Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Interfaces”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing Trust in NASA’s Artemis Campaign Computer-Human Interface (CHI) Implementation

The NASA Artemis program will return humans to the Moon. This time, with the help of commercial and international partners, the program's objective is a permanent moon base. The moon base infrastructure, including an orbiting moon station and moon surface assets, will be developed for astronauts to stay for the long haul to learn to live and work on another planet in preparation for an eventual Humans-to-Mars mission. As the roundtrip communication delays increase in deep space exploration, the crew will need more onboard systems autonomy and functionality to maintain and control the vehicle or habitat. These mission constraints will change the current Earth-based spacecraft to ground control support approach that will demand more safe, efficient, and effective Computer-Human Interface (CHI) control. For Artemis, CHI is defined as the elements that the crew interfaces with: audio, video, lighting, and crew controls subsystems. Understanding how CHI will need to evolve to support deep space missions will be critical for the Artemis program--especially crew controls, which is the focus of this paper. How does NASA ensure crew controls are reliable enough to control complex systems and prevent a catastrophic event due to human error--especially when the astronauts could be physiologically and/or psychologically impaired? NASA's approach to mitigating catastrophic hazards in human spaceflight system development such as crew controls, is through a holistic system engineering and Human System Integration methodology that focuses on incorporating NASA's Human-Rating Requirements-that ensures human performance characteristics to control/safely recover the crew from hazardous situations within the human interface design are considered. This paper discusses, at a high level, CHI for the Artemis program. Next, a discussion of what it means to human-rate a space system crew controls and how trust in the human-computer interface begins with the NASA human rating requirements. Finally, a discussion on how systems engineering and the human system integration process ensures that crew control implementation incorporates the NASA human-rating requirements.

artemis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing Trust in NASA’s Artemis Campaign Computer-Human Interface (CHI) Implementation

The NASA Artemis program will return humans to the Moon. This time, with the help of commercial and international partners, the program's objective is a permanent moon base. The moon base infrastructure, including an orbiting moon station and moon surface assets, will be developed for astronauts to stay for the long haul to learn to live and work on another planet in preparation for an eventual Humans-to-Mars mission. As the roundtrip communication delays increase in deep space exploration, the crew will need more onboard systems autonomy and functionality to maintain and control the vehicle or habitat. These mission constraints will change the current Earth-based spacecraft to ground control support approach that will demand more safe, efficient, and effective Computer-Human Interface (CHI) control. For Artemis, CHI is defined as the elements that the crew interfaces with: audio, video, lighting, and crew controls subsystems. Understanding how CHI will need to evolve to support deep space missions will be critical for the Artemis program--especially crew controls, which is the focus of this paper. How does NASA ensure crew controls are reliable enough to control complex systems and prevent a catastrophic event due to human error--especially when the astronauts could be physiologically and/or psychologically impaired? NASA's approach to mitigating catastrophic hazards in human spaceflight system development such as crew controls, is through a holistic system engineering and Human System Integration methodology that focuses on incorporating NASA's Human-Rating Requirements-that ensures human performance characteristics to control/safely recover the crew from hazardous situations within the human interface design are considered. This paper discusses, at a high level, CHI for the Artemis program. Next, a discussion of what it means to human-rate a space system crew controls and how trust in the human-computer interface begins with the NASA human rating requirements. Finally, a discussion on how systems engineering and the human system integration process ensures that crew control implementation incorporates the NASA human-rating requirements.

artemis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing Trust in NASA’s Artemis Program Computer-Human Interface (CHI) Implementation

