space human factors engineering gap analysis project final
TRANSCRIPT
Space Human Factors Engineering Gap Analysis Project Final Report Cynthia Hudy Lockheed Martin Barbara Woolford NASA Johnson Space Center Habitability and Human Factors Branch
June 30, 2006
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………... iv ACRONYMS…………………………………………………………………………………….. v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES…………………………………………………………….vi BACKGROUND………………………………………………………………………………….1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….. 1 HUMAN FACTORS BACKGROUND REVIEW……………………………………………… 2 Review of Literature and Databases…………………………………………………..3 Human Factors Expert Interviews…………………………………………………….. 4 FIELD USER REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………. 4 Field User Interviews…………………………………………………………………… 5 GAP EVALUATION…………………………………………………………………………….. 5 GAP Database………………………………………………………………………….. 6 Decision Analysis……………………………………………………………………….. 7 Internal Ranking………………………………………………………………… 9 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW…………………………………………………………………….10 FINAL PRIORITIZED GAP RESULTS……………………………………………………… 11 CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………. 15 Information Presentation……………………………………………………………... 15 Anthropometric Verification Tools…………………………………………………… 16 Behavioral Health and Performance – Cognition………………………………….. 16 Acoustics Requirements and Models……………………………………………….. 16 Design and Evaluation Tools………………………………………………………... .16 Crew Scheduling Tools……………………………………………………………….. 16 Training………………………………………………………………………………….17 Function Allocation Tools and Techniques………………………………………… .17 DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 Forward Work………………………………………………………………………….. 19 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………… 20 APPENDIX A………………………………………………………………………………….. .21
iii
APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………………………………... 25 APPENDIX C………………………………………………………………………………….. 28 APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………………………………...35 APPENDIX E…………………………………………………………………………………... 57
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was supported by Contract Number NAS9-02078 from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and conducted at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas and the Ames Research Center (ARC) in Moffett Field, California. The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of the project personnel: Jeff Beno/Lockheed Martin (LM), Charles Bowen/LM, Vicky Byrne/LM, Dan Carr/LM, Samia Chedid/LM, Erin Connell/LM, Jolene Feldman/San Jose State University Foundation, Javier Gonzalez/LM, Ron Hoffman/MEI Technologies, Chris Keller/Barrios, Danielle Smith/LM, Jody Solem/LM, Barry Tillman/LM, and Doug Wong/NASA JSC, as well as the support from the project management: Mary Kaiser/NASA ARC, Jeff McCandless/NASA ARC, and Barbara Woolford/NASA JSC. In addition, thanks go out to all the NASA JSC and ARC personnel who supplied interview comments and research questions, as well as the NASA stakeholders who helped to focus the topic areas for final selection. A final thanks to Kevin MacNeill/Wyle for the graphical representation of the gap analysis process and Craig Harvey/LM for review and comments.
v
ACRONYMS
ARC Ames Research Center BHP Behavioral Health and Performance CEV Crew Exploration Vehicle CLV Crew Launch Vehicle CM Countermeasures D&C Displays and Controls ESAS Exploration Systems Architecture Study EVA Extravehicular Activity FCS&I Flight Crew Systems and Integration FY Fiscal Year GAP Gap Analysis Project GNC Guidance, Navigation, and Control HCI Human Computer Interaction HF Human Factors HFE Human Factors Engineer HRP Human Research Program HSI Human System Interaction HSIR Human Systems Integration Requirements HSIS Human Systems Integration Standards ISS International Space Station JSC Johnson Space Center LM Lockheed Martin NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration POP Program Operating Plan SBIR Small Business Innovative Research SHFE Space Human Factors Engineering VHMS Vehicle Health Maintenance System
vi
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES List of Tables: Table 1: GAP phases and deliverables…………………………………………………..... 2 Table 2: A sample of the Original Database……………………………………………..... 8 Table 3: Decision analysis objective criteria…………………………………………….… 9 Table 4: Example Structured Paragraph………..…………………………………………11 Table 5: Final prioritized GAP results………………………………………………………13 Table 6: Tasks and their relation to Human Research Program identified risks...………………………………….……………………..…………………… 15 List of Figures: Figure 1: Representation of the Gap Analysis process..................................………... 18
vii
Space Human Factors Engineering Gap Analysis Project Final Report
BACKGROUND Humans perform critical functions throughout each phase of every space mission, beginning with the mission concept and continuing to post-mission analysis (Life Sciences Division, 1996). Space missions present humans with many challenges - the microgravity environment, relative isolation, and inherent dangers of the mission all present unique issues. As mission duration and distance from Earth increases, in-flight crew autonomy will increase along with increased complexity. As efforts for exploring the moon and Mars advance, there is a need for space human factors research and technology development to play a significant role in both on-orbit human-system interaction, as well as the development of mission requirements and needs before and after the mission. As part of the Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Project within the Human Research Program (HRP), a six-month Gap Analysis Project (GAP) was funded to identify any human factors research “gaps” or knowledge needs. The overall aim of the project was to review the current state of human factors topic areas and requirements to determine what data, processes, or tools are needed to aid in the planning and development of future exploration missions, and also to prioritize proposals for future research and technology development. INTRODUCTION This six-month project (October 2005 through March 2006) was a collaborative effort between human factors personnel from the National Aeronatics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) and Ames Research Center (ARC). The gap analysis included literature reviews, database searches, interviews with NASA personnel, and then, a survey of NASA program and project managers as stakeholders. The primary focus of the GAP was on tools and methods to aid in the development of requirements and guidelines for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), since there was an immediate need for such information. However, the GAP is seen as a long-term effort, and therefore, future Lunar and Mars exploration missions, as well as ground support needs for all missions, were also considered. The project was divided into four parts, two phases for data gathering, and two for compiling and prioritizing results. Each phase along with the deliverables accomplished during that phase are detailed in Table 1. The Human Factors Background Review focused on the results of space program literature searches, review of human factors documents, and interviews of human factors personnel. The Field User Review focused on interviewing people outside the
1
human factors area, but who work with crew interfaces. The results from these phases were then complied and categorized into logical human factors topic areas. Using this compiled list, the Gap Evaluation phase began. In this phase the categories and description of potential research topics were rated by GAP personnel on seven different factors to create a reduced list to present to stakeholders. A more concise list of topic areas were then sent to NASA stakeholders (e.g., Crew Office, Engineering Directorate, Mission Operations Directorate) to obtain their prioritization and buy-in of the important areas for human factors research. Last, the identified gaps were prioritized using four factors: CEV need, interview significance, stakeholder rating, and relevance to the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). Each part of the project contributed significantly to these results, and will be discussed in detail in separate sections below. Table 1: GAP phases and deliverables.
Phase Deliverables Space Program Literature Review Human Factors Document Review Human Factors
Background Review Human Factors Personnel Interviews Field User Review Field User Interviews
Consolidation/Duplication Elimination Decision Analysis Factor Rating Gap Evaluation Stakeholder Ranking
Final Prioritized Gap Results
Prioritized Evaluation based on: (1) early CEV need in the areas of design and operations (2) interview significance (3) stakeholder rankings (4) ESAS recommendations
HUMAN FACTORS BACKGROUND REVIEW Human-system performance is critical to all mission phases. The GAP Human Factors Background Review began with a summary of vehicle development and on-orbit mission phases to determine what aspects of human factors research and knowledge, as well as interaction with other disciplines, are needed during certain phases of vehicle or mission development. The phases were defined as:
• Phase 1: Feasibility • Phase 2: Project Definition and Approval • Phase 3: Requirements Definition • Phase 4: Preliminary Design • Phase 5: Detailed Design • Phase 6: Flight Production and Certification • Phase 7: Deployment • Phase 8: Operations and Support
(Adapted from EA-WI-023, 2004)
2
Traditionally, human factors personnel are involved in Phases 3 through 6 – requirements definition through design and certification. However, with the development of new space vehicles and longer duration mission planning, it was clear that human factors involvement should be throughout all phases of development – from the conceptual stages, where feasibility studies of crew interaction with the vehicle are critical for defining the general mission parameters to in-flight and post-flight operations, where real-time support could benefit mission efficiency and success. Review of Literature and Databases To determine human factors topic areas that were underrepresented or requirements that needed updating, GAP personnel initiated a literature search of both NASA requirement documents and traditional literature sources. GAP personnel reviewed the current Human Systems Integration Requirements (HSIR) and Human Systems Integration Standards (HSIS) chapter headings, as well as the older version of the document, the Man-Systems Integration Standards (NASA-STD-3000). This review generated a list of topic areas that had “gaps” and thus required a requirements update. In some cases, (e.g., the displays and controls sections) requirements needed updating to reflect current technology. In other cases, areas such as automation and robotics were missing from the requirements documents. To further determine human factors topic areas that were underrepresented or requirements that needed updating, GAP personnel initiated a traditional literature search. The search included human factors documents from space, aeronautics, and other domains, such as “The 21st Century Jet: The Boeing 777 Multimedia Case Study” by S. Shokralla (1995) and “Emerging Needs and Opportunities for Human Factors Research” by R. Nickerson (Ed.) (1995). The search also included 66 documents from the Apollo, Space Shuttle, and ISS programs, such as the “Apollo 12 Technical Crew Debriefing”, “STS-35 Flight Control Teams and Mission Evaluation Room Technical Crew Debrief”, and “Increment 11 Lessons Learned Matrix”. For a full list of documents reviewed, see Appendix A. This review resulted in the identification of many issues/gaps. As an example, one item gathered from the review of the International Space Station (ISS) Lessons Learned database is that poor display and control design is a top concern in ISS crew debriefs. Furthermore, ISS and Space Shuttle crew debriefs indicated that rescheduling items and real-time changes in the schedule are not managed as efficiently as they could be. In addition, the short length of crewmember mission training was identified as a major issue in various crew reports and debriefs. Another source of information was the results of a separate CEV Task Analysis project. The interview data from this project revealed that research is needed on crew capability to interact with crew station displays under the high and variable g-forces that will accompany CEV and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) ascents and entries. Specifically, research is needed to examine the methods for manual reaching switches or pushing
3
edge keys. Another topic discussed was the lack of a method to determine which tasks should be one- or two-crewmembers. Additional open questions focused on anthropometry concerns, such as the size of hatches to fit as yet undetermined extravehicular activity (EVA) and flight suits, as well as the types and design of hand rails and foot loops for crewmember restraint. Finally, an important reference was the ESAS report. The ESAS report provides an assessment of the plans for crew and cargo launch systems to support the lunar and Mars exploration programs. It also defines top-level requirements and identified key technologies required to enhance the exploration programs. The report was reviewed and sections referring to human performance were noted, such as section 7.2.2.2 Design for Human Operatbility; “Crewed vehicles will provide the flight crew with insight, intervention capability, control over vehicle automation, authority to enable irreversible actions, and critical autonomy from the ground.” Human Factors Expert Interviews The first phase of data collection began with interviews of human factors discipline experts. It was decided that the project team would start with human factors personnel, while in parallel, determining the best persons to interview from outside disciplines. In addition, it was expected that the human factors interviewees would provide the team with points of contact from other disciplines. The human factors experts were personnel from the NASA JSC Habitability and Human Factors Office and NASA ARC Human Systems Integration Division. A total of 52 human factors personnel were interviewed. A list of interviewees can be found in Appendix B. The interviews were informal, with one or two GAP personnel interviewing an individual person or a small group. The interview was unstructured, letting the interviewees discuss the topics of most interest or concern to them. Interviews with human factors experts were conducted over approximately a month and a half time period. The interviews resulted in over half of the 286 Original Database entries and were a significant source of research and technology development needs.
