Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “virtual 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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Spaceport Command and Control System Support Software Development

The Spaceport Command and Control System (SCCS) is a project developed and used by NASA at Kennedy Space Center in order to control and monitor the Space Launch System (SLS) at the time of its launch. One integral subteam under SCCS is the one assigned to the development of a data set building application to be used both on the launch pad and in the Launch Control Center (LCC) at the time of launch. This web application was developed in Ruby on Rails, a web framework using the Ruby object-oriented programming language, by a 15 - employee team (approx.). Because this application is such a huge undertaking with many facets and iterations, there were a few areas in which work could be more easily organized and expedited. As an intern working with this team, I was charged with the task of writing web applications that fulfilled this need, creating a virtual and highly customizable whiteboard in order to allow engineers to keep track of build iterations and their status. Additionally, I developed a knowledge capture web application wherein any engineer or contractor within SCCS could ask a question, answer an existing question, or leave a comment on any question or answer, similar to Stack Overflow.

Knowledge Transfer↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) suit is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared to the current EMU and Apollo era suits and additional features will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS suit progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury. History has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight; therefore, currently planned training events to prepare for lunar missions and tasks during lunar surface EVAs were considered. Each scenario is ranked with likelihood and consequence scorings based on our current understanding of suit and application of Artemis design reference missions. The scoring allowed identification of the high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Mechanisms of injury, injury outcomes, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team; ergonomists; suit engineers; safety engineers; the flight operations directorate; flight doctors; astronauts; astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS); and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using these, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/longdistance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Tessa Reiber↗
NASA NTRS2024

Future of the Search for Life: Workshop Report

The 2-week, virtual Future of the Search for Life science and engineering workshop brought together more than 100 scientists, engineers, and technologists in March and April 2022 to provide their expert opinion on the interconnections between life-detection science and technology. Participants identified the advances in measurement and sampling technologies they believed to be necessary to perform in situ searches for life elsewhere in our Solar System, 20 years or more in the future. Among suggested measurements for these searches, those pertaining to three potential indicators of life termed “dynamic disequilibrium,” “catalysis,” and “informational polymers” were identified as particularly promising avenues for further exploration. For these three indicators, small breakout groups of participants identified measurement needs and knowledge gaps, along with corresponding constraints on sample handling (acquisition and processing) approaches for a variety of environments on Enceladus, Europa, Mars, and Titan. Despite the diversity of these environments, sample processing approaches all tend to be more complex than those that have been implemented on missions or envisioned for mission concepts to date. The approaches considered by workshop breakout groups progress from nondestructive to destructive measurement techniques, and most involve the need for fluid (especially liquid) sample processing. Sample processing needs were identified as technology gaps. These gaps include technology and associated sampling strategies that allow the preservation of the thermal, mechanical, and chemical integrity of the samples upon acquisition; and to optimize the sample information obtained by operating suites of instruments on common samples. Crucially, the interplay between science-driven life-detection strategies and their technological implementation highlights the need for an unprecedented level of payload integration and extensive collaboration between scientists and engineers, starting from concept formulation through mission deployment of life-detection instruments and sample processing systems.

Marc Neveu↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Discovering Digital Engineering Needs Through Human-Centered Approaches

Digital engineering has the power to transform organizations in profound ways, but digitizing legacy workflows and infusing new technologies into existing practices may not yield the intended results or address the underlying problems or bottlenecks. This paper describes the human-centered approaches used to understand stakeholder challenges and identify digital engineering needs during the design-build-test portion of the systems development lifecycle. Through a series of interactive stakeholder workshops and need-finding activities, key stakeholder needs were identified to help guide the integration of digital engineering technologies. The overarching need was for downstream system development steps to be considered further upstream in the project lifecycle in a manner that allows for proactive and interactive co-constructive idea exploration, problem resolution, and requirements considerations in a collective engagement with engineers and technicians from multiple disciplines to increase efficiency and reduce risks while offering opportunities to improve the final engineered system. Supporting this need was a wide-ranging desire from stakeholders for digital and non-digital support structures for efficient rapid iteration during system development. This work yielded several improvements for system development processes and for digital engineering infusion.

