SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “human factors worksite design”
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.
Modified Universal Design Survey: Enhancing Operability of Launch Vehicle Ground Crew Worksites
Operability is a driving requirement for next generation space launch vehicles. Launch site ground operations include numerous operator tasks to prepare the vehicle for launch or to perform preflight maintenance. Ensuring that components requiring operator interaction at the launch site are designed for optimal human use is a high priority for operability. To promote operability, a Design Quality Evaluation Survey based on Universal Design framework was developed to support Human Factors Engineering (HFE) evaluation for NASA s launch vehicles. Universal Design per se is not a priority for launch vehicle processing however; applying principles of Universal Design will increase the probability of an error free and efficient design which promotes operability. The Design Quality Evaluation Survey incorporates and tailors the seven Universal Design Principles and adds new measures for Safety and Efficiency. Adapting an approach proven to measure Universal Design Performance in Product, each principle is associated with multiple performance measures which are rated with the degree to which the statement is true. The Design Quality Evaluation Survey was employed for several launch vehicle ground processing worksite analyses. The tool was found to be most useful for comparative judgments as opposed to an assessment of a single design option. It provided a useful piece of additional data when assessing possible operator interfaces or worksites for operability.
Application of a Modified Universal Design Survey for Evaluation of Ares 1 Ground Crew Worksites
Operability is a driving requirement for NASA's Ares 1 launch vehicle. Launch site ground operations include several operator tasks to prepare the vehicle for launch or to perform maintenance. Ensuring that components requiring operator interaction at the launch site are designed for optimal human use is a high priority for operability. To support design evaluation, the Ares 1 Upper Stage (US) element Human Factors Engineering (HFE) group developed a survey based on the Universal Design approach. Universal Design is a process to create products that can be used effectively by as many people as possible. Universal Design per se is not a priority for Ares 1 because launch vehicle processing is a specialized skill and not akin to a consumer product that should be used by all people of all abilities. However, applying principles of Universal Design will increase the probability of an error free and efficient design which is a priority for Ares 1. The Design Quality Evaluation Survey centers on the following seven principles: (1) Equitable use, (2) Flexibility in use, (3) Simple and intuitive use, (4) Perceptible information, (5) Tolerance for error, (6) Low physical effort, (7) Size and space for approach and use. Each principle is associated with multiple evaluation criteria which were rated with the degree to which the statement is true. All statements are phrased in the utmost positive, or the design goal so that the degree to which judgments tend toward "completely agree" directly reflects the degree to which the design is good. The Design Quality Evaluation Survey was employed for several US analyses. The tool was found to be most useful for comparative judgments as opposed to an assessment of a single design option. It provided a useful piece of additional data when assessing possible operator interfaces or worksites for operability
Digital Human Modeling
The development of models to represent human characteristics and behaviors in human factors is broad and general. The term "model" can refer to any metaphor to represent any aspect of the human; it is generally used in research to mean a mathematical tool for the simulation (often in software, which makes the simulation digital) of some aspect of human performance and for the prediction of future outcomes. This section is restricted to the application of human models in physical design, e.g., in human factors engineering. This design effort is typically human interface design, and the digital models used are anthropometric. That is, they are visual models that are the physical shape of humans and that have the capabilities and constraints of humans of a selected population. They are distinct from the avatars used in the entertainment industry (movies, video games, and the like) in precisely that regard: as models, they are created through the application of data on humans, and they are used to predict human response; body stresses workspaces. DHM enable iterative evaluation of a large number of concepts and support rapid analysis, as compared with use of physical mockups. They can be used to evaluate feasibility of escape of a suited astronaut from a damaged vehicle, before launch or after an abort (England, et al., 2012). Throughout most of human spaceflight, little attention has been paid to worksite design for ground workers. As a result of repeated damage to the Space Shuttle which adversely affected flight safety, DHM analyses of ground assembly and maintenance have been developed over the last five years for the design of new flight systems (Stambolian, 2012, Dischinger and Dunn Jackson, 2014). The intent of these analyses is to assure the design supports the work of the ground crew personnel and thereby protect the launch vehicle. They help the analyst address basic human factors engineering questions: can a worker reach the task site from the work platform provided; can she or he see the task site; can she or he control tools, which, if dropped, might damage the system? Figure 7.3.1 provides an example of such analysis for a future NASA launch vehicle. [figure 7.3.1 here] In-space systems for operation by astronauts have long been targets for DHM analysis, given the focus on mission success and concerns for astronaut safety. Figure 7.3.2 illustrates the analysis of the design to support astronaut tasks for an International Space Station glovebox. [Figure 7.3.2 here] Use by
NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations: Science Operations Development for Human Exploration
The purpose of NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) mission 16 in 2012 was to evaluate and compare the performance of a defined series of representative near-Earth asteroid (NEA) extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks under different conditions and combinations of work systems, constraints, and assumptions considered for future human NEA exploration missions. NEEMO 16 followed NASA's 2011 Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS), the primary focus of which was understanding the implications of communication latency, crew size, and work system combinations with respect to scientific data quality, data management, crew workload, and crew/mission control interactions. The 1-g environment precluded meaningful evaluation of NEA EVA translation, worksite stabilization, sampling, or instrument deployment techniques. Thus, NEEMO missions were designed to provide an opportunity to perform a preliminary evaluation of these important factors for each of the conditions being considered. NEEMO 15 also took place in 2011 and provided a first look at many of the factors, but the mission was cut short due to a hurricane threat before all objectives were completed. ARES Directorate (KX) personnel consulted with JSC engineers to ensure that high-fidelity planetary science protocols were incorporated into NEEMO mission architectures. ARES has been collaborating with NEEMO mission planners since NEEMO 9 in 2006, successively building upon previous developments to refine science operations concepts within engineering constraints; it is expected to continue the collaboration as NASA's human exploration mission plans evolve.