FIELD USER REVIEW Field users represent the end user of any technology for which human factors may have an impact and includes crewmembers as well as others. Multiple disciplines were identified as having “field users” of human factors requirements and work relating to human factors and crew interfaces. The seventeen areas combine several disciplines, since the topics they would be addressing were similar:
1. Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC)/ Avionics/ Displays and Controls 2. Power/ Thermal 3. Robotics 4. Medical Operations/ Behavior Health and Performance (BHP) 5. Exercise/ Countermeasures Hardware
4
6. Life Support/ Environmental Monitoring/ Radiation 7. Engineering/ Flight Crew Systems and Integration (FCS&I) 8. Food 9. Extravehicular Activity (EVA) 10. Structures/ Mechanical 11. Stowage 12. Safety 13. Procedures/ Training 14. Mission Support (ground) 15. Mission Planning 16. Systems Engineering/ Project Management 17. Crew Office
Field User Interviews In preparation for the field user interviews, an “Interview Guide” was created. The interviews were informal, with one or two GAP personnel interviewing an individual person or a small group. As before, the interview was unstructured, letting the interviewees discuss the topics of most interest or concern to them, however, the Interview Guide was available as a tool to initiate the conversation if necessary. The Interview Guide is provided in Appendix C. The guide provided focus for the interviewee by offering prompting questions, such as: “Are you aware of any human factors open issues/areas of concern in your field that may require future research before Exploration (e.g., CEV, Hab Module) implementation?” A companion to the Interview Guide was the “Topics Table”. The Topics Table listed human factors topic areas adapted from the Human Systems Integration Requirements (HSIR) for the CEV Launch Segment (NASA-STD-3000, Volume VIII) in the areas of Human Performance Characteristics and Capabilities, such as cognitive and environmental factors, and Human-System Interactions, such as safety and hardware and equipment. This list of topics helped prompt interviewees to think about the variety of topics affected by human factors. A total of 62 field users from NASA JSC were interviewed The list of interviewees can be found in Appendix B. Interviews with field user personnel were conducted over approximately a month and a half time period. The interviews resulted in a substantial amount of data, approximately 70 line items in the Original Database, regarding human factors research and technology development needs. GAP EVALUATION The data gathered during the literature review and interviews were incorporated into a spreadsheet including columns to describe the following:
1. Topic Area (e.g., lighting, anthropometry, procedures) 2. Research Question 3. Expected Product – brief description of product
5
4. Description of Product and Capabilities – details on the expected product and its capabilities
5. Expected Benefits – expected benefits, such as cost savings, etc. 6. Evidence Supporting Claims for Benefits – any written or anecdotal
evidence of successful product use 7. Source (Interviewee(s)) 8. Interviewer(s) 9. User Group – the users of the product 10. Customer – potential customer organization 11. HSIS Impacts – updates to current HSIS or a new area 12. Related Products and Lessons Learned 13. When is the Product Needed? – product development or mission phase 14. Comments 15. Notes from ESAS
A more in-depth description of the column contents can be found in the supplemental file “GAP all files combined.xls” under the “Column Description” tab. Note that a distinction was made between User Group and Customer, since they may not be the same in all cases. For example, the customer for a timelining tool would potentially be the Mission Operations Directorate, however, the User Group is the Crew Office. Ultimately, it would be important to obtain buy-in from both groups on the need for the research topic and the final product. GAP Database A total of 114 people representing 18 different disciplines (including the human factors discipline) were interviewed. In addition, 75 documents were reviewed. The result was a database consisting of 286 research questions. See Table 2 for a sample of the database. The full results can be found in the supplemental file “GAP all files combined.xls” under the “Original Database” tab. A wide variety of topics were represented, ranging from controls and displays, communications, stowage, and labeling. For example, one research question was “What lighting design tool features and methods would be most helpful to designers/requirements developers for determining the number and placement of light sources?” Another research topic was, “More needs to be known about human interactions with automated systems such as pilot awareness, how awareness is affected, what's the right amount of information to provide to crews, and how much do they need to understand.” The first step with the database was to reduce the number of different topic area names by grouping them into common disciplines. For example, “Human System Interaction (HSI) Evaluation Metrics and Criteria” became “General Human Factors” and “Human Computer Interaction (HCI)” and “Display design” became “Displays and Controls”. Sorting by topic area allowed the GAP team to eliminate duplicates or combine very similar research questions. A list of the research topics is presented below.
6
• Acoustics • Information Management • Adaptive Data Presentation • Inventory System • Anthropometry and Biomechanics • Labeling • Automation • Lighting • Autonomy • Maintainability • Behavioral Health and Performance • Oculometric Feedback • Communication • Operations Planning • Decision Making • Procedures • Design Tools • Restraints • Displays and Controls • Robotics • Extravehicular Activity (EVA) • Stowage • Exercise/ Countermeasures (CM) • Teleoperations • Function Allocation • Training • General Human Factors • Vehicle Maintenance and
Processing • Habitability • Verification Tools for Human
Factors (HF) • Human Factors and Usabililty • Windows • Human Reliability • Workload
Decision Analysis Once the research question topic areas were re-defined, GAP personnel used decision analysis as a process by which to assess the important aspects of the research questions and recommend the topics to pursue. The first step of the decision analysis was to ensure the identified research questions were appropriate for human factors, such that human factors is the primary driver of the research – not, for example, engineering or medical operations. The second step was to ensure the questions were appropriately research or technology-driven, as opposed to a programmatic decision. The research questions that received an answer of “yes” for both the “Human Factors (HF)?” and “Research?” decision analysis questions, and a select few that received a positive response for the “HF?” question and could be redirected towards research, were selected for further analysis; all other research questions were deselected. The resulting reduced database totaled 150 research questions. For the results of the decision analysis and the reduced database, please see the supplemental file “GAP all files combined.xls” under the “Initial Reduced Database” tab. A restructuring of the database was performed to ensure that the GAP team had eliminated/combined all duplicates, that the research questions were well-categorized and concise, and, finally, that the additional database information, such as “Expected Product” and “Expected Benefits” was as complete as possible. Throughout the database reduction process, the original line item numbers were recorded so that one could refer to the Original Database if necessary. The results of the restructuring can be found in the supplemental file “GAP all files combined.xls” under the “Final Reduced Database” tab.
7
Tabl
e 2.
A s
ampl
e of
the
Orig
inal
Dat
abas
e.
Topi
c A
rea
Res
earc
h Q
uest
ion
Expe
cted
Pr
oduc
t
Des
crip
tion
of P
rodu
ct
and
Cap
abili
ties
Expe
cted
B
enef
its
Evid
ence
su
ppor
ting
clai
ms
for
bene
fits
Sour
ce
[Inte
rvie
wee
(s)]
Inte
rvie
wer
U
ser
Gro
up
Cus
tom
er
Rel
ated
Pr
oduc
ts a
nd
Less
ons
Lear
ned
Whe
n Is
Pr
oduc
t N
eede
d
Func
tiona
l S
treng
th
Dat
a
Mor
e re
sear
ch is
ne
eded
to
crea
te
func
tiona
l st
reng
th
capa
bilit
ies
data
, es
peci
ally
w
hen
wea
ring
spac
e su
its.
Des
ign
guid
elin
es.
Tabl
e sh
owin
g m
inim
um a
nd
max
imum
st
reng
th o
f pe
rson
nel
wea
ring
spac
e su
its (b
oth
pres
suriz
ed
and
unpr
essu
rized
)
Gui
delin
es
for d
esig
ners
th
at w
ill s
et
uppe
r lim
its
on o
pera
ting
forc
e re
quire
men
ts
-- to
ass
ure
all p
erso
nnel
w
ill b
e ab
le to
op
erat
e sy
stem
s.
Als
o gu
idel
ines
for
desi
gner
s to
st
reng
then
ha
rdw
are
so
that
it is
not
br
oken
by
pers
onne
l ex
ertin
g hi
gh
forc
es
Pre
sent
gu
idel
ines
in
MS
IS a
re
usef
ul b
ut
inco
mpl
ete.
Sud
haka
r R
ajul
u (S
F3)/
AB
F
B. T
illm
an /
J. G
onza
lez
Har
dwar
e/
Veh
icle
de
velo
pers
Pro
gram
O
ffice
(p
oten
tial
futu
re)
MS
IS h
as
stre
ngth
dat
a fo
r uns
uite
d pe
rson
nel.
CE
V
8
Internal Ranking. For the remaining part of the decision analysis, the GAP
personnel generated a list of objective criteria on which to rank the 150 remaining research questions. The criteria were:
• Start By – the Fiscal Year (FY) in which the research would need to begin in order to have a set of requirements or a product ready for implementation
• Risk for Development Success – how risky the research is depending on technology development level
• Multi-discipline Applicability – the number of NASA disciplines commenting on the topic
• Development Costs – the estimated cost of the research or technology development in person-years. Plus one person-year added for large material costs.
