SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Displays”

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 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2020

Introduction to ISS Crew Displays

The International Space Station (ISS) began payload operations in earnest in 2000 with the arrival of the Expedition 1. To date, ISS has offered Principal Investigators (PIs) a reliable platform for microgravity research, having hosted thousands of onboard science experiments. Most of this research is supported by experiment hardware and software and many include a crew‐operated Graphical User Interface (GUI). The purpose of this article is to share information with PIs and Payload Developer (PD) teams about the processes, standards, and guidelines applicable to crew GUI design that must be complied with when planning payload software. The goal is not to enumerate all of the ISS display standards, but rather to highlight design guidelines and the ISS Program milestones for verification and approval of onboard crew displays.

Graphical User Interface↗

NASA NTRS1983

Computer graphics applications to crew displays

Astronauts are provided much data and information via the monochrome CRT displays on the orbiter. For this project two areas were investigated for the possible introduction of computer graphics to enhance and extend the utility of these displays. One involved reviewing the current orbiter displays and identifying those which could be improved via computer graphics. As an example, the tabular data on electrical power distribution and control was enhanced by the addition of color and bar charts. The other dealt with the development of an aid to berthing a payload with the Remote Manipulator System (RMS). This aid consists of a graphics display of the top, front and side views of the payload and cargo bay and point of resolution (POR) position and attitude data for the current location of the payload. The initial implementation was on an IBM PC clone. The demonstration software installed in the Johnson Space Center Manipulator Development Facility (MD) was reviewed. Due to current hardware limitations, the MDF verision is slow, i.e., about a 40+ seond update rate and, hence, not real-time. Despite this fact, the evaluation of this additional visual cue as an RMS operator aid indicates that this display, with modifications for speed, etc., can assist the crew. Further development is appropriate.

Wyzkoski, J.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Information Displays and Crew Configurations for UTM Operations

In this paper we discuss how team configuration may influence how infor-mation is shared among team members for low-altitude Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operations. NASA collected and analyzed observation data gathered during a series of field tests for the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project. The field tests were part of a larger effort aimed at advancing the UTM concept, conducted at six test-sites spread across the USA. Ground control station (GCS) concepts, flight-crew composition, and crew-size var-ied within and across test-sites. Flight crews took two strategic approaches to organizing their teams. The first of the two approaches was implemented by one third of the flight crews. These crews integrated the role of UTM opera-tor into the duties of existing crew members, merging the current roles with this new one, keeping the UTM Operator collocated with the flight crew. The remaining two thirds implemented a distributed team configuration, where a single UTM operator distributed support across multiple crews. Results from our data collection efforts revealed that UTM Operator location influenced whether flight crews used verbal communication versus displays to acquire UTM information.

teams↗

NASA NTRS2005

Reactions of Air Transport Flight Crews to Displays of Weather During Simulated Flight

Display of information in the cockpit has long been a challenge for aircraft designers. Given the limited space in which to present information, designers have had to be extremely selective about the types and amount of flight related information to present to pilots. The general goal of cockpit display design and implementation is to ensure that displays present information that is timely, useful, and helpful. This suggests that displays should facilitate the management of perceived workload, and should allow maximal situation awareness. The formatting of current and projected weather displays represents a unique challenge. As technologies have been developed to increase the variety and capabilities of weather information available to flight crews, factors such as conflicting weather representations and increased decision importance have increased the likelihood for errors. However, if formatted optimally, it is possible that next generation weather displays could allow for clearer indications of weather trends such as developing or decaying weather patterns. Important issues to address include the integration of weather information sources, flight crew trust of displayed weather information, and the teamed reactivity of flight crews to displays of weather. Past studies of weather display reactivity and formatting have not adequately addressed these issues; in part because experimental stimuli have not approximated the complexity of modern weather displays, and in part because they have not used realistic experimental tasks or participants. The goal of the research reported here was to investigate the influence of onboard and NEXRAD agreement, range to the simulated potential weather event, and the pilot flying on flight crew deviation decisions, perceived workload, and perceived situation awareness. Fifteen pilot-copilot teams were required to fly a simulated route while reacting to weather events presented in two graphical formats on a separate visual display. Measures of flight crew reactions included performance-based measures such as deviation decision accuracy, and judgment-based measures such as perceived decision confidence, workload, situation awareness, and display trust. Results demonstrated that pilots adopted a conservative reaction strategy, often choosing to deviate from weather rather than ride through it. When onboard and NEXRAD displays did not agree, flight crews reacted in a complex manner, trusting the onboard system more but using the NEXRAD system to augment their situation awareness. Distance to weather reduced situation awareness and heightened workload levels. Overall, flight crews tended to adopt a participative leadership style marked by open communication. These results suggest that future weather displays should exploit the existing benefits of NEXRAD presentation for situation awareness while retaining the display structure and logic inherent in the onboard system.