Design Science↗
NASA NTRS1993

A white paper: NASA virtual environment research, applications, and technology

Research support for Virtual Environment technology development has been a part of NASA's human factors research program since 1985. Under the auspices of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST), initial funding was provided to the Aerospace Human Factors Research Division, Ames Research Center, which resulted in the origination of this technology. Since 1985, other Centers have begun using and developing this technology. At each research and space flight center, NASA missions have been major drivers of the technology. This White Paper was the joint effort of all the Centers which have been involved in the development of technology and its applications to their unique missions. Appendix A is the list of those who have worked to prepare the document, directed by Dr. Cynthia H. Null, Ames Research Center, and Dr. James P. Jenkins, NASA Headquarters. This White Paper describes the technology and its applications in NASA Centers (Chapters 1, 2 and 3), the potential roles it can take in NASA (Chapters 4 and 5), and a roadmap of the next 5 years (FY 1994-1998). The audience for this White Paper consists of managers, engineers, scientists and the general public with an interest in Virtual Environment technology. Those who read the paper will determine whether this roadmap, or others, are to be followed.

Null, Cynthia H.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Hybrid Reality Lab Capabilities - Video 2

Our Hybrid Reality and Advanced Operations Lab is developing incredibly realistic and immersive systems that could be used to provide training, support engineering analysis, and augment data collection for various human performance metrics at NASA. To get a better understanding of what Hybrid Reality is, let's go through the two most commonly known types of immersive realities: Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality. Virtual Reality creates immersive scenes that are completely made up of digital information. This technology has been used to train astronauts at NASA, used during teleoperation of remote assets (arms, rovers, robots, etc.) and other activities. One challenge with Virtual Reality is that if you are using it for real time-applications (like landing an airplane) then the information used to create the virtual scenes can be old (i.e. visualized long after physical objects moved in the scene) and not accurate enough to land the airplane safely. This is where Augmented Reality comes in. Augmented Reality takes real-time environment information (from a camera, or see through window, and places digitally created information into the scene so that it matches with the video/glass information). Augmented Reality enhances real environment information collected with a live sensor or viewport (e.g. camera, window, etc.) with the information-rich visualization provided by Virtual Reality. Hybrid Reality takes Augmented Reality even further, by creating a higher level of immersion where interactivity can take place. Hybrid Reality takes Virtual Reality objects and a trackable, physical representation of those objects, places them in the same coordinate system, and allows people to interact with both objects' representations (virtual and physical) simultaneously. After a short period of adjustment, the individuals begin to interact with all the objects in the scene as if they were real-life objects. The ability to physically touch and interact with digitally created objects that have the same shape, size, location to their physical object counterpart in virtual reality environment can be a game changer when it comes to training, planning, engineering analysis, science, entertainment, etc. Our Project is developing such capabilities for various types of environments. The video outlined with this abstract is a representation of an ISS Hybrid Reality experience. In the video you can see various Hybrid Reality elements that provide immersion beyond just standard Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality.

Delgado, Francisco J.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Modeling and Simulation - Virtual

The purpose of this report is to describe the body of work I have produced as a NASA Office of Science Technology Engineering and Math (OSTEM) intern in the Fall 2020 semester. My mentor during this session was Antonio Pego and my main task was to research and develop solutions in augmented and virtual reality technologies for use in training simulations. A main focus of this project was the development of human models for use in the game engine, with the purpose of creating simulations that would help with realistic analysis of tasks that will be performed by personnel. A steep learning curve had to be tackled in order to learn and catch up with current MR technologies. Along the way I created documentation of the different techniques utilized to support future continuation of the project.

Peter Leroy Santana Rodriguez↗
NASA NTRS2008

Game Development for Engineering Education

Game Development (Process); Game Development Tools; Implementation Tools; Materials Education Game Environment; Virtual Cleanroom; E-learning as game-like environments + CLDT; +CPR Tool.