• Safety – how much the topic may impact on-orbit crew safety • Crew Performance – how much the topic may impact on-orbit crew speed and
accuracy • Long-term Cost Savings – how much the research or technology development
will impact ground operations and performance The criteria and rating levels can be found in Table 3. Rating Level “3” always represented the most beneficial outcome, and Level “1” the least beneficial. The results of each criteria rating were summed and weighted. The final results were sorted based on the research questions that received the highest value. A total of 31 items received the highest scores (17 and above), including verification tools for human factors requirements, procedures, and function allocation. Items ranked the lowest (scores of 14 or below) included exercise countermeasures and windows. This internal ranking allowed GAP personnel to focus on the research questions providing the most benefit to Exploration programs for NASA higher-level stakeholders to consider in their ranking. Table 3. Decision analysis objective criteria.
Criteria Rating Level 3 = Before FY’08 2 = FY’09 or FY’10 Start By 1 = After FY’10 3 = Low Risk 2 = Medium Risk Risk for Development Success 1 = High Risk 3 = High Applicability (more than 2 groups) 2 = Medium Applicability (2 groups) Multi-discipline Applicability 1 = Low Applicability (1 group) 3 = < 5 person-years 2 = 5-10 person-years Development Costs 1 = > 10 person-years 3 = High 2 = Medium Safety 1 = Low
9
3 = High 2 = Medium Crew Performance 1 = Low 3 = High 2 = Medium Long-term Cost Savings 1 = Low
STAKEHOLDER REVIEW One of the most important aspects of the GAP process was the stakeholder review. The purpose of the stakeholder review was to ensure that higher-level NASA program managers and non-human factors discipline managers agreed that the research tasks to be identified by the GAP process were the most important areas of concern to them. In preparation for the stakeholders’ review, research topic areas in the top half of the internal decision analysis ranking were combined into 33 structured paragraphs. The structured paragraphs included the proposed research questions and products, making it more efficient for the stakeholders to review instead of the individual questions. The topic areas for the 33 structured paragraphs are listed below:
• Teleoperations • Robotics • Communications • Function Allocation • Crew Scheduling Tools • Automation Evaluation Tools
Development • Behavioral Health and Performance -
Cognition • Robotics Anthropometry –
Human Models • Human Performance Models for Display
Evaluation • Acoustics – Requirements
Development • Medical Procedures • Acoustics – Modeling • Training • Lighting Design Aid • Procedures • Lighting Tool Development • Procedure Development • Labeling • Display Sizes • Inventory Management • Display Information Content • Stowage • Non-traditional Multi-modal Displays • Maintainability • Alarms • Human Factors Engineering
Tools • Displays and Controls Ergonomics • Design Capture • Extravehicular Activity • Usability Evaluation Center
and Tools • Anthropometry – Space Suits • Human Reliability and Risk
Management • Anthropometry – General Design
Guidelines
10
The complete information for the structured paragraphs can be found in Appendix D. An example of the Displays and Controls Ergonomics structured paragraph is shown in Table 4. Table 4: Example Structured Paragraph Gap Topic Research Questions/Products Displays and Controls Ergonomics
Develop guidelines and requirements for displays and controls (D&C) ergonomics:
1. What are the minimum size requirements (clearances) and location requirements for displays and controls for personnel wearing space suits (both pressurize and unpressurized).
2. Designing for sensory-motor deconditioning -- how can workstations and controls, be configured to minimize ergonomic problems involving variations in the operator’s state (e.g., sensory-motor deconditioning, fatigue)?
Products: Guidelines and requirements on D&C ergonomics. Emphasis should be on physical requirements for different mission phases and how displays and controls should be tailored to mitigate sensory-motor deconditioning.
The structured paragraphs were sent to stakeholders from various disciplines at NASA JSC, as well as NASA Headquarters, and represented a cross section of experienced managers. The stakeholders were asked to rate the paragraphs on the level of interest to their programs – High, Medium, or Low – and were also asked to provide comments. Six discipline stakeholder groups responded to the call for review: NASA Headquarters, Crew Office, Constellation Office, Engineering Directorate, Mission Operations Directorate, and Space and Life Sciences Directorate. Display Information Content, Display Sizes, and Displays and Controls were the topics ranked highest by the stakeholders. The next highest group of topics included: Behavioral Health and Performance – Cognition, Alarms, and Crew Scheduling Tools, and Training. The complete results of the stakeholder ratings can be found in Appendix E. FINAL PRIORITIZED GAP RESULTS The final prioritization of the GAP results focused on four factors: (1) early CEV need in the areas of design and operations, (2) stakeholder rankings, (3) the frequency human factors personnel and field users (interviewees) identified the need (“interview significance”), and (4) ESAS recommendations. Finally, tasks were chosen based on other rationale within the JSC and ARC human factors groups, such as work with the CEV Cockpit Team, ISS lessons learned, and opportunities to further develop on-going
11
Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR). The top ten topics are listed below. The complete table of results can be found in Table 5.
1. Display Information Content 2. Behavioral Health and Performance – Cognition 3. Caution and Warning – Alarms 4. Anthropometry – General Design Considerations 5. Anthropometry – Human Models 6. Display Sizes 7. Displays and Controls 8. Function Allocation 9. Crew Scheduling tools 10. Training
Since four of the prioritized results focused on aspects of display information content (topics 1, 3, 6, and 7 mentioned above), they were combined into one large project called “Information Presentation”. Similarly, the two anthropometry topics were also combined into one project.
12
Tabl
e 5.
Fin
al p
riorit
ized
GA
P re
sults
. Ea
rly C
EV n
eed
# G
AP
topi
c D
esig
n O
ps
Inte
rvie
w
Sign
ifica
nce
Stak
ehol
der
Rat
ing
Rel
evan
t ESA
S se
ctio
ns
Rat
iona
le
1 D
ispl
ay In
form
atio
n C
onte
nt
X
6 of
18
Hig
h 7.
2.2.
2, 9
.3.1
.2
Dis
play
s an
d co
ntro
ls a
re to
p is
sue
from
ISS
deb
riefs
. C
ockp
it Te
am m
embe
rs re
ques
ting
prod
ucts
. 2
Dis
play
s an
d C
ontro
ls
X
4 of
18
Hig
h 9.
3.1.
2 W
ith #
1 3
Dis
play
Siz
es
X
2 of
18
Hig
h 7.
2.2.
2, 9
.3.1
.2
With
#1
4 C
autio
n an
d W
arni
ng –
Ala
rms
X
2 of
18
Med
7.
2.2.
2 W
ith #
1
5 B
ehav
iora
l Hea
lth a
nd
Per
form
ance
– C
ogni
tion
X
2 of
18
Med
12
.10.
8.2.
1,
7.2.
1.4
Win
dow
of o
ppor
tuni
ty to
team
w
ith B
HP
. Psy
chol
ogis
ts a
nd
fligh
t sur
geon
s in
Beh
avio
ral
Med
icin
e re
ques
ting
prod
ucts
.
6 A
nthr
opom
etry
– G
ener
al D
esig
n G
uide
lines
X
3
of 1
8 M
ed
4.2.
3.2.
1 N
eed
beca
me
obvi
ous
from
w
ork
with
Coc
kpit
Team
on
moc
kups
and
layo
ut.
7 A
nthr
opom
etry
– H
uman
Mod
els
X
1 of
18
Low
4.
2.3.
2.1
With
#6;
Nee
d al
so id
entif
ied
durin
g H
SIR
ver
ifica
tion
deve
lopm
ent.
8 H
uman
Fac
tors
Eng
inee
ring
Tool
s X
6
of 1
8 M
ed
Mos
t fre
quen
tly id
entif
ied
topi
c –
mul
tiple
inte
rvie
wee
s in
six
di
scip
lines
. Can
aid
with
des
ign
thro
ugho
ut th
e de
velo
pmen
t pr
oces
s.
9 Fu
nctio
n A
lloca
tion
X
5 of
18
Med
7.
2.2.
9, 7
.2.1
.4.3
Man
y pe
ople
ask
ed fo
r as
sist
ance
with
func
tion
allo
catio
n, in
cl. C
ockp
it Te
am,
Med
Info
rmat
ics,
Rob
otic
s
10
Aut
omat
ion
Eva
luat
ion
Tool
s D
evel
opm
ent
X
1 of
18
Med
With
#9
11
Cre
w S
ched
ulin
g To
ols
X
3 of
18
Med
12
.10.
8.2.
1,
7.2.
1.4.
3
Flig
ht s
urge
on in
tere
st. M
odify
to
ols
deve
lope
d fo
r Mar
s ex
plor
atio
n fo
r CE
V –
co
nsid
ered
‘low
-han
ging
frui
t’
12
Trai
ning
X 3
of 1
8 M
ed
6.5.
4.1,
7.
2.1.
1.2,
7.
2.1.
2.3
Pot
entia
l to
leve
rage
ae
rona
utic
s H
F w
ork
and
Med
ical
Ope
ratio
ns w
ork.
13
Early
CEV
nee
d #
GA
P to
pic
Des
ign
Ops
In
terv
iew
Si
gnifi
canc
e St
akeh
olde
r R
atin
g R
elev
ant E
SAS
sect
ions
R
atio
nale
13
Aco
ustic
s –
Req
uire
men
ts
Dev
elop
men
t X
2
of 1
8 M
ed
N
oise
is m
ajor
pro
blem
on
ISS
. N
eed
to e
limin
ate
nois
e fro
m
desi
gns
14
Aco
ustic
s –
Mod
elin
g X
2
of 1
8 M
ed
W
ith #
13
15
Hum
an P
erfo
rman
ce M
odel
s fo
r D
ispl
ay E
valu
atio
n
X 3
of 1
8 M
ed
7.2.
2.2,
9.3
.1.2
O
ppor
tuni
ty to
dev
elop
Pha
se II
I of
SB
IR
16
Ligh
ting
Des
ign
Aid
X
1
of 1
8 M
ed
M
ake
in-h
ouse
tool
s av
aila
ble
to
desi
gner
s 17
Li
ghtin
g To
ol D
evel
opm
ent
X
1 of
18
Low
With
#16
18
Non
-Tra
ditio
nal M
ultim
odal
D
ispl
ays
X
2 of
18
Low
7.
2.2.
2, 9
.3.1
.2
Hea
ds-U
p D
ispl
ay w
ork
supp
orte
d by
Adv
ance
d Te
chno
logi
es g
roup
in
Exp
lora
tion
19
Com
mun
icat
ions
X 4
of 1
8 M
ed
7.2.
1.4.
3
20
Ant
hrop
omet
ry –
Spa
ce S
uits
X 3
of 1
8 M
ed
4.2.
3.2.