The NASA Artemis program will return humans to the moon. This time, with the help of commercial and international partners, the program’s objective is a permanent moon base. The moon base infrastructure, including an orbiting moon station and moon surface assets, will be developed for astronauts to stay for the long haul to learn to live and work on another planet in preparation for an eventual Humans-to-Mars mission. As the roundtrip communication delays increase in deep space exploration, more onboard systems autonomy and functionality will be needed to maintain and control the vehicle or habitat. These mission constraints will change the current Earth-based spacecraft ground control support approach that will demand more safe, efficient, and effective Computer-Human Interface (CHI) control. For Artemis, CHI is defined as the elements that the crew interfaces with-audio, video, lighting, and crew controls. Understanding how CHI will need to evolve to support deep space missions will be critical for the Artemis program-especially crew controls which is the focus of this paper. How does NASA ensure crew controls are reliable to control complex systems and prevent a catastrophic event due to human error-especially when the astronauts could be physiologically and/or psychologically impaired? NASA’s approach to mitigating catastrophic hazards in human spaceflight system development such as crew controls is through a holistic system engineering and Human System Integration methodology that embraces NASA’s Human-Rating Requirements-ensuring human performance characteristics to control/safely recover the crew from hazardous situations within the human interface design are considered. This paper discusses, at a high level, CHI for the Artemis program. Next, a discussion of what it means to human-rate a space system crew controls and how trust in the human-computer interface begins with the NASA human rating requirements. Finally, a discussion on how systems engineering, and the human system integration process ensures that crew control implementation incorporates the NASA human-rating requirements.

Human-Rating↗
NASA NTRS1991

Guidance for human interface with artificial intelligence systems

The beginning of a research effort to collect and integrate existing research findings about how to combine computer power and people is discussed, including problems and pitfalls as well as desirable features. The goal of the research is to develop guidance for the design of human interfaces with intelligent systems. Fault management tasks in NASA domains are the focus of the investigation. Research is being conducted to support the development of guidance for designers that will enable them to make human interface considerations into account during the creation of intelligent systems.

Potter, Scott S.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Deep Space Network (DSN), Network Operations Control Center (NOCC) computer-human interfaces

The Network Operations Control Center (NOCC) of the DSN is responsible for scheduling the resources of DSN, and monitoring all multi-mission spacecraft tracking activities in real-time. Operations performs this job with computer systems at JPL connected to over 100 computers at Goldstone, Australia and Spain. The old computer system became obsolete, and the first version of the new system was installed in 1991. Significant improvements for the computer-human interfaces became the dominant theme for the replacement project. Major issues required innovating problem solving. Among these issues were: How to present several thousand data elements on displays without overloading the operator? What is the best graphical representation of DSN end-to-end data flow? How to operate the system without memorizing mnemonics of hundreds of operator directives? Which computing environment will meet the competing performance requirements? This paper presents the technical challenges, engineering solutions, and results of the NOCC computer-human interface design.

Ellman, Alvin↗
NASA NTRS1993

Deep Space Network (DSN), Network Operations Control Center (NOCC) computer-human interfaces

The technical challenges, engineering solutions, and results of the NOCC computer-human interface design are presented. The use-centered design process was as follows: determine the design criteria for user concerns; assess the impact of design decisions on the users; and determine the technical aspects of the implementation (tools, platforms, etc.). The NOCC hardware architecture is illustrated. A graphical model of the DSN that represented the hierarchical structure of the data was constructed. The DSN spacecraft summary display is shown. Navigation from top to bottom is accomplished by clicking the appropriate button for the element about which the user desires more detail. The telemetry summary display and the antenna color decision table are also shown.

Ellman, Alvin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Interfaces and Management of Information (HIMI) Challenges for “In-time” Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS)

The envisioned transformation of the National Airspace System to integrate an In-time Aviation Safety Management System(IASMS)to assure safety in Advanced Air Mobility(AAM)brings unprecedented challenges to the design of human interfaces and management of safety information. Safety in design and operational safety assurance are critical factors for how humans will interact with increasingly autonomous systems. The IASMS Concept of Operations builds from traditional commercial operator safety management and scales in complexity to AAM. The transformative changes in future aviation systems pose potential new critical safety risks with novel types of aircraft and other vehicles having different performance capabilities, flying in increasingly complex airspace, and using adaptive contingencies to manage normal and non-normal operations. These changes compel development of new and emerging capabilities that enable innovative ways for humans to interact with data and manage information. In-creasing complexity of AAM corresponds with use of predictive modeling, data analytics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to effectively address known hazards and emergent risks. The roles of humans will dynamically evolve in increments with this technological and operational evolution. The interfaces for how humans will interact with increasingly complex and assured systems designed to operate autonomously and how information will need to be presented are important challenges to be resolved.