Bliss, James P.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Backup Alignment Devices on Shuttle: Heads-Up Display or Crew Optical Alignment Sight

NASA s Space Shuttle was built to withstand multiple failures while still keeping the crew and vehicle safe. Although the design of the Space Shuttle had a great deal of redundancy built into each system, there were often additional ways to keep systems in the best configuration if a failure were to occur. One such method was to use select pieces of hardware in a way for which they were not primarily intended. The primary function of the Heads-Up Display (HUD) was to provide the crew with a display of flight critical information during the entry phase. The primary function of the Crew Optical Alignment Sight (COAS) was to provide the crew an optical alignment capability for rendezvous and docking phases. An alignment device was required to keep the Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) well aligned for a safe Entry; nominally this alignment device would be the two on-board Star Trackers. However, in the event of a Star Tracker failure, the HUD or COAS could also be used as a backup alignment device, but only if the device had been calibrated beforehand. Once the HUD or COAS was calibrated and verified then it was considered an adequate backup to the Star Trackers for entry IMU alignment. There were procedures in place and the astronauts were trained on how to accurately calibrate the HUD or COAS and how to use them as an alignment device. The calibration procedure for the HUD and COAS had been performed on many Shuttle missions. Many of the first calibrations performed were for data gathering purposes to determine which device was more accurate as a backup alignment device, HUD or COAS. Once this was determined, the following missions would frequently calibrate the HUD in order to be one step closer to having the device ready in case it was needed as a backup alignment device.

Chavez, Melissa A.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Flight Avionics Hardware Roadmap

The Avionics Technology Roadmap takes an 80% approach to technology investment in spacecraft avionics. It delineates a suite of technologies covering foundational, component, and subsystem-levels, which directly support 80% of future NASA space mission needs. The roadmap eschews high cost, limited utility technologies in favor of lower cost, and broadly applicable technologies with high return on investment. The roadmap is also phased to support future NASA mission needs and desires, with a view towards creating an optimized investment portfolio that matures specific, high impact technologies on a schedule that matches optimum insertion points of these technologies into NASA missions. The roadmap looks out over 15+ years and covers some 114 technologies, 58 of which are targeted for TRL6 within 5 years, with 23 additional technologies to be at TRL6 by 2020. Of that number, only a few are recommended for near term investment: 1. Rad Hard High Performance Computing 2. Extreme temperature capable electronics and packaging 3. RFID/SAW-based spacecraft sensors and instruments 4. Lightweight, low power 2D displays suitable for crewed missions 5. Radiation tolerant Graphics Processing Unit to drive crew displays 6. Distributed/reconfigurable, extreme temperature and radiation tolerant, spacecraft sensor controller and sensor modules 7. Spacecraft to spacecraft, long link data communication protocols 8. High performance and extreme temperature capable C&DH subsystem In addition, the roadmap team recommends several other activities that it believes are necessary to advance avionics technology across NASA: center dot Engage the OCT roadmap teams to coordinate avionics technology advances and infusion into these roadmaps and their mission set center dot Charter a team to develop a set of use cases for future avionics capabilities in order to decouple this roadmap from specific missions center dot Partner with the Software Steering Committee to coordinate computing hardware and software technology roadmaps and investment recommendations center dot Continue monitoring foundational technologies upon which future avionics technologies will be dependent, e.g., RHBD and COTS semiconductor technologies