1 W
ork
is b
eing
sup
porte
d by
E
VA
. Pos
sibl
e fu
ture
nee
d fo
r jo
int w
ork.
21
Ext
rave
hicu
lar A
ctiv
ity (E
VA
)
2
of 1
8 M
ed
W
ork
is b
eing
sup
porte
d by
E
VA
. Pos
sibl
e fu
ture
nee
d fo
r jo
int w
ork.
22
Hum
an R
elia
bilit
y an
d R
isk
Man
agem
ent
X
3 of
18
Med
7.
2.2.
2
23
Tele
oper
atio
ns
3 of
18
Med
24
P
roce
dure
s
3
of 1
8 M
ed
7.2.
2.2
25
In
vent
ory
Man
agem
ent
2 of
18
Med
26
La
belin
g
2
of 1
8 M
ed
7.2.
2.9,
7.2
.1.4
.3
27
P
roce
dure
Dev
elop
men
t
3
of 1
8 Lo
w
7.2.
2.2
28
M
edic
al P
roce
dure
s
2
of 1
8 M
ed
7.2.
2.2
29
M
aint
aina
bilit
y
2
of 1
8 M
ed
7.2.
2.4.
1
30
Rob
otic
s
2
of 1
8 M
ed
31
Sto
wag
e
2
of 1
8 M
ed
32
Des
ign
Rat
iona
le C
aptu
re
1 of
18
Low
7.
2.1.
2
33
Usa
bilit
y E
valu
atio
n C
ente
r and
To
ols
2 of
18
Low
14
CONCLUSIONS The GAP concluded with a presentation of the Space Human Factors Engineering integrated research plan to the Human Research Program Operating Plan (POP) in April 2006. The HRP POP ensures that the funded research mitigates risks to the program included in the Bioastronautics Roadmap (NASA/SP-2005-6113). Given personnel resources available in the JSC and ARC human factors groups, eight tasks were chosen to go forward. The eight tasks identified by the GAP were shown to address potential risks to crew performance and well-being, namely, the failure of performance due to system mismatches with crewmembers’ cognitive and physical capabilities (see Table 6). In addition, the eight tasks are critical to supporting Exploration (Constellation) program milestones. The following paragraphs describe the final selected tasks. The first three, “Information Presentation,” ”Anthropometric Verification Tools”, and “Behavioral Health and Performance – Cognition”, have been approved to begin immediately. The other five tasks are currently undergoing review for start in the next fiscal year. Table 6. Tasks and their relation to Human Research Program identified risks.
RISK TASK Cognitive
Mismatch Physical
Mismatch Multi-Agent
Tasking Information Presentation X X Anthropometric Verification Tools X Behavioral Health and Performance - Cognition X Acoustic Requirements and Models X Design and Evaluation Tools X X Crew Scheduling Tools X X X Training X X X Function Allocation Tools and Techniques X
Information Presentation. The goal of the Information Presentation task is to develop guidelines and requirements for: (1) displays and controls ergonomics, (2) proper sizing of physical display screen and screen formats within screens, (3) advanced caution and warning system integrated with Vehicle Health Maintenance System (VHMS), and (4) proper display of information content and usability of procedures for time-critical tasks. This task addresses the gaps of poor display and control design and the need for new requirements and strategy for reduced CEV display and control real-estate. In addition, it advances integrated crew information presentation with VHMS. The expected products include guidelines and requirements for display sizes and layout, display information content, and the characteristics of alarm events.
15
Anthropometric Verification Tools. The goal of the Anthropometric Verification Tools task is to develop databases and computer models that describe the size, strength, and movement characteristics of crewmembers to meet the needs of designers. This task addresses the gap that existing strength data is inadequate for CEV requirements, as well as providing reach models that are currently not available. The resulting database and preliminary human modeling software will be available to the NASA community, as well as providing requirements to optimize the efficiency of crew stations through better assessments of reach and visibility tasks.
Behavioral Health and Performance – Cognition. The importance of cognitive loads and failures has increased as active control of systems has passed more and more to automated systems and the role of the human operator has increasingly become that of a monitor. The goal of the Behavioral Health and Performance – Cognition task is to develop metrics for cognitive performance and readiness to perform for specific tasks in space flight. This task addresses the gap that current tools are limited in ability to predict crewmember readiness to perform. A self-assessment tool, adaptable to the range of expected activities for the crew, would provide a better match between actual capabilities and task demands. In addition, such a tool will provide an assessment of human-system interfaces during hardware development, and used during operations to assess just-in-time training.
Acoustics Requirements and Models. The goal of the Acoustics Requirements and Models task is to identify appropriate guidelines and requirements for the CEV and future Constellation program vehicles and to develop verification tools capable of predicting noise levels of integrated systems, including thermal protection system and environmental control. This task addresses the lack of ability to predict integrated noise levels and the need for acoustic tools and models for requirements verification. Guidelines and requirements for noise levels, as well as a computer-based acoustic model, will allow designers to test design alternatives, resulting in better acoustic environments for the crew.
Design and Evaluation Tools. The goal of the Design and Evaluation Tools task is to create requirements and guidelines for task analysis, usability evaluations, and the demonstration of a design rationale capture system. This task addresses the lack of tools to support human-centered design process and a lack of agreed-upon methods to evaluate requirements such as ‘usability’, and ‘workload’ typically used with human-system interaction evaluations. The products, which are tools to evaluate designs for human-system integration, will lead to improved design of spacecraft and habitats and will be flexible enough to be applied to various systems (e.g., medical, food, maintenance).
Crew Scheduling Tools. The goal of the Crew Scheduling Tools task is to evaluate tools used previously to schedule Mars rovers, and adopt them to crew scheduling to capture multiple constraints and goals for mission planning. This task addresses the gap that with longer-duration missions, ground support needs to evaluate
16
greater crew responsibility for scheduling. A constraint-based planning and scheduling tool for both dynamic and non-dynamic flight phases will improve crew efficiency.
Training. The goal of the Training task is to develop just-in-time training and decision support tools that can address the most efficient methods of training and the best media for presenting refresher training and just-in-time training in flight. This task addresses the lack of objective measures for proficiency in training, and methods to mitigate the short time available for training on the ground. Providing guidelines for the most efficient methods of training will improve training efficiency and reduced training load for crewmembers.
Function Allocation Tools and Techniques. The goal of the Function Allocation Tools and Techniques task is to develop guidelines and requirements for function allocation, as well as developing evaluation tools for the performance of human-automation teams. This task addresses the lack of research in determining which tasks should be performed by crew or ground and determining which tasks should be automated. Such tools will provide guidance to assist in ensuring that the functions that require human judgment and are not cost-effective to automate are designed to optimize the human contribution. DISCUSSION The objective of this six-month project was to determine the requirements, guidelines, and tools that remained to be created in order to meet the needs of various customers, end users, and stakeholders within the Exploration (Constellation) Program. Figure 1 represents the GAP process graphically. As a result of the GAP, SHFE has established a set of prioritized customer needs and a link back to stakeholders in the SHFE products. This project has also generated ongoing collaborations across NASA JSC organizations. Namely, the Habitability and Human Factors group is working more closely with NASA ARC Human Systems Integration Division personnel to incorporate both centers’ strengths, as well as opening opportunities for Habitability and Human Factors personnel to work with other NASA JSC directorates. Research and technology development provides effective inputs to the Exploration program’s goals and provides useful knowledge, tools, and technologies to assist developers in reaching these goals (Life Sciences Division, 1996). The work performed and recommendations made this report will provide the HRP and the Exploration (Constellation) program with a significant advantage towards mission safety and success.
17
Figu
re 1
. Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of th
e G
ap A
naly
sis
proc
ess
Fiel
d U
ser I
nter
view
s
ISS
Less
ons
Lear
ned
Sky
Lab
Exp.
Apo
llo R
epor
ts
Shut
tle D
ebrie
fs
HF
Inte
rvie
ws
Com
pile
d D
atab
ase
of 2
86
Task
s
150
Rel
evan
t To
pics
33 In
tegr
ated
Rel
evan
t Ta
sks
Prio
ritiz
ed
List
of
Dire
cted
R
esea
rch
Task
s
CEV
Nee
d
Pr
iorit
ized
Ta
sks
ES
AS
S
take
R
epor
tH
olde
r
18
Forward Work In order to maintain the communication ties back to the Exploration (Constellation) Program and all of the SHFE stakeholders, a delta gap analysis project will be conducted each year in order to verify that the research being performed still meets the needs of the customer and to identify any new habitability and human factors challenges (Space Human Factors Engineering Project Management Plan, 2006). There is potential for the research questions deemed too programmatic and, therefore, deselected during the decision analysis to be written up as special topic white papers. Finally, the combined JSC and ARC GAP process will aid SHFE efforts in building upon existing projects and to ensure work done in support of one program is readily applied to concurrent or subsequent endeavors (Life Sciences Division, 1996).
19
REFERENCES Bioastronautics Roadmap: A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Space Exploration.
(2005). NASA Johnson Space Center (NASA/SP–2005–6113).
Engineering Office. (2004). Project Management of GFE Flight Projects, Rev. D. NASA Johnson Space Center. (EA-WI-023) Habitability and Environmental Factors Division. (2006). Space Human Factors
Engineering Project Management Plan. NASA Johnson Space Center. Life Sciences Division. (1996). Space Humn Factors: Critical Research and Technology
Definition. NASA Johnson Space Center.
