Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Ergonomics”

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.

149 records · Page 9

Human-in-the-loop Robotic Control for Human-Robot Collaboration

The prospect of a collaborative work environment between humans and robotic automation in a manufacturing setting [1] provides the motivation for finding innovative solutions to human-in-the-loop control for safe, efficient, and trustworthy human-robot collaboration (HRC), or HR interaction (HRI), in cyberphysical human systems (CPHSs) [2], [3]. Studies in [4] show that collaborative automation can be beneficial to 90% of approximately 300,000 small-to-medium-scale enterprises in the United States. In the paradigm of human-centered automation [5], human safety, ergonomics, and the collaborative efficiency of the work are given the utmost importance. Traditional methods to ensure the safety of humans around factory robots involve the use of cages. Recent work looked beyond cage-based safety to provide robot control and sensing-driven solutions for human safety around robots [6]-[8].

Ashwin P. Dani↗

LESSH Lunar Experiment Support System and Handling Battery Charger Module

Beginning with Artemis III, NASA plans to deploy science instruments on the moon near a South Pole landing site. To extend lunar science operations, an EVA compatible LESSH Battery Charger Module (BCM) enables recharging and hard-line data transfer at the modular GFP Interface Bank on the Human Landing System (HLS) or other Artemis vehicles. The LESSH BCM provides an ergonomic interface for astronauts to connect instruments to HLS power and data interfaces. The BCM provides battery charge monitoring and enables data transfer via a flexible harness. LESSH-Placed is an instrument package that can be deployed by astronauts and re-charged via an Artemis vehicle, enabling extended science operations.

LESSH↗

Bone Conduction Headphone Research and Testing for xEMU Communications Applications

The new space suit being developed for exploration EVAs on the surface of the Moon and in microgravity environments is referred to as xEMU. A government reference model had been developed and has undergone extensive functional and environmental testing. This suit contains new upgrades from the current EMU on ISS, such as integrated speakers and microphones, eliminating the need for astronauts to wear a Communications Carrier Assembly (CCA) on their heads during spacewalks. However, this design approach results in speaker-to-microphone acoustic coupling and communications echo and feedback. A proposed solution to this issue is to replace the integrated open speakers with an astronaut worn bone conduction headset for audio capabilities while on EVA to receive incoming voice communications from Mission Control and other EVA or IVA crew members. This would eliminate the acoustic coupling and echo effect while being more ergonomically sound than the current CCA and leave the ear open to suit-ambient sound for situational awareness. A human-in-the-loop evaluation was performed, comparing five commercially available bone conduction headsets, to evaluate comfort, fit, and adjustability for long-duration wear. Five engineering test subjects with different head sizes were utilized to wear the headsets for six hours and provide succinct feedback and score the headsets on a variety of factors, to help determine which of the headsets performed the best and could advance to future bone conduction audio testing. Three of the headsets were well-received among the diverse group of subjects, and at least one of these will advance to further testing to be considered for future use under the xEMU helmet for exploration EVAs. Rating results and evaluation methods for this bone conduction headset evaluation will be presented.

Bridget Cavanaugh↗

ISS External Microorganisms: Collecting Planetary Protection Samples During Extravehicular Activity

We have developed, tested, and flown a caddy capable of collecting aseptic samples from external surfaces of the ISS (International Space Station). The sampling caddy is certified for use during US EVA (extra vehicular activity) and was launched to ISS in the summer of 2023. We are scheduled to collect samples from 6 locations outside ISS during an EVA in May of 2024. We will freeze these samples at -80°C on orbit and return them to Earth. We will then extract and sequence any DNA collected during the EVA using next generation sequencing technologies to characterize the community composition and function of each sample. Measuring the type and quantity of microbes present on the exterior of ISS will allow us to address knowledge gap 2B, “Acceptable levels of microbial/organic releases from humans and support systems” described in a 2019 COSPAR report. Collecting data about microbial release from current crewed vehicles will inform requirements for acceptable leak rates for future crewed missions to Mars. The sampling kit consists of eight commercially available, sterile, DNA free, macrofoam swabs ( 23 mm. diameter ) installed in custom aluminum end effectors. Each end effector is housed in and individual aluminum canister. Each canister contains a 0.2 μm Teflon filter to allow the interior volume to accommodate pressure changes without permitting microbial contaminants to enter the sterile interior volume. A handle repurposed from the space shuttle tile repair kit is used to remove the end effector from the sample canister, collect a sample by swabbing a surface and then replace the end effector in its canister. The canisters and end effectors were cleaned and assembled on Earth. Prior to installing the sterile swab the canisters and end effectors were sterilized in an autoclave at 134°C, 215 kPA, for 7 min.. The final assembly occurred in a sterilized class II biosafety cabinet. We will collect six samples from the 1) airlock vestibule, 2) airlock thermal cover, 3) a gap in the micrometeorite shielding near the airlock, 4) a handrail near the airlock, 5) the CDRA (Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly) vent, and 6) the VES (Vacuum Exhaust System) vent. The remaining two swabs will be reserved as controls. One swab will be exposed during the EVA without touching any surfaces to act as a blank. The final swab will remain sealed until the entire sampling kit is returned to earth. Based on previously published results from the Russian segment, we hypothesize that there will be detectable microbes at some or all of these locations. Ground-based testing of this sampling caddy confirms that the swabs remain sterile as the canisters transition in and out of vacuum. We were able to retrieve, viable bacterial and fungal cells as well as DNA from samples collected from US space suits during vacuum chamber tests lasting as long as seven hours. Based on these results and feedback from the test subjects the sampling caddy was modified to improve ergonomics and meet US EVA safety requirements. Bayonet probes were added to the sides of the sample kit as alternate mounting points. Additional locking features were added to the end effector and the filter stack to prevent inadvertent release during use. The opening mechanism was changed from one where the end effector was rocked laterally to defeat a ball detent to a twist-to-open threaded closure for similar reasons. Demonstrating, this sampling caddy’s effectiveness during a US EVA will allow us to address knowledge gaps identified in COSPAR reports and begin to define planetary protection requirements for life support systems on crewed missions to mars. This kit could also be used to collect contamination control samples during Artemis missions to verify requirements and could be easily modified for robotic sample collection.

Planetary Protection↗

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km. Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 1–1.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “firstlook” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