Lawrence J Prinzel↗
NASA NTRS2023

Computer Human Interface Challenges in Space Exploration

NASA’s plans to return humans to the Lunar surface require overcoming a variety of challenging technical and operational obstacles. In 2022, NASA formed the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) and Human Surface Mobility (HSM) Program (EHP) at the Johnson Space Center with responsibilities including development of space suits and surface mobility systems for Lunar missions. This program includes a Technology Development and Partnerships office chartered to identify high priority gaps in capabilities for Lunar surface mobility and to coordinate resources to close those gaps. This presentation details the EHP technology roadmap for “Informatics and Decision Support,” a subset of spacecraft avionics focused on effective and autonomous crew interaction with spaceflight systems. The gaps, grouped into displays, audio systems, and information technology infrastructure, are largely driven by the unique interaction requirements for human spacecraft and the severe radiation environments beyond low earth orbit. The roadmap identifies ongoing activities and paths to technology infusion into Lunar spacecraft. NASA is seeking input on the content and ideas for alternative paths to gap closure. Closing these gaps is important to successful human operations on the Lunar surface and vital to NASA’s long-term goal of human missions to Mars.

Spacecraft Displays↗
NASA NTRS2010

Applying Spatial Audio to Human Interfaces: 25 Years of NASA Experience

From the perspective of human factors engineering, the inclusion of spatial audio within a human-machine interface is advantageous from several perspectives. Demonstrated benefits include the ability to monitor multiple streams of speech and non-speech warning tones using a cocktail party advantage, and for aurally-guided visual search. Other potential benefits include the spatial coordination and interaction of multimodal events, and evaluation of new communication technologies and alerting systems using virtual simulation. Many of these technologies were developed at NASA Ames Research Center, beginning in 1985. This paper reviews examples and describes the advantages of spatial sound in NASA-related technologies, including space operations, aeronautics, and search and rescue. The work has involved hardware and software development as well as basic and applied research.

Begault, Durand R.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Relating Linear and Volumetric Variables Through Body Scanning to Improve Human Interfaces in Space

Designing space suits and vehicles for the diverse human population present unique challenges for the methods of traditional anthropometry. Space suits are bulky and allow the operator to shift position within the suit and inhibit the ability to identify body landmarks. Limited suit sizing options also cause variability in fit and performance between similarly sized individuals. Space vehicles are restrictive in volume in both the fit and the ability to collect data. NASA's Anthropometric and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) has utilized 3D scanning to shift from traditional linear anthropometry to explore and examine volumetric capabilities to provide anthropometric solutions for design. Overall, the key goals are to improve the human-system performance and develop new processes to aid in the design and evaluation of space systems. Four case studies are presented that illustrate the shift from purely linear analyses to an augmented volumetric toolset to predict and analyze the human within the space suit and vehicle. The first case study involves the calculation of maximal head volume to estimate total free volume in the helmet for proper air exchange. Traditional linear measurements resulted in an inaccurate representation of the head shape, yet limited data exists for the determination of a large head volume. Steps were first taken to identify and classify a maximum head volume and the resulting comparisons to the estimate are presented in this paper. This study illustrates the gap between linear components of anthropometry and the need for overall volume metrics in order to provide solutions. A second case study examines the overlay of the space suit scans and components onto scanned individuals to quantify fit and clearance to aid in sizing the suit to the individual. Restrictions in space suit size availability present unique challenges to optimally fit the individual within a limited sizing range while maintaining performance. Quantification of the clearance and fit between similarly sized individuals is critical in providing a greater understanding of the human body's function within the suit. The third case study presented in this paper explores the development of a conformal seat pan using scanning techniques, and details the challenges of volumetric analyses that were overcome in order to develop a universal seat pan that can be utilized across the entire user population. The final case study explores expanding volumetric capabilities through generation of boundary manikins. Boundary manikins are representative individuals from the population of interest that represent the extremes of the population spectrum. The ABF developed a technique to take three-dimensional scans of individuals and manipulate the scans to reflect the boundary manikins' anthropometry. In essence, this process generates a representative three-dimensional scan of an individual from anthropometry, using another individual's scanned image. The results from this process can be used in design process modeling and initial suit sizing work as a three dimensional, realistic example of individuals from the population, maintaining the variability between and correlation to the relevant dimensions of interest.