20
APPENDIX A List of Documents Reviewed
21
Program Document Name Document
Number Author Date
Apollo Apollo 16 Flight Journal Day 1 - First Earth Orbit.htm
Apollo Apollo Flight Journal - The Apollo On-board Computers.htm
Apollo Abort Planning NASA TND-6847 Apollo Acceptance Checkout Equipment NASA TN D-6736 Apollo Aerodynamics Evaluation NASA TN D-6843 Apollo Mission Planning for Apollo Entry NASA TN D-6725 Apollo Ascent Propulsion System NASA TN D-7082 Apollo Command & Service Module
Reaction Control Systems NASA TN D-7151
Apollo Command & Service Module Controls & Displays Subsystem NASA TN D-8301
Apollo Command & Service Module Electrical Power Distribution Subsystem NASA TN D-7609
Apollo Command & Service Module Environmental Control System NASA TN D-6718
Apollo Command & Service Module Instrument subsystem NASA TN D-7374
Apollo Command & Service Module Sequential Events Control Subsystem NASA TN D-7951
Apollo Application of a Computerized Visualization Capability to Lunar Missions NASA TN D-6853
Apollo Crew Station Integration Volume V - Lighting Considerations NASA TN D-7290
Apollo Cryogenic Storage System NASA TN D-7288 Apollo Launch Escape Propulsion
Subsystem NASA TN D-7083
Apollo Spacecraft Heating Environment & Thermal Protection for Launch Through Atmosphere NASA TN D-7085
Apollo Protection of Life & Health NASA TN D-6856 Apollo Apollo 12 Technical Crew Debriefing
Apollo
Lighting & Approach Angle Considerations for Manned Lunar Landings
NASA CR 70818 (Bellcomm TM 65-1012-13)
Apollo Lunar Lighting Conditions for the Apollo Lunar Landing Mission
NASA CR 75839 (Bellcomm TM 66-1012-6)
Apollo Ranger Preflight Science Analysis and the Lunar Photometric Model
NASA TR 32-384 (Revised)
Apollo Photometric & Polarimetric Properties of the Lunar Regolith NASA SP-235
Apollo An Analysis of Lunar Site Survey by the Unmanned Program
Bellcom Report 01/31/1964
Apollo Lunar Photographic Orbiter: Lighting & Viewing Conditions NASA CR-59192
22
Program Document Name Document
Number Author Date
Apollo The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions
NASA TM 2005-213610
Apollo Apollo Space Suit Interface Specification
NASA SID 62-319
Apollo Lunar Receiving Laboratory NASA CR-109164
Apollo Bacterium Isolated from Lunar-Retrieved Television Camera
CASI 19720019118
Apollo The Lunar Quarantine Program N76-12668 pp. 407-424
Apollo Protection Against Radiation NASA-TN-D-7080
Apollo Real-time Display System NASA-TN-D-8316
Apollo Simulation of manned space flight for crew training
NASA-TN-D-7112
Apollo Spacecraft pyrotechnic systems NASA-TN-D-7141
Apollo Systems and flight procedures development
NASA-TN-D-7436
Apollo Television system NASA-TN-D-7476
Apollo
Development flight instrumentation; telemetry equipment for space flight test program
NASA-TN-D-7598
Apollo Voice communications techniques & performance
NASA-TN-D-6739
Shuttle STS-26 Crew Debriefing D. Bergeron 10/7/1988Shuttle STS-27 Crew Debriefing Issues H. Tabibian 12/29/1988Shuttle STS-27 Crew Debriefing Notes Shuttle STS-28 Crew Debrief Notes Shuttle STS-29 Crew Debrief Notes T. Canada 3/27/1989Shuttle STS-29 Debriefing M. Minchew 3/23/1989Shuttle STS-30 Crew Debrief Notes T. Canada 5/12/1989Shuttle STS-31 Debriefing Notes M. Minchew 5/4/1990Shuttle STS-31 Crew Debrief Notes T. Canada 5/8/1990Shuttle STS-32 Crew Debrief Notes 1/25/1990Shuttle STS-33 Crew Debriefing T. O'Briant 12/4/1989Shuttle STS-34 Crew Debrief Notes Shuttle STS-35 Crew Debrief Notes T. Canada 12/27/1990Shuttle STS-38 Crew Debrief Notes T. Canada 11/30/1990Shuttle STS-41 Crew Debrief Notes T. Canada 10/22/1990
Shuttle Review of the STS-26 Crew Debriefing Comments D. Bergeron 10/20/1988
Shuttle STS-27 Flight Crew Equipment Crew Debriefing Questions and Answers J. Blumentritt
Shuttle
Synopsis of /STS-27 Flight Crew Equipment Crew Debriefing Questions and Answers
Shuttle Review of the STS-29 Crew Debriefing Comments D. Bergeron 4/21/1989
23
Program Document Name Document Number
Author Date
Shuttle STS-31 Technical Crew Debriefing D. Bergeron 5/4/1990Shuttle CFE Action List STS-34 T. O'Briant 10/30/1989
Shuttle
STS-35 Flight Control Teams and Mission Evaluation Room Technical Crew Debrief 12/19/1990
Shuttle STS-4 Crew Report T. Mattingly 8/30/1982
Shuttle Modeling Human Error in the Space Shuttle Probabilistic Risk Assessment
T. Hamlin & M. Stewart
ISS Increment 11 Lessons Learned Matrix
ISS Operational Habitability Corrective Action Tracking Log
ISS ISS Crew Comment Database
Exploration Stowage Technology Development Project
M. Whitmore, R. Ornan, L. Norris, & R. Wright
Exploration
Rethinking Stowage: Standardizing and Organizing to Save Volume and Time
R. Ornan & R. Wright
Exploration
Food Packaging Redesign to Improve Stowage Management on ISS and Beyond
R. Wright & R. Ornan
Exploration Exploration Medicine Capabilities Information Technology Architecture
Engineering Directorate 9/5/2006
Other Human Research Program - Program Plan
Space Life Sciences Directorate 12/5/2005
Other The 21st Century Jet: The Boeing 777 Multimedia Case Study S. Shokralla 12/18/1995
Other
Bioastronautics Roadmap A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Space Exploration
NASA/SP-2005-6113 2/5/2006
Other Emerging Needs and Opportunities for Human Factors Research
R. Nickerson (Ed.) 1995
Other Space Human Factors: Critical Research and Technology Definition
Life Sciences Division 10/96
24
APPENDIX B GAP Interviewees
25
Discipline Interviews Conducted
M. Whitmore J. Maida J. Beierle S. Rajulu L. Duvall S. Baggerman S. Stealey K. Stroud C. Rando J. Hamilton J. Beno M. Soltis J. Solem D. Russo V. Byrne D. Fitts L. DeSantis F. Mount T. Holden T. Mayes R. Hoffman C. Keller D. Smith R. Wright C. Hudy R. Szabo J. Adolf
JSC Human Factors (all topics)
E. Twyford S. Casner J. McCandless B. Burian J. Mulligan K. Dismukes M. Feary L. Stone S. Paletz A. Hobbs J. Caldwell B. Parke M. Kaiser P. Cowings S. Ellis W. Toscano I. Barshi R. Welch M. Connors A. Andre R. McCann B. Hooey J. Orasanu
ARC Human Factors (all topics)
D. Foyle B. Kanki
26
Discipline Interviews Conducted M. Hartgerink/ USA G. Salazar/ EV Guidance, Navigation, and
Control (GNC)/ Avionics/ Displays and Controls
G. Hill/ EV2 R. Miller/ EV2
Power/ Thermal G. Raffoul/ MO
D. Overland/ ER J. Rochlis/ ER J. Malin/ ER2 N. Currie/ ER Robotics C. Thronesberry/ ER B. Magh/ OM J. Clark/ SD S. VanderArk/ Wyle J. Jones/ SD E. Kalla/ SD4 J.D. Polk/ SD
Medical Operations/ Behavioral Health and Performance
W. Sipes/ SD K. Johnson-Throop/ SD4 M. Rapley/ SK J. Hayes/ SK D. Hagan/ SK J. Bloomberg/ SK J. Charles/ SA M. Reschke/ SK
Exercise/ Countermeasures Hardware
B. Paloski/ SK J. Goodman/ SF Life Support/ Environmental
Monitoring/ Radiation C. Allen/ SF B. Behrendsen/ DX3 Hab Accommodations/ Flight
Crew Support and Integration T. Mills/ ARES/ OB3 V. Kloeris/ SF3 Food Systems M. Perchonok/ SF3 E. Oshel/ KX Extravehicular Activity C. Harvey/ SF3
Structures/ Mechanical E. Bruno
G. Morgan/ USA/ MO2 Stowage Y. Carmona R. Rust/ NX P. Cureton/ NT W. Bostick/ NT G. Priest/ NE Safety R. Comin/ NT J. Gernard/ NT D. Pogue/ Barrios/ DX3 J. Schmid/ SD2
Procedures/ Training J. Alexander/ DX M. Christgen/ SD J. McKinnie/ DF24 P. Grounds/ MO3 J. Williams/ DF24 A. Ong T. Calhoun/ DX14 R. Adams/ MO3 Mission Support (Ground)
R. Galvez/ MO3 Mission Planning/ Program
Management A. Moore/ DO K. Holmes
Systems Engineering/ Project Management
P. Campbell/ SF J. Kukla/ Wyle
E. Baker/ CB M.J. Anderson/ USA/ CB L. Polansky/ USA/ CB J. Stramler/ Barrios/ CB Crew Office R. Faust/ USA/ CB
27
Appendix C Interview Guide and Topics Table
28
HUMAN FACTORS GAP ANALYSIS – Interview Guide Interviewee(s) Name: _____________________________________________________ Discipline: ________________________________ Date: _____________ INTRODUCTION The Gap Analysis is being conducted to capture ‘hot topics’ that have surfaced throughout the life of Station and Shuttle that could benefit from research for future Exploration Activities. In other words, what Human Factors (HF) areas of concern could benefit from research? Any gaps between research and applied HF Engineering will be identified and presented to Advanced Research (Kathy Laurini, Carl Walz). GAP ANALYSIS PROCESS The Gap Analysis team comprises 1-2 members from each of Habitability and Human Factors group and Space Human Factors Laboratories. The teams will gather HF areas of interest that have been identified throughout the NASA community (JSC and Ames). Once the list is compiled, it will be prioritized based on inputs from stakeholders (e.g., MOD, crew, program managers). This will also be an opportunity to identify the customers that would benefit from this research and technology development. To help determine HF areas of interest, use the following guidelines: • Identify design requirements that affect the vehicle/crew interface • Focus on HF issues and human performance determinants in different systems • Focus on general HF related research questions; Some examples are:
Human Computer Interaction – presentation of information on a display Communication – feasibility and usability of wireless communication Automation – human interaction with differing levels of automation Privacy – amount of personal space required for each crewmember
1. Briefly describe the type of system/product/service you develop (e.g., O2 scrubber, crew timeline, training). ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. How does the crew (or ground support) interact with your system/product? CAN USE TABLE TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC AREAS. 2a. What are some of the difficult aspects of the interaction? 2b. What issues have you heard from your users (crew or ground personnel)? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Are you aware of any human factors open issues/areas of concern in your field that may require future research before Exploration (e.g., CEV, Hab Module) implementation?