Some, Raphael↗

NASA NTRS2006

Crew and Display Concepts Evaluation for Synthetic / Enhanced Vision Systems

NASA s Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS) project is developing technologies with practical applications that strive to eliminate low-visibility conditions as a causal factor to civil aircraft accidents and replicate the operational benefits of clear day flight operations, regardless of the actual outside visibility condition. Enhanced Vision System (EVS) technologies are analogous and complementary in many respects to SVS, with the principle difference being that EVS is an imaging sensor presentation, as opposed to a database-derived image. The use of EVS in civil aircraft is projected to increase rapidly as the Federal Aviation Administration recently changed the aircraft operating rules under Part 91, revising the flight visibility requirements for conducting operations to civil airports. Operators conducting straight-in instrument approach procedures may now operate below the published approach minimums when using an approved EVS that shows the required visual references on the pilot s Head-Up Display. An experiment was conducted to evaluate the complementary use of SVS and EVS technologies, specifically focusing on new techniques for integration and/or fusion of synthetic and enhanced vision technologies and crew resource management while operating under the newly adopted FAA rules which provide operating credit for EVS. Overall, the experimental data showed that significant improvements in SA without concomitant increases in workload and display clutter could be provided by the integration and/or fusion of synthetic and enhanced vision technologies for the pilot-flying and the pilot-not-flying.

Bailey, Randall E.↗

NASA NTRS1975

Apollo experience report: Crew station integration. Volume 2: Crew station displays and controls

The functional requirements for the Apollo displays and controls system are presented. The configuration of the displays, controls, and panels for both the command module and the lunar module are described, and the design development and operational experience of the displays and controls system are discussed. Pertinent recommendations for future displays and controls system design efforts are made.

Langdoc, W. A.↗

NASA NTRS1981

Video image processor on the Spacelab 2 Solar Optical Universal Polarimeter /SL2 SOUP/

The SOUP instrument is designed to obtain diffraction-limited digital images of the sun with high photometric accuracy. The Video Processor originated from the requirement to provide onboard real-time image processing, both to reduce the telemetry rate and to provide meaningful video displays of scientific data to the payload crew. This original concept has evolved into a versatile digital processing system with a multitude of other uses in the SOUP program. The central element in the Video Processor design is a 16-bit central processing unit based on 2900 family bipolar bit-slice devices. All arithmetic, logical and I/O operations are under control of microprograms, stored in programmable read-only memory and initiated by commands from the LSI-11. Several functions of the Video Processor are described, including interface to the High Rate Multiplexer downlink, cosmetic and scientific data processing, scan conversion for crew displays, focus and exposure testing, and use as ground support equipment.

Lindgren, R. W.↗

NASA NTRS1978

Orbit IMU alinement interpretation of onboard display data

The space shuttle inertial measurement unit (IMU) alinement algorith was examined to determine the most important alinement starpair selection criterion. Three crew displayed parameters were considered: (1) the results of the separation angle difference (SAD) check for each starpair; (2) the separation angle of each starpair; and (3) the age of each star measurement. It was determined that the SAD for each pair cannot be used to predict the IMu alinement accuracy. If the age of each star measurement is less than approximately 30 minutes, time is a relatively unimportant factor and the most important alinement pair selection criterion is the starpair separation angle. Therefore, when there are three available alinement starpairs and all measurements were taken within the last 30 minutes, the pair with the separation angle closest to 90 degrees should be selected for IMU alinement.

Corson, R.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazards of Lunar Surface Exploration: Determining the Immunogenicity/Allergenicity of Lunar Dust