Margerum, Sarah E.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Human Interfaces In Teleoperations And Virtual Environments

Conference report contains compilation of papers relating to interactions between humans and machines from perspectives of telepresence and sensorimotor adaptation, measurement and evaluation of performance, and design principles and predictive models. Topics discussed include neural networks, sensory technology, display, and feedback controls. Covers state of art of remote sensing and control by humans for space or other operations.

Durlach, Nathaniel I.↗
NASA NTRS1982

Improving the computer-human interface: The qualitative monitor display

A technique for displaying the information needed by DSN operators for monitoring station performance is described. Known as a 'qualitative monitor,' it presents continuous variables in quasi-analog form on a digital cathode ray tube (CRT) display. Color changes, field reverses and blinking symbols assist the operator in identifying variables that are within acceptable limits and in performing corrective action when needed.

Baugh, H. W.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Human computer interface guide, revision A

The Human Computer Interface Guide, SSP 30540, is a reference document for the information systems within the Space Station Freedom Program (SSFP). The Human Computer Interface Guide (HCIG) provides guidelines for the design of computer software that affects human performance, specifically, the human-computer interface. This document contains an introduction and subparagraphs on SSFP computer systems, users, and tasks; guidelines for interactions between users and the SSFP computer systems; human factors evaluation and testing of the user interface system; and example specifications. The contents of this document are intended to be consistent with the tasks and products to be prepared by NASA Work Package Centers and SSFP participants as defined in SSP 30000, Space Station Program Definition and Requirements Document. The Human Computer Interface Guide shall be implemented on all new SSFP contractual and internal activities and shall be included in any existing contracts through contract changes. This document is under the control of the Space Station Control Board, and any changes or revisions will be approved by the deputy director.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2013

Human Machine Interface Programming and Testing

Human Machine Interface (HMI) Programming and Testing is about creating graphical displays to mimic mission critical ground control systems in order to provide NASA engineers with the ability to monitor the health management of these systems in real time. The Health Management System (HMS) is an online interactive human machine interface system that monitors all Kennedy Ground Control Subsystem (KGCS) hardware in the field. The Health Management System is essential to NASA engineers because it allows remote control and monitoring of the health management systems of all the Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) and associated field devices. KGCS will have equipment installed at the launch pad, Vehicle Assembly Building, Mobile Launcher, as well as the Multi-Purpose Processing Facility. I am designing graphical displays to monitor and control new modules that will be integrated into the HMS. The design of the display screen will closely mimic the appearance and functionality of the actual modules. There are many different field devices used to monitor health management and each device has its own unique set of health management related data, therefore each display must also have its own unique way to display this data. Once the displays are created, the RSLogix5000 application is used to write software that maps all the required data read from the hardware to the graphical display. Once this data is mapped to its corresponding display item, the graphical display and hardware device will be connected through the same network in order to test all possible scenarios and types of data the graphical display was designed to receive. Test Procedures will be written to thoroughly test out the displays and ensure that they are working correctly before being deployed to the field. Additionally, the Kennedy Ground Controls Subsystem's user manual will be updated to explain to the NASA engineers how to use the new module displays.