29
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Are there any other issues or gaps in your field where human factors can provide assistance? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Does your discipline interface with Human Factors (e.g., do you have to address HF requirements? Are there HF personnel on the project team? Do you consult with HF personnel?)? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Are there any human factors requirements that need to be better written? Of the requirements applicable to your system/product, which requirements may require future research or analysis? CAN USE TABLE TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC AREAS ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Are there special analyses that need to be conducted to implement or verify human factors requirements? If yes, describe. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
30
8. When conducted, what type or to what extent are evaluations conducted? (e.g., trade studies, crew evals, usability studies) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. When designing your system/product what trade-offs did you consider in terms of ease of use vs. automation vs. additional crew training? For example, improved user interface to reduce crew training requirements. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Do any of the HF requirements listed above appear to not meet industry standards or address current technologies? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
31
Human Factors Gap Analysis – Topics Table What requirements below are applicable to your system/product? Are there any requirement areas that need to be clarified, or information added? [Reference NASA-STD-3000, Volume VIII, Human Systems Integration Requirements (HSIR), CEV Launch Segment (CEV and CEVLV)]
Human Performance Characteristics & Capabilities
Do you have to pay particular attention to any human performance capabilities in the design of your system/product?
Visual
Auditory
Olfactory
Vestibular
Kinesthetic
Human Dimensions
Strength
Range of motion
Physical workload
Motor skills (e.g., dexterity)
Response time
Cognitive Does your system/product require any special cognitive capabilities?
Attention
Memory
Decision making
Environmental factors Will any environmental factors affect the human’s performance with your product/system?
Atmosphere
Microgravity
Acceleration
Vibration
Acoustics
Radiation
Thermal
Human-system interactions
Safety Are there any safety hazards associated with your system/product?
Safety Hazards
Touch Temperature
Mechanical
Electrical
32
Decompression
Fire
Health management Does your system/product affect any health management issues?
Nutrition
Microgravity
countermeasures
Sleep
Medical
Workstations Does the crewmember have to interact with any workstation components in using your product/system?
Layout
Controls
Visual displays
Audio indicators
Control/display integration
Communications
Labeling & coding
Automation
Activity centers Does the crewmember have to interact with any particular vehicle areas or activity centers in using your product/system?
Piloting & systems mgmt
Maintenance
Housekeeping
Training
Direct and Indirect Viewing
Body waste management
Personal hygiene
Galley
Stowage
Exercise
Medical treatment area
Crew quarters
Trash management
Recreation
Meeting
Robotics
Static features Are there any static design features that may impact how the crewmember uses your system?
Volumes
Adjacencies
33
Orientation
Restraints
Lighting
Aesthetics - design & decor
Window integration
Dynamic features Are there any dynamic design features that may impact how the crewmember uses your system/product?
Nominal traffic flow
Translation paths
Mobility aids
Location coding
Doors & hatches
Emergency egress
Hardware & equipment Is there any equipment that the crewmember must interact with for your system/product?
Tools
Mounting & access
Packaging
Fasteners/Connectors
Cable management
Closures & covers
Information management
Communications
EVA
Crew Management Does your system/product involve any other crewmember considerations?
Crew Skills
Crew Scheduling
Crew Training
Instructional Materials
34
Appendix D
Structured Paragraphs Scoresheet
35
R
ef
Gap
Top
ic
Res
earc
h Q
uest
ions
/Pro
duct
s Sc
ore
Com
men
ts
1 Te
leop
erat
ions
D
evel
op m
etho
ds fo
r eff
ectiv
e te
leop
erat
ions
by
med
iatin
g tra
nsm
issi
on
late
ncie
s and
eff
icie
ntly
trai
ning
the
crew
mem
bers
and
pot
entia
l gro
und
pers
onne
l. Th
e ta
sk w
ill a
ddre
ss th
e fo
llow
ing
ques
tions
: 1.
W
hat a
re th
e gu
idel
ines
for p
erfo
rmin
g te
leop
erat
ions
task
s?
2.
How
do
we
desi
gn fo
r min
imum
risk
? 3.
To
wha
t lev
el sh
ould
the
task
be
mon
itore
d by
a c
rew
mem
ber o
n or
bit?
4.
H
ow c
omfo
rtabl
e is
the
crew
in le
tting
som
eone
els
e pe
rfor
m th
e ta
sk?
5.
Wha
t is t
he b
est w
ay to
trai
n fo
r rem
ote
med
ical
supp
ort?
6.
H
ow c
an w
e en
sure
eff
ectiv
e te
leop
erat
ions
of l
unar
-bas
ed a
sset
s fr
om re
mot
e se
tting
s? T
his q
uest
ion
is re
leva
nt b
ecau
se th
e ES
AS
Rep
ort (
sect
ion
7) st
ates
that
"So
me
surf
ace
asse
ts e
mpl
aced
on
the
luna
r sur
face
wou
ld c
ontin
ue to
ope
rate
afte
r the
cre
w le
aves
. Sc
ient
ific
mon
itorin
g eq
uipm
ent,
robo
tic sy
stem
s, an
d IS
RU
de
mon
stra
tions
wou
ld b
e te
leop
erat
ed fr
om E
arth
."
Prod
ucts
: (1
) Mod
els f
or se
vera
l typ
es o
f con
trol a
utho
rity
(e.g
., in
ner-
loop
con
trol,
supe
rvis
ory
cont
rol),
(2) c
ontro
l alg
orith
ms t
hat s
eam
less
ly
fuse
pre
dict
ive
filte
r and
pre
dict
ive
filte
r tec
hniq
ues t
o ef
fect
ivel
y m
edia
te tr
ansm
issi
on la
tenc
ies,
and
(3) g
uide
lines
for t
rain
ing
engi
neer
ing
and
med
ical
per
sonn
el in
tele
oper
atio
n ac
tiviti
es.
2 C
omm
unic
atio
ns
Goo
d co
mm
unic
atio
n an
d po
sitiv
e in
tera
ctio
ns b
etw
een
grou
nd a
nd
crew
, and
bet
wee
n cr
ewm
embe
rs, a
re c
ritic
al to
ass
ure
effic
ient
w
orkl
oad
man
agem
ent w
hen
deal
ing
with
una
ntic
ipat
ed p
robl
ems.
Inte
rfac
e de
sign
, inf
orm
atio
n fin
ding
and
util
izat
ion,
info
rmat
ion
man
agem
ent,
and
user
s' co
mpr
ehen
sion
will
con
tinue
to b
e m
ajor
ch
alle
nges
for r
esea
rch
into
com
mun
icat
ions
. The
que
stio
ns n
eed
to b
e ad
dres
sed
are:
1.
W
hat a
re o
pera
ting
cons
ider
atio
ns w
ith re
spec
t to
vario
us
com
mun
icat
ion
late
ncie
s in
com
mun
icat
ions
/con
trol?
How
shou
ld
grou
nd a
nd o
n-or
bit c
rew
s be
train
ed to
com
mun
icat
e w
ith
36
incr
easi
ng si
gnal
del
ays?
2.
H
ow c
an c
omm
unic
atio
n pr
oced
ures
be
impr
oved
, bot
h fo
r CEV
, as
wel
l as l
onge
r dur
atio
n Lu
nar a
nd M
ars m
issi
ons?
3.
O
ppor
tuni
ties i
nclu
de th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
ools
to fa
cilit
ate
inte
ract
ion
with
com
plex
dat
abas
es a
nd in
terp
erso
nal
com
mun
icat
ion
thro
ugh
com
pute
r-ba
sed
syst
ems.
4.
Wha
t too
ls a
nd p
roce
dure
s can
fost
er d
evel
opm
ent o
f sha
red
men
tal
mod
els f
or d
istri
bute
d de
cisi
on m
akin
g be
twee
n cr
ew a
nd g
roun
d?
5.
Dev
elop
tool
s to
supp
ort b
uild
ing
of sh
ared
situ
atio
n m
odel
s, as
sess
ris
ks, a
nd e
valu
ate
alte
rnat
ive
cour
ses o
f act
ion
will
enh
ance
di
strib
uted
team
dec
isio
n m
akin
g.
6.
How
can
voi
ce, d
ata,
gra
phic
s, an
d im
ages
bes
t be
exch
ange
d co
ncur
rent
ly w
ith th
e gr
ound
, with
in h
abita
ble
volu
mes
, and
dur
ing
EVA
? H
ow c
an fa
ctor
s suc
h as
ban
dwid
th li
mita
tions
, cha
ngin
g si
gnal
pro
paga
tion
cond
ition
s, m
obili
ty, a
nd la
ngua
ge d
iver
sity
bes
t be
man
aged
?
Prod
uct:
(1) D
esig
n gu
idel
ines
/requ
irem
ent d
evel
opm
ent f
or o
ptim
al
met
hods
for p
lann
ing
on-o
rbit
oper
atio
ns (i
nclu
ding
tele
oper
atio
ns) a
nd
antic
ipat
ing
effe
cts o
f cha
ngin
g la
tenc
ies i
n vo
ice
and
data
co
mm
unic
atio
n. (2
) Com
mun
icat
ion
prot
ocol
s and
tech
nolo
gies
to
faci
litat
e co
oper
ativ
e de
cisi
on m
akin
g be
twee
n cr
ews i
n sp
ace
and
on
the
grou
nd th
at su
ppor
t hum
an in
tera
ctio
n.
3 C
rew
sche
dulin
g to
ols
Cre
w d
ebrie
fs in
dica
te th
at re
sche
dulin
g ite
ms a
nd re
al-ti
me
chan
ges
(rul
e fo
r res
ched
ulin
g) in
the
sche
dule
are
not
man
aged
as e
ffic
ient
ly a
s th
ey c
ould
be.
Thi
s res
earc
h pr
ojec
t will
exa
min
e ef
fect
iven
ess a
nd
effic
ienc
y of
ena
blin
g th
e cr
ew to
repl
an th
eir a
ctiv
ities
: 1.
D
evel
opm
ent o
f a p
rodu
ct to
app
ly h
euris
tics a
nd m
issi
on o
pera
tions
kn
owle
dge
to se
amle
ssly
inco
rpor
ate
off-
nom
inal
and
nom
inal
ac
tiviti
es a
nd p
roce
dure
s int
o a
unifi
ed ti
mel
ine
2.
Wor
k w
ith fl
ight
surg
eons
and
mis
sion
pla
nnin
g to
eva
luat
e ef
fect
iven
ess o
f cre
w sc
hedu
ling
vs. g
roun
d sc
hedu
ling
on IS
S.