Using Virtual Reality for Worksite Analysis
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Human Factors Engineering (HFE) Team is implementing virtual reality (VR) and motion capture (MoCap) into HFE analyses of various projects through its Virtual Environments Lab (VEL). This complements the long history of analyses completed using mockups. These techniques are being implemented for; (1) Concept of development of Deep Space Habitats (DSH), (2) Design and analyses for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS). VR utilization in the VEL will push the design to be better formulated before mockups are constructed, saving budget and time.
Using Virtual Reality and Motion Capture as Tools for Human Factors Engineering at Nasa Marshall Space Flight Center
MSFC’s Human Factors Engineering (HFE) team is responsible for all worksite analyses performed for the SLS pre-launch integration activities at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). There is a wide variety of tasks associated with pre-launch integration activities and it is important to verify that vehicle integration will be successful early in the design process. The VR work performed by the HFE team at MSFC has allowed fast changing layouts to be analyzed by various departments with minimal impact to cost or schedule. Implementing these methods for SLS allows for VR use in early design cycles, saving time and budget. Utilizing the resulting HFE analyses improves usability and safety. Ultimately, the goal is to provide a safe environment for the technicians assembling the vehicle and the astronaut crew at launch.
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Tools for Human Factors Engineering Assessments for Safe Sls Worksites
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Human Factors Engineering (HFE) Team is implementing mockup fabrication, virtual reality (VR) and motion capture (MoCap) into HFE analyses of SLS worksites through its Virtual Environments Lab (VEL). MSFC HFE Team is responsible for the Space Launch System (SLS) worksite analyses of the integration activities performed at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). With a wide variety of tasks, it is important to verify that SLS can be safely integrated at KSC early in the design process. If the ground support crew cannot safely complete the tasks, redesign efforts must be implemented. MSFC HFE is responsible for verification through methods such as drawing inspection, observation of tasks performed, and building physical mockups. There is a need, however, for a faster analysis early in the process that can impact design safety before drawings are finalized. This need is addressed through MSFC’s VEL.
The First Development of Human Factors Engineering Requirements for Application to Ground Task Design for a NASA Flight Program
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has long applied standards-derived human engineering requirements to the development of hardware and software for use by astronauts while in flight. The most important source of these requirements has been NASA-STD-3000. While there have been several ground systems human engineering requirements documents, none has been applicable to the flight system as handled at NASA's launch facility at Kennedy Space Center. At the time of the development of previous human launch systems, there were other considerations that were deemed more important than developing worksites for ground crews; e.g., hardware development schedule and vehicle performance. However, experience with these systems has shown that failure to design for ground tasks has resulted in launch schedule delays, ground operations that are more costly than they might be, and threats to flight safety. As the Agency begins the development of new systems to return humans to the moon, the new Constellation Program is addressing this issue with a new set of human engineering requirements. Among these requirements is a subset that will apply to the design of the flight components and that is intended to assure ground crew success in vehicle assembly and maintenance tasks. These requirements address worksite design for usability and for ground crew safety.
Technology Transfer Challenges: A Case Study of User-Centered Design in NASA's Systems Engineering Culture
The Upper Stage (US) section of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Ares I rocket will require internal access platforms for maintenance tasks performed by humans inside the vehicle. Tasks will occur during expensive critical path operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) including vehicle stacking and launch preparation activities. Platforms must be translated through a small human access hatch, installed in an enclosed worksite environment, support the weight of ground operators and be removed before flight - and their design must minimize additional vehicle mass at attachment points. This paper describes the application of a user-centered conceptual design process and the unique challenges encountered within NASA's systems engineering culture focused on requirements and "heritage hardware". The NASA design team at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) initiated the user-centered design process by studying heritage internal access kits and proposing new design concepts during brainstorming sessions. Simultaneously, they partnered with the Technology Transfer/Innovative Partnerships Program to research inflatable structures and dynamic scaffolding solutions that could enable ground operator access. While this creative, technology-oriented exploration was encouraged by upper management, some design stakeholders consistently opposed ideas utilizing novel, untested equipment. Subsequent collaboration with an engineering consulting firm improved the technical credibility of several options, however, there was continued resistance from team members focused on meeting system requirements with pre-certified hardware. After a six-month idea-generating phase, an intensive six-week effort produced viable design concepts that justified additional vehicle mass while optimizing the human factors of platform installation and use. Although these selected final concepts closely resemble heritage internal access platforms, challenges from the application of the user-centered process provided valuable lessons for improving future collaborative conceptual design efforts.