Morsi, Rasha↗
NASA NTRS1991

Program For Parallel Discrete-Event Simulation

User does not have to add any special logic to aid in synchronization. Time Warp Operating System (TWOS) computer program is special-purpose operating system designed to support parallel discrete-event simulation. Complete implementation of Time Warp mechanism. Supports only simulations and other computations designed for virtual time. Time Warp Simulator (TWSIM) subdirectory contains sequential simulation engine interface-compatible with TWOS. TWOS and TWSIM written in, and support simulations in, C programming language.

Beckman, Brian C.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Human Factors and Information Operation for a Nuclear Power Space Vehicle

This paper describes human-interactive systems needed for a crewed nuclear-enabled space mission. A synthesis of aircraft engine and nuclear power plant displays, biofeedback of sensory input, virtual control, brain mapping for control process and manipulation, and so forth are becoming viable solutions. These aspects must maintain the crew's situation awareness and performance, which entails a delicate function allocation between crew and automation.

Trujillo, Anna C.↗
NASA NTRS2006

In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling

As humans venture farther from earth for longer durations, it will become essential for those on the journey to have significant control over the scheduling of their own activities as well as the activities of their companion systems and robots. However, there are many reasons why the crew will not do all the scheduling; timelines will be the result of collaboration with ground personnel. Emerging technologies such as in-space message buses, delay-tolerant networks, and in-space internet will be the carriers on which the collaboration rides. Advances in scheduling technology, in the areas of task modeling, scheduling engines, and user interfaces will allow the crew to become virtual scheduling experts. New concepts of operations for producing the timeline will allow the crew and the ground support to collaborate while providing safeguards to ensure that the mission will be effectively accomplished without endangering the systems or personnel.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS2006

In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling

As humans venture farther from Earth for longer durations, it will become essential for those on the journey to have significant control over the scheduling of their own activities as well as the activities of their companion systems and robots. However, the crew will not do all the scheduling; timelines will be the result of collaboration with ground personnel. Emerging technologies such as in-space message buses, delay-tolerant networks, and in-space internet will be the carriers on which the collaboration rides. Advances in scheduling technology, in the areas of task modeling, scheduling engines, and user interfaces will allow the crew to become virtual scheduling experts. New concepts of operations for producing the timeline will allow the crew and the ground support to collaborate while providing safeguards to ensure that the mission will be effectively accomplished without endangering the systems or personnel.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS2006

Remote Collaboration on Task Scheduling for Humans at Mars

As humans venture farther from Earth for longer durations, it will become essential for those on the journey to have significant control over the scheduling of their own activities as well as the activities of their companion systems and robots. However, the crew will not do all the scheduling; timelines will be the result of collaboration with ground personnel. Emerging technologies such as in-space message buses, delay-tolerant networks, and in-space internet will be the carriers on which the collaboration rides. Advances in scheduling technology, in the areas of task modeling, scheduling engines, and user interfaces will allow the crew to become virtual scheduling experts. New concepts of operations for producing the timeline will allow the crew and the ground support to collaborate while providing safeguards to ensure that the mission will be effectively accomplished without endangering the systems or personnel.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS2023

Exploration Habitat (X-Hab) 2013-2014 Academic Innovation Challenge

Outreach activities were coordinated with OSU’s NASA Education Office and focused around the Space Habitat Innovation Challenge. Two challenges were developed for this year: the Rapidly Prototyped Tool Challenge (RaPTC) and the Space Habitat Airlock Challenge (SHAC). RaPTC was open to eligible high school student teams while SHAC was open to eligible community college student teams. Teams involved 3-6 students from 12 states across the country and submitted videos or virtual presentations.1 Entries were judged by the OSU XHab students and were provided with feedback on feasibility and design. Three groups in each challenge were selected as finalists for a final virtual presentation and interview with students and professors in the engineering program at Oklahoma State University. Three groups total were selected to present their design to engineers and astronauts at a NASA JSC. Judges included astronauts Joe Acaba, Nicole Stott, and Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger.

Jamey D Jacob↗