Prod
uct:
Con
stra
int-b
ased
pla
nnin
g an
d sc
hedu
ling
tool
s for
aut
omat
ic
37
gene
ratio
n of
act
ivity
pla
ns fo
r bot
h dy
nam
ic a
nd n
on-d
ynam
ic fl
ight
ph
ases
. 4
Beh
avio
ral
Hea
lth a
nd
Perf
orm
ance
- C
ogni
tion
The
impo
rtanc
e of
cog
nitiv
e fa
ilure
s has
incr
ease
d as
act
ive
cont
rol o
f sy
stem
s has
pas
sed
mor
e an
d m
ore
to a
utom
ated
syst
ems a
nd th
e ro
le o
f th
e hu
man
ope
rato
r has
incr
easi
ngly
bec
ome
that
of a
mon
itor.
Ther
efor
e, a
s ris
k m
itiga
tion,
read
ines
s to
perf
orm
shou
ld b
e m
easu
red
befo
re e
ngag
ing
in ta
sks.
Task
s to
be a
ddre
ssed
for t
his t
opic
incl
udes
: 1.
Id
entif
y cr
itica
l asp
ects
of c
rew
mem
ber t
asks
. 2.
W
hat m
etric
can
be
used
for m
easu
ring
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of h
uman
ac
tiviti
es?
The
tool
cou
ld se
rve
two
purp
oses
: pre
dict
hum
an w
ork
effe
ctiv
enes
s dur
ing
a sy
stem
dev
elop
men
t and
als
o w
ould
be
a m
etric
for a
sses
sing
hum
an p
erfo
rman
ce d
urin
g op
erat
ions
. 3.
D
evel
op a
n as
sess
men
t too
l for
the
crew
mem
bers
to m
easu
re th
eir
own
perf
orm
ance
to d
eter
min
e “r
eadi
ness
to p
erfo
rm.”
The
“r
eadi
ness
-to-p
erfo
rm”
cogn
itive
tool
wou
ld b
e ta
ilore
d to
the
spec
ific
task
; the
tool
mus
t be
adap
tabl
e to
the
rang
e of
exp
ecte
d ta
sks/
activ
ities
for c
rew
. 4.
G
iven
the
fact
that
con
cept
ual d
esig
ns a
re b
y de
finiti
on in
com
plet
e,
how
can
NA
SA b
ette
r pre
dict
hum
an p
erfo
rman
ce (p
artic
ular
ly ta
sk
com
plet
ion
times
, wor
kloa
d, S
A, e
rror
rate
s)?
5.
Whe
n sh
ould
aud
itory
vs.
visu
al a
larm
s be
used
?
Prod
uct:
Too
l tha
t will
mod
el w
orkl
oad,
spec
ifica
lly fo
r cog
nitiv
e ta
sk
com
pone
nts.
This
will
pro
vide
a m
etric
to a
sses
s the
impa
ct o
f ful
l tra
inin
g an
d ju
st-in
-tim
e tra
inin
g an
d le
ads t
o a
bette
r mat
ch b
etw
een
actu
al c
apab
ilitie
s and
task
dem
ands
.
5 H
uman
Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mod
els f
or
Dis
play
Ev
alua
tion
Des
igne
rs o
f dis
play
s typ
ical
ly e
mbe
d at
tent
ion-
attra
ctin
g fe
atur
es (s
uch
as c
olor
-cod
ing)
in c
onfo
rman
ce w
ith th
eir k
now
ledg
e of
hum
an
info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
capa
bilit
ies.
How
ever
, exi
stin
g hu
man
per
form
ance
m
odel
s are
not
yet
cap
able
of p
redi
ctin
g di
spla
y ef
fect
iven
ess b
ecau
se
the
mod
els l
ack
deta
iled
mod
els o
f inf
orm
atio
n se
ekin
g an
d vi
sual
pr
oces
sing
. Th
e fo
llow
ing
goal
s will
be
addr
esse
d by
this
task
: 1.
D
evel
op, t
est,
and
eval
uate
hum
an p
erfo
rman
ce m
odel
s to
assi
st
deve
lope
rs in
des
igni
ng d
ispl
ays a
nd c
ontro
ls.
38
2.
Ensu
re m
odel
s mak
e va
lid q
uant
itativ
e de
term
inat
ions
of d
ispl
ay
qual
ity a
nd u
sage
and
the
effe
cts o
f dis
play
mod
ifica
tion,
ther
eby
spee
ding
up
and
optim
izin
g de
sign
/test
/rede
sign
/rete
st c
ycle
s. 3.
D
evel
op a
mod
el o
f per
form
ance
mod
erat
ing
fact
ors t
hat p
redi
ct a
nd
recr
eate
shor
t- an
d lo
ng-te
rm e
ffec
ts o
f stre
ssor
s (su
ch a
s fat
igue
, st
ress
, tim
e pr
essu
re, i
nade
quat
e si
tuat
ion
awar
enes
s and
m
icro
grav
ity) o
n pe
rfor
man
ce. B
y m
atch
ing
thes
e pr
edic
tions
ag
ains
t rea
l-tim
e be
havi
oral
mea
sure
men
ts o
f cre
w a
ctiv
ity (s
uch
as
eye
mov
emen
ts) t
he m
odel
can
func
tion
as a
real
-tim
e cl
assi
fier o
f cu
rren
t cre
w c
ondi
tion
and
perf
orm
ance
cap
abili
ty.
Prod
ucts
: Mod
els o
f hum
an p
erfo
rman
ce
6 M
edic
al
Proc
edur
es
Dev
elop
gui
delin
es fo
r mul
timed
ia su
ppor
t of m
edic
al p
roce
dure
s (e.
g.,
mul
timed
ia e
nhan
cem
ent t
o pr
oced
ural
gui
des a
nd c
heck
lists
such
as t
he
Emer
genc
y M
edic
al P
roce
dure
s Che
cklis
t (EM
PC) a
nd o
ther
NA
SA
mis
sion
pro
cedu
res a
nd c
heck
lists
). U
se m
edic
al p
roce
dure
s as t
est
dom
ain,
but
der
ive
guid
elin
es fo
r mor
e ge
nera
l app
licab
ility
. Res
earc
h qu
estio
ns in
clud
e:
1.
Wha
t is t
he b
est f
orm
at o
f pro
cedu
res f
or p
rovi
ding
diff
eren
t lev
els
of d
etai
l to
diff
eren
t peo
ple
(nov
ice
vs. e
xper
t)? H
ow c
an th
e m
edic
al c
heck
list b
e re
desi
gned
? 2.
W
hich
cha
ract
eris
tics o
f med
ical
task
s det
erm
ine
whe
ther
they
w
ould
ben
efit
from
mul
timed
ia su
ppor
t? W
hich
spec
ific
com
pone
nts
of e
mer
genc
y m
edic
al ta
sks i
n th
e cu
rren
t NA
SA E
MPC
wou
ld
bene
fit fr
om m
ultim
edia
?
3.
Can
a c
ompl
exity
inde
x be
dev
elop
ed th
at w
ould
faci
litat
e th
e qu
ick
and
effe
ctiv
e de
term
inat
ion
of w
hich
task
s wou
ld b
enef
it fr
om
mul
timed
ia?
4.
Wha
t prin
cipl
es o
f tas
k de
sign
, pro
cedu
res,
job
aids
, too
ls /
and
equi
pmen
t are
requ
ired
to e
nabl
e cr
ewm
embe
rs to
acc
ompl
ish
nom
inal
and
em
erge
ncy
perc
eptu
al a
nd c
ogni
tive
task
s?
5.
How
can
the
deci
sion
-mak
ing
of n
on-m
edic
al c
rew
mem
bers
be
aide
d? H
ow sh
ould
rele
vant
info
rmat
ion
be p
rese
nted
in a
tim
ely
and
unen
cum
bere
d m
anne
r to
the
crew
?
39
6.
Wha
t kin
ds o
f sys
tem
s can
supp
ort t
he c
rew
s’ o
n-bo
ard
med
ical
ac
tiviti
es (e
.g.,
diag
nost
ics,
prog
nost
ics,
sche
dulin
g) a
nd d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
capa
bilit
ies?
Pr
oduc
ts:
(1) G
uide
lines
and
ope
ratio
nally
eff
icie
nt c
heck
lists
, (2)
G
uide
lines
for m
ultim
edia
supp
ort,
and
(3) M
edic
al d
ecis
ion-
aidi
ng
supp
ort s
yste
m.
7 Tr
aini
ng
Dev
elop
a tr
aini
ng p
rogr
am to
reso
lve
the
follo
win
g qu
estio
ns:
1.
Dur
ing
the
pre-
fligh
t pha
se o
f a m
issi
on, w
hat a
re th
e m
ost e
ffec
tive
and
effic
ient
met
hods
of t
rain
ing?
Is t
he c
urre
nt tr
aini
ng m
odel
op
timum
? H
ow d
o w
e ap
ply
adap
tive
train
ing
met
hods
and
ach
ieve
ge
nera
lized
skill
s (ra
ther
than
par
ticul
ar p
roce
dure
com
pete
nce)
? 2.
D
urin
g th
e in
-flig
ht p
hase
of a
mis
sion
, wha
t tra
inin
g m
etho
dolo
gies
be
st su
ppor
t cog
nitiv
e lim
itatio
ns a
nd h
igh-
stre
ss c
ondi
tions
? H
ow
can
on-b
oard
syst
ems b
e de
sign
ed to
add
ress
Just
In T
ime
(JIT
) and
re
curr
ent (
i.e.,
refr
eshe
r) tr
aini
ng?
Wha
t are
the
impa
cts o
f mis
sion
du
ratio
n on
rete
ntio
n?
3.
For b
oth
phas
es o
f the
mis
sion
(pre
-flig
ht a
nd in
-flig
ht),
wha
t is t
he
appr
opria
te m
ix o
f ski
ll-ba
sed
vers
us ta
sk-b
ased
trai
ning
? W
hat
stan
dard
s and
pro
ficie
ncy
leve
ls c
an p
rovi
de a
reas
onab
le le
vel o
f as
sura
nce
that
the
train
ing
is e
ffec
tive
and
that
rete
ntio
n w
ill b
e m
aint
aine
d?
Prod
ucts
: (1
) Tra
inin
g cu
rric
ula
requ
irem
ents
and
gui
delin
es, (
2)
train
ing
mat
eria
ls a
nd sy
stem
s, (3
) ass
essm
ent t
ools
.
