Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human factors performance”

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 NTRS2017

Minimizing Human Risk: Human Performance Models in the Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element

Human space exploration has never been more exciting than it is today. Human presence to outer worlds is becoming a reality as humans are leveraging much of our prior knowledge to the new mission of going to Mars. Exploring the solar system at greater distances from Earth than ever before will possess some unique challenges, which can be overcome thanks to the advances in modeling and simulation technologies. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is at the forefront of exploring our solar system. NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) focuses on discovering the best methods and technologies that support safe and productive human space travel in the extreme and harsh space environment. HRP uses various methods and approaches to answer questions about the impact of long duration missions on the human in space including: gravitys impact on the human body, isolation and confinement on the human, hostile environments impact on the human, space radiation, and how the distance is likely to impact the human. Predictive models are included in the HRP research portfolio as these models provide valuable insights into human-system operations. This paper will provide an overview of NASA's HRP and will present a number of projects that have used modeling and simulation to provide insights into human-system issues (e.g. automation, habitat design, schedules) in anticipation of space exploration.

human systems integrations↗
NASA NTRS2018

Development of a Ground Test and Analysis Protocol for NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗
DOE OSTI2022

The HUNTER Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis Tool: Development of a Module for Performance Shaping Factors

Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) is a framework to support dynamic human reliability analysis (HRA) in communication with a variety of methods and tools. In this paper, how we have developed one of the HUNTER modules, the individual module for evaluating performance shaping factors (PSFs), is introduced. The PSF refers to any factor that influences human performance such as workload or complexity. It has been used for highlighting human errors and adjusting the error probabilities in the existing HRA. We consider the eight PSFs suggested in the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-HRA (SPAR-H) method, which is the representative HRA method widely used in the nuclear field. To support our dynamic modeling using the eight SPAR-H PSFs, we reviewed human performance literature and developed data-based mathematical models to rate and quantify PSFs in the context of dynamic HRA. We also design the individual module composed of the two functions: 1) the PSF qualification function that automatically or manually evaluates a PSF level, and 2) the PSF quantification function that dynamically or statically determines the PSF multiplier values and integrate them to adjust human error probabilities (HEPs). How each function works with the SPAR-H PSFs and how the PSFs adjust the HEPs are investigated through literature and discussed in this paper.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRS1980

Performance and human factors results from thrust vectoring investigations in simulated air combat

In support of research related to advanced fighter technology, the Langley Differential Maneuvering Simulator (DMS) has been used to investigate the effects of advanced aerodynamic concepts, parametric changes in performance parameters, and advanced flight control systems on the combat capability of fighter airplanes. At least five studies were related to thrust vectoring and/or inflight thrust reversing. The aircraft simulated ranged from F-4 class to F-15 class, and included the AV-8 Harrier. This paper presents an overview of these studies including the assumptions involved, trends of results, and human factors considerations that were found.

Pennington, J. E.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

HUMAN FACTORS AND BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE EXPLORATION MEASURES: ASSESSING ASTRONAUT RISK

INTRODUCTION: The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA) risks. This presentation will provide an overview of the HFBP-EM program, describe its implementation across spaceflight analogs and the international space station (ISS), and discuss its applicability to audience members. TOPIC: HFBP-EM is a research program designed to develop a standard set of measures that can be used in space and space-analog research to characterize BMed, Team, Sleep, and HSIA risks. It is an ongoing research project that is used examine the validity and reliability of HFBP measures, as well as their shorter forms. It also serves as a test bed for HFBP measures being considered for the spaceflight standard measures. The suite of measures is used to test the efficacy of countermeasures. To date, HFBP-EM has been collected in Human Exploration Research Analogs campaigns 4 and 5, and the SIRIUS 19 mission in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part of HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Data was collected from a total of 55 multinational astronaut and astronaut-like crewmembers (mean age: 39.5, SD = 7.6; 31% female; 91% with advanced degrees). Three broad categories of HFBP-EM measures and their relevance to HRP risks will be discussed: 1) surveys that assess team functioning (Teams risk) as well as mood and affect (Bmed risk), 2) performance-based tasks of cognitive functioning and operationally relevant performance (Bmed risk), and 3) physiological biomarkers of sleep (sleep risk) and heart rate (Bmed risk). We will provide an overview of the background of the HFBP-EM program, what the suite currently includes, and next steps in its future development. We will also discuss the application to aerospace practitioners and researchers. APPLICATION: Astronaut teams selected for future space exploration missions will face several challenges that pose significant yet still unknown risks to the behavioral health and performance of astronauts. The HFBP-EM suite provides a comprehensive assessment of behavioral health and performance in space analog and spaceflight settings. This suite can be applied to both operational and research settings to advance risk reduction research for long duration space exploration missions.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRS2014