There are multiple Apollo program reports of lunar dust (LD) exposure leading to significant upper respiratory symptoms in select crewmembers. Possible mechanisms include particulate irritation, oxidization and release of noxious gas, or legitimate adaptive immune-mediated response. Although sterile non-protein matter would not be expected to be an allergen, one Apollo flight surgeon reported increasing symptoms upon repeated exposure, with associated eosinophilia indicative of allergy (*Acta Astronautica. 2008 63 (7–10): 980–987). Many ISS crews display a pattern of persistent immune system dysregulation and latent virus reactivation (NPJ Microgravity. 2015 Sep 3; 1:15013; NPJ Microgravity. 2017 Apr 12; 3:11). Some ISS crews manifest atypical respiratory and/or dermatitis symptoms which could have an allergic pathogenesis (J Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2016 Jul-Aug; 4(4):759-762.e8). It is logical to anticipate crew immune dysregulation would worsen during prolonged deep space missions. Planetary surface hazards will only complicate crew health risks. This study hypothesizes that LD exposure can alter susceptible individuals’ immune responses such that repeated exposure will elicit an IgE mediated allergic response either to the LD itself or concomitant antigen exposure during spaceflight. This will adversely increase clinical and operational impacts for long-duration lunar astronauts and affect countermeasure requirements for surface vehicles. Specific aims for this study are (1) Does in vitro LD exposure result in increased histamine from human peripheral blood basophils? (2) Can LD impact the capacity of CD4+ helper and/or CD19+ B-cell mediated IgE production? To address these questions, a set of in-vitro cell culture experiments will be employed (short and long term) using human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and basophils from both atopic and non-atopic individuals, as well as established human basophil and mast cell lines. Cells will be co-cultured with cellular mitogens, common recall antigens (tetanus, Der p1), nickel (as a possible allergenic component of LD), with or without graded amounts of LD, to study whether LD exposure for varying time intervals will alter the generation of selective immune responses associated with clinical allergic reactions. Measured outputs include supernatant-derived IgE, tryptase, histamine and selected cytokine levels. Cellular activation will be monitored by assessing activation markers via flow cytometry. EM/x-ray analysis will be used to determine cellular interactions with dust particles. The minimal amount of LD (Apollo 14 dust) and controls/simulants have been requested. This study, originally planned as an FY20/21 activity, was delayed due to the COVID pandemic. It is now scheduled to be performed during FY22.

Brian Crucian↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazards of Lunar Surface Exploration: Determining the Immunogenicity/Allergenicity of Lunar Dust

Although infrequent, there have been Apollo program reports of lunar dust (LD) exposure leading to notable upper respiratory symptoms in select crewmembers. Possible mechanisms include particulate irritation, oxidization and release of noxious gas, or legitimate adaptive immune-mediated response. Although sterile non-protein matter would not be expected to be an allergen, one Apollo flight surgeon reported increasing symptoms upon repeated exposure with associated eosinophilia, indicative of allergy (*Acta Astronautica. 2008 63 (7–10): 980–987). Many ISS crews display a pattern of persistent immune system dysregulation and latent virus reactivation (NPJ Microgravity. 2015 Sep 3; 1:15013; NPJ Microgravity. 2017 Apr 12; 3:11). Some ISS crews manifest atypical respiratory and/or dermatitis symptoms which could have an allergic pathogenesis (J Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2016 Jul-Aug; 4(4):759-762.e8). It is logical to anticipate crew immune dysregulation would worsen during prolonged deep space missions. Planetary surface hazards will only complicate crew health risks. This study with investigate if LD exposure will elicit an IgE mediated allergic response either to the LD itself or concomitant antigen exposure during spaceflight. Allergic reactivity could adversely increase clinical and operational impacts for long-duration lunar astronauts and affect countermeasure requirements for surface vehicles. Specific aims for this study are to answer two questions: (1) Does in vitro LD exposure result in increased histamine from human peripheral blood basophils? (2) Can LD impact the capacity of CD4+ T helper and/or CD19+ B-cell mediated IgE production? To address these questions, after the proposal and selection by NASA, our laboratory has separately requested and been approved for receipt of actual LD samples from the Apollo 16 mission. These samples will be used during the study to complete the proposed set of in vitro cell culture experiments (short and long term), using human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and basophils from both atopic and non-atopic individuals. Cells will be co-cultured with cellular mitogens, common recall antigens (Der p1), fine ground silica quartz (as a possible allergenic component of LD), or LD, to study whether LD exposure for varying time intervals will alter the generation of selective immune responses associated with clinical allergic reactions. Measured outputs include supernatant-derived IgE, tryptase, histamine, and selected cytokine levels. Cellular activation will be monitored by assessing activation markers via flow cytometry. EM/x-ray analysis will be used to determine cellular interactions with dust particles. A series of validation experiments was initiated in FY22 once the delivery of LD was received. Based on initial experimental findings, we are optimizing the culture conditions, LD concentrations, and refining our other protocol stimuli.

Audrie A. Colorado↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazards of Lunar Surface Exploration: Determining the Immunogenicity/Allergenicity of Lunar Dust

immunology↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Examination of the Radiation Tolerance of Electronic Displays For Future Crewed Missions

64 MeV proton irradiation was conducted on pixel technologies that span the range of commercially available electronic displays for crewed missions. Human-centric optical performance metrics are discussed and reported for assessment of pixel radiation susceptibilities.

