 5.0 includes approximately 180 day 0-G transits to- and from- Mars, as well as a 500 day stay on the surface (~3/8-G) (Figure 3). Accordingly, there are four gravitational transitions associated with this mission: 1-G to 0-G (Earth launch), 0-G to 3/8-G (Mars landing), 3/8-G to 0-G (Mars launch), and 0-G to 1-G (Earth landing). This reference mission provided the basis for developing high-level operational requirements to guide the subsequent study and design of the key V2Suit components.

Duda, Kevin R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Operations

The principles and reasons for employing Human Autonomy Teaming is discussed. Application of these techniques to multi-vehicle control is described. In several operational environments from small drone delivery to air taxi to autonomous cargo, many companies will need technologies that will allow for the operation of an unmanned aircraft (UAS or eVTOL) by a small crew of individuals that are located in a remote network operations center. That is, Multiple operators supervising an increasing Number of vehicles (M:N). This will require a new control/supervisory paradigm where the supervisors team with automation to achieve their joint tasks; Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT). This task will follow the HAT philosophy and tenants (e.g., trust, bi-directional communication, pilot directed interfaces). It will also develop and employ specific HAT tools (e.g., playbook, working agreements, predictive timeline displays, transparent interfaces to build trust). This presentation discusses the future of GCS control stations and need for Human Systems Integration.

multi-vehicle control↗
NASA NTRS2007

HSI in Human Spaceflight

This viewgraph document examines the scope of Human Systems Integration (HSI) at NASA, and the implementation of HSI in the human space flight programs. Two areas of interest are the Responsibilities and the lessons learned from the International Space Station and the strategy and approach for the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

Baggerman, Susan D.↗
NASA NTRS2009

HSI in the Program Life Cycle

Human Systems Integration (HSI) in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle and the six capability model for the integration of human concerns is presented.

Fitts, David J.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Novel Classifier of Neural Impairment

The proposed research aligns with Ames Core Competency within the area of Intelligent/Adaptive Systems under Human Systems Integration. This will serve as a robust, efficient, and user-friendly human performance assessment tool that could provide immediate neural status of crewmembers in low-orbit and deep space missions. The human operator is a critical element of crew safety and should be evaluated consistently to mitigate potential off-nominal situations propagated from human error. Flagged deficits in oculomotor performance could act as an alert signal for crewmembers to opt out of cognitively demanding tasks or to prevent irreversible compromise in crewmember health.

impairment↗