Foster, Thomas Garrison↗
NASA NTRS2019

Inserting New Technologies into Human-Computer Interfaces for Future Lunar and Mars Missions

Plans call for human cislunar operations and lunar surface access, to prepare for eventual Mars missions. NASA will also develop new opportunities in lunar orbit that provide the foundation and act as a gateway for human exploration deeper into the solar system. Current human spaceflight is complex and requires as many as fifty people to support the International Space Station (ISS) Mission Control Center (MCC) in Houston, Texas. These flight controllers in the front and back rooms of the MCC, serve as an extra pair of eyes overseeing the numerous station systems. Deep space missions - to the moon, Mars, and beyond - will be more complex and place challenging mission constraints on the crew. As the round-trip communication delays increase in deep space exploration, more on-board systems autonomy and functionality will be needed to maintain and control the vehicle. These mission constraints will change the Earth-based ground control approach and will demand efficient and effective human-computer interfaces (HCI) to control a highly complex vehicle or habitat system. All of this necessitates a different approach to designing and developing spacecraft and habitats. In the beginning of new human spaceflight programs, focus is typically on launch vehicle and uncrewed spacecraft design and development. The reasoning behind this focus to enable flight testing of an integrated launch vehicle and spacecraft system to ensure it will be safe enough to allow humans on board. This is an essential process for new spacecraft, however, the practical effect is a lack of funding for the spacecraft’s human interfaces development. It can be many years before the human interface development begins, putting it late in the spacecraft lifecycle, when almost all other spacecraft systems and subsystems are already in place. This forces the usage of existing and proven technologies for the HCI interfaces. We posit that putting the human first in a spacecraft design process will yield a more effective spacecraft for exploration and long duration missions. NASA Human Research Program (HRP) has identified inadequate HCI as a risk for future missions. New tools and procedures to aid the crew in operating a complex spacecraft will be required. This paper discusses ongoing activities in the development of the next generation HCI components and systems, and a new approach toward human interfaces for spacecraft.

Salazar, George A.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Assessment of a human computer interface prototyping environment

A Human Computer Interface (HCI) prototyping environment with embedded evaluation capability has been successfully assessed which will be valuable in developing and refining HCI standards and evaluating program/project interface development, especially Space Station Freedom on-board displays for payload operations. The HCI prototyping environment is designed to include four components: (1) a HCI format development tool, (2) a test and evaluation simulator development tool, (3) a dynamic, interactive interface between the HCI prototype and simulator, and (4) an embedded evaluation capability to evaluate the adequacy of an HCI based on a user's performance.

Moore, Loretta A.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Designers' models of the human-computer interface

Understanding design models of the human-computer interface (HCI) may produce two types of benefits. First, interface development often requires input from two different types of experts: human factors specialists and software developers. Given the differences in their backgrounds and roles, human factors specialists and software developers may have different cognitive models of the HCI. Yet, they have to communicate about the interface as part of the design process. If they have different models, their interactions are likely to involve a certain amount of miscommunication. Second, the design process in general is likely to be guided by designers' cognitive models of the HCI, as well as by their knowledge of the user, tasks, and system. Designers do not start with a blank slate; rather they begin with a general model of the object they are designing. The author's approach to a design model of the HCI was to have three groups make judgments of categorical similarity about the components of an interface: human factors specialists with HCI design experience, software developers with HCI design experience, and a baseline group of computer users with no experience in HCI design. The components of the user interface included both display components such as windows, text, and graphics, and user interaction concepts, such as command language, editing, and help. The judgments of the three groups were analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis and Pathfinder. These methods indicated, respectively, how the groups categorized the concepts, and network representations of the concepts for each group. The Pathfinder analysis provides greater information about local, pairwise relations among concepts, whereas the cluster analysis shows global, categorical relations to a greater extent.

Gillan, Douglas J.↗