Justin Bautista↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design, Development, and Use of a Lunar Lander Simulation for NASA's Artemis Program

This paper describes the design, development, and initial use of a generalized and configurable lunar lander simulation to support NASA’s Artemis Program. This simulation is being developed for the Crew Compartment Office (CrewCo) in the Human Landing Systems (HLS) program and is called the HLS CrewCo Lander Simulation (HCLS). The HCLS provides insight into the challenges associated with returning humans to the Moon and the particular difficulties of operating at the Lunar South Pole. The simulation models a generalized integrated lunar landing spacecraft based on a government reference design but can and has been adapted to model vendor specific designs as well. The simulation architecture and tool sets provide a flexible framework that allows for quickly prototyping and evaluating various aspects of a piloted lunar landing system. This includes the modeling of all principal human controlled flight phases: rendezvous and docking with crew transfer systems; docked orbital outpost operations; undocking and lunar transfer; lunar orbital operations; lunar deorbit, descent, and landing (DDL); lunar surface operations; lunar ascent; and return to the orbital outpost. The flexibility of the simulation allows for the integrated evaluation of potential vehicle subsystems, crew displays, guidance and control modes, and trajectory designs. The purpose of the HCLS is not to design the ideal lunar lander, but rather to understand and the strengths and weaknesses of vehicle design choices. This paper describes the basic simulation architecture and discusses the tool sets used to develop the HCLS. This includes a number of open source tool sets and publicly available data sets. This paper also describes some of the early use cases and findings. The primary focus of early HCLS use has been on the manual piloting task to safely get the crew to the desired landing site in case of a failure in the automated guidance system. Several guidance modes and cues have been implemented which allow a pilot to manually fly the vehicle to the targeted landing site starting anywhere from powered descent initiation. It has been a valuable tool for understanding what is required to manually fly a lunar lander as well as giving a sense of the vehicle dynamics, which are much different than anything that is flown on Earth. A number of experienced test pilots have participated in manual piloting evaluations using the HCLS and provided valuable feedback on the piloting task which has been very beneficial to NASA and the HLS program.

James Michael Gentile↗

NASA NTRS1971

Space shuttle data handling and communications considerations.

Operational and development flight instrumentation, data handling subsystems and communication requirements of the space shuttle orbiter are discussed. Emphasis is made on data gathering methods, crew display data, computer processing, recording, and telemetry by means of a digital data bus. Also considered are overall communication conceptual system aspects and design features allowing a proper specification of telemetry encoders and instrumentation recorders. An adaptive bit rate concept is proposed to handle the telemetry bit rates which vary with the amount of operational and experimental data to be transmitted. A split-phase encoding technique is proposed for telemetry to cope with the excessive bit jitter and low bit transition density which may affect television performance.

Stoker, C. J.↗

NASA NTRS1983

Flying the orbiter in the approach/landing phase

The Columbia has completed a spectacularly successful four flight Orbital Flight Test program as well as the first operational mission in which two satellites were deployed. It is unprecedented that a vehicle so complex as the Shuttle could have reached such a state of maturity in so few missions. This maturity is reflected not only in terms of basic performance during dynamic flight phases, but also in the outstanding performance of individual spacecraft systems. Appreciably more CSS time has been logged during entry and particularly in the approach and landing phase than any other segment of the mission profile. The discussion that follows, therefore, will outline this phase in some detail including pilot comments, techniques, crew displays and landing aids. Some problem areas related to landing the Orbiter will be discussed, as well as possible solutions.

Nagel, S. R.↗

NASA NTRS1985

The orbiter air data system

Air data parameters are required during Orbiter atmospheric entry for use by the autoguidance, navigation, and flight control systems, and for crew displays. Conventional aircraft calibrations of the Orbiter air data system were not practicable for the Space Shuttle, therefore extensive wind tunnel testing was required to give confidence in the preflight calibrations. Many challenges became apparent as the program developed; in the overall system design, in the wind tunnel testing program, in the implementation of the air data system calibration, and in the use of the flight data to modify the wind tunnel results. These challenges are discussed along with the methods used to solve the problems.

Hillje, E. R.↗