Space Mission Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Project

The purpose of the Space Mission Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Project is to extend current ground-based HRA risk prediction techniques to a long-duration, space-based tool. Ground-based HRA methodology has been shown to be a reasonable tool for short-duration space missions, such as Space Shuttle and lunar fly-bys. However, longer-duration deep-space missions, such as asteroid and Mars missions, will require the crew to be in space for as long as 400 to 900 day missions with periods of extended autonomy and self-sufficiency. Current indications show higher risk due to fatigue, physiological effects due to extended low gravity environments, and others, may impact HRA predictions. For this project, Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) will work with Human Health & Performance (HH&P) to establish what is currently used to assess human reliabiilty for human space programs, identify human performance factors that may be sensitive to long duration space flight, collect available historical data, and update current tools to account for performance shaping factors believed to be important to such missions. This effort will also contribute data to the Human Performance Data Repository and influence the Space Human Factors Engineering research risks and gaps (part of the HRP Program). An accurate risk predictor mitigates Loss of Crew (LOC) and Loss of Mission (LOM).The end result will be an updated HRA model that can effectively predict risk on long-duration missions.

Boyer, Roger↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Research Program: Human Factors and Behavioral Performance

This discussion provides an overview of the Human Research Program (HRP), the Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element (HFBP), and outlines currently documented research using AR/VR or Hybrid Reality to maintain or improve human behavior for long duration exploration mission environments. Different analog environments are also discussed in this presentation (ISS and HERA).

Human Research Program↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRS2016

Minimizing Human Risk: Human Performance Models in the Space Human Factors and Habitability and Behavioral Health and Performance Elements

Human space exploration has never been more exciting than it is today. Human presence to outer worlds is becoming a reality as humans are leveraging much of our prior knowledge to the new mission of going to Mars. Exploring the solar system at greater distances from Earth than ever before will possess some unique challenges, which can be overcome thanks to the advances in modeling and simulation technologies. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is at the forefront of exploring our solar system. NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) focuses on discovering the best methods and technologies that support safe and productive human space travel in the extreme and harsh space environment. HRP uses various methods and approaches to answer questions about the impact of long duration missions on the human in space including: gravity's impact on the human body, isolation and confinement on the human, hostile environments impact on the human, space radiation, and how the distance is likely to impact the human. Predictive models are included in the HRP research portfolio as these models provide valuable insights into human-system operations. This paper will provide an overview of NASA's HRP and will present a number of projects that have used modeling and simulation to provide insights into human-system issues (e.g. automation, habitat design, schedules) in anticipation of space exploration.

space human factors and habitability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRS2011

Human factors process failure modes and effects analysis (HF PFMEA) software tool

Methods, computer-readable media, and systems for automatically performing Human Factors Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for a process are provided. At least one task involved in a process is identified, where the task includes at least one human activity. The human activity is described using at least one verb. A human error potentially resulting from the human activity is automatically identified, the human error is related to the verb used in describing the task. A likelihood of occurrence, detection, and correction of the human error is identified. The severity of the effect of the human error is identified. The likelihood of occurrence, and the severity of the risk of potential harm is identified. The risk of potential harm is compared with a risk threshold to identify the appropriateness of corrective measures.

Chandler, Faith T.↗