8 Pr
oced
ures
D
evel
op p
roce
dure
gui
delin
es/ t
empl
ates
to m
inim
ize
the
oppo
rtuni
ty
for e
rror
, max
imiz
e th
e op
portu
nity
to d
etec
t err
ors b
efor
e th
ey b
ecom
e pr
oble
ms,
and
min
imiz
e th
e co
nseq
uenc
e of
und
etec
ted
erro
rs:
1.
How
can
pro
cedu
res b
e de
sign
ed su
ch th
at th
ey b
uild
on
oper
ator
s’
capa
bilit
ies a
nd c
ompe
nsat
e fo
r ope
rato
rs’ l
imita
tions
? W
hat t
ype
of in
form
atio
n is
nee
ded
in th
e pr
oced
ure
(pic
ture
s, vi
deo,
text
, et
c.)?
2.
H
ow to
det
erm
ine
the
best
way
to fo
rmat
pro
cedu
res t
o ha
ve th
e ab
ility
to p
rese
nt d
iffer
ent l
evel
s of d
etai
l to
diff
eren
t peo
ple
(e.g
.,
40
expe
rt vs
. nov
ice,
eng
inee
r vs.
man
agem
ent,
and
grou
nd v
s. on
-or
bit)?
3.
H
ow c
an v
oice
reco
gniti
on a
nd a
udito
ry in
stru
ctio
ns b
e im
plem
ente
d in
pro
cedu
res?
Pr
oduc
t: T
ool (
tem
plat
e), a
naly
sis o
f tas
ks a
nd h
uman
cap
abili
ties,
and
met
hodo
logy
for p
roce
dure
and
che
cklis
t des
ign
and
help
det
erm
ine
proc
edur
e gu
idel
ines
/ te
mpl
ates
. 9
Proc
edur
e D
evel
opm
ent
Dev
elop
gui
delin
es a
nd re
quire
men
ts fo
r pro
cedu
re d
evel
opm
ent f
or
futu
re h
uman
-rat
ed sp
ace
vehi
cles
: 1.
R
evis
it re
quire
men
ts d
ocum
ents
and
see
whe
re re
quire
men
ts fo
r re
vers
ibili
ty o
f act
ions
mig
ht b
e ne
eded
. For
exa
mpl
e, m
ultip
le
crew
mem
bers
shou
ld n
ot b
e ab
le to
exe
cute
sim
ulta
neou
s inp
uts i
nto
fligh
t con
trols
. 2.
Fo
rmat
ting
of p
roce
dure
s: D
iffer
ent l
evel
s of d
etai
l may
be
requ
ired
for d
iffer
ent p
eopl
e an
d op
erat
ing
envi
ronm
ents
, e.g
., ex
pert
vers
us
novi
ce, e
ngin
eer v
ersu
s a h
uman
fact
ors p
erso
n, o
n th
e gr
ound
ve
rsus
on-
orbi
t?
3.
Shou
ld th
e pr
oced
ure
be e
lect
roni
c, h
ard
copy
, or o
ther
? H
ow w
ill
upda
tes b
e ha
ndle
d?
4.
How
can
pro
cedu
re b
e st
anda
rdiz
ed to
be
erro
r-m
inim
ized
and
co
nsis
tent
acr
oss s
yste
ms (
whe
n ap
plic
able
)? C
an a
tem
plat
e be
de
velo
ped
to h
elp
proc
edur
es w
riter
s bet
ter u
nder
stan
d fa
ctor
s suc
h as
relia
bilit
y, d
esen
sitiz
atio
n, a
nd e
ase
of u
se?
5.
How
will
har
d vs
. sof
t sw
itche
s be
dete
rmin
ed?
How
em
bedd
ed
shou
ld c
omm
ands
be
with
in a
pro
cedu
re (a
switc
h)?
Wha
t ele
men
ts
of a
par
ticul
ar ta
sk w
ould
lead
to e
mbe
dded
com
man
d re
quire
men
ts?
Prod
ucts
: G
uide
lines
/ re
quire
men
ts fo
r the
dev
elop
men
t of p
roce
dure
s, ch
eckl
ist,
and
tem
plat
es
10
Dis
play
Siz
es
Dev
elop
gui
delin
es a
nd re
quire
men
ts fo
r pro
per s
izin
g of
the
phys
ical
di
spla
y sc
reen
(e.g
., liq
uid
crys
tal d
ispl
ay) a
nd th
e di
spla
y fo
rmat
s (i.e
., di
spla
y w
indo
ws)
that
are
con
tain
ed w
ithin
eac
h sc
reen
. 1.
C
EV c
rew
stat
ion
disp
lay
inte
grat
ion
and
cons
olid
atio
n --
redu
ced
41
disp
lay
real
est
ate
on C
EV re
quire
s red
uced
suite
of "
top-
leve
l"
disp
lay
form
ats.
Wha
t inf
orm
atio
n sh
ould
be
cont
aine
d in
a g
roup
of
top-
leve
l dis
play
s?
2.
Shut
tle d
ispl
ay fo
rmat
s are
bas
ed o
n a
"sin
gle-
disp
lay-
sing
le-M
ulti-
func
tion
Dis
play
Uni
t (M
DU
)” p
hilo
soph
y in
whi
ch th
e M
DU
is
roug
hly
the
sam
e si
ze a
s the
spec
ified
dis
play
form
at si
ze. C
EV
prov
ides
the
pote
ntia
l to
inco
rpor
ate
larg
er c
rew
stat
ion
scre
ens
capa
ble
of d
ispl
ayin
g m
ultip
le d
ispl
ay fo
rmat
s. W
hat s
houl
d be
the
dim
ensi
ons a
nd a
spec
t rat
ios o
f the
phy
sica
l dis
play
scre
ens a
nd th
e sm
alle
r win
dow
s (di
spla
y fo
rmat
s) w
ithin
eac
h sc
reen
? 3.
W
hat a
re th
e m
inim
um si
ze re
quire
men
ts (c
lear
ance
s) a
nd lo
catio
n re
quire
men
ts fo
r dis
play
s and
con
trols
for p
erso
nnel
wea
ring
spac
e su
its (b
oth
pres
suriz
e an
d un
pres
suriz
ed)?
Pr
oduc
ts: G
uide
lines
and
requ
irem
ents
on
disp
lay
size
s, la
yout
, rea
l es
tate
, and
form
ats.
11
Dis
play
In
form
atio
n C
onte
nt
Dev
elop
gui
delin
es a
nd re
quire
men
ts fo
r pro
per d
ispl
ay in
form
atio
n co
nten
t: 1.
W
hat c
ombi
natio
n of
flig
ht m
anag
emen
t dis
play
form
at a
nd st
abili
ty
augm
enta
tion
softw
are
will
ena
ble
man
ual f
light
con
trol?
2.
W
hat i
s the
bes
t way
to p
rese
nt in
tegr
ated
cau
tion
and
war
ning
sy
stem
info
rmat
ion
to a
id th
e cr
ew in
reso
lvin
g m
alfu
nctio
ns?
Wha
t in
form
atio
n sh
ould
be
cont
aine
d on
an
adva
nced
cau
tion
and
war
ning
syst
em?
3.
D
esig
ning
for l
ow c
ogni
tive
load
. The
re is
a n
eed
in sp
acec
raft
desi
gn to
com
pens
ate
for t
he p
oten
tial n
egat
ive
oper
atio
nal i
mpa
cts
and
diso
rient
atio
ns o
n pe
rfor
man
ce. W
hat i
ntui
tive
inte
rfac
es a
nd
low
cog
nitiv
e de
man
d pr
oced
ures
bes
t im
prov
e th
ose
detri
men
tal
impa
cts?
4.
D
esig
ning
for s
enso
ry-m
otor
dec
ondi
tioni
ng:
How
can
wor
ksta
tions
an
d di
spla
ys b
e co
nfig
ured
to m
inim
ize
ergo
nom
ic p
robl
ems
invo
lvin
g op
erat
or st
ate
chan
ges (
such
as s
enso
ry-m
otor
de
cond
ition
ing
and
fatig
ue)?
5.
H
ow c
an u
sabi
lity
and
read
abili
ty o
f pro
cedu
res b
e im
prov
ed?
Wha
t
42
info
rmat
ion
is n
eede
d in
the
proc
edur
e (p
ictu
res,
caut
ion
and
war
ning
, etc
.)?
6.
Wha
t are
the
pros
and
con
s of d
irect
vie
w (t
hrou
gh w
indo
ws)
and
in
dire
ct v
iew
(thr
ough
dis
play
s)?
How
to in
tegr
ate
com
pute
r di
spla
ys o
f a v
iew
? i.
e., w
hat k
ind
of in
form
atio
n do
es o
ne in
clud
e in
an
over
lay;
wha
t is i
mpo
rtant
for t
he c
rew
to se
e? H
ow to
dis
play
an
ove
rlay
to c
aptu
re 3
-D in
form
atio
n? W
ould
sens
ory
augm
enta
tion
be n
eede
d?
Prod
ucts
: G
uide
lines
and
requ
irem
ents
on
disp
lay
info
rmat
ion
cont
ent.
Som
e of
the
rele
vant
topi
cs fo
r dis
play
info
rmat
ion
cont
ent i
nclu
de
stab
ility
aug
men
tatio
n, a
dvan
ced
caut
ion
and
war
ning
syst
em, s
patia
l di
sorie
ntat
ion
miti
gatio
n, se
nsor
y m
otor
dec
ondi
tioni
ng, f
atig
ue
miti
gatio
n, p
roce
dure
pre
sent
atio
n, a
nd a
utom
ated
info
rmat
ion
pres
enta
tion.
12
N
on-tr
aditi
onal
M
ulti-
mod
al
Dis
play
s
Dev
elop
gui
delin
es a
nd re
quire
men
ts fo
r non
-trad
ition
al m
ulti-
mod
al
disp
lays
, suc
h as
hap
tic, v
oice
or h
ead-
mou
nted
dis
play
s:
1.
Det
erm
ine
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch c
rew
per
form
ance
can
be
enha
nced
w
ith n
on-tr
aditi
onal
(mul
ti-m
odal
) dis
play
s. 2.
W
hat i
s the
bes
t im
plem
enta
tion
for a
n el
ectro
nic
visu
al d
ispl
ay fo
r th
e w
eare
r? W
hat a
re th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f inf
orm
atio
n pr
esen
tatio
n fo
r alte
rnat
ive
disp
lays
(e.g
., sm
all d
ispl
ays,
head
-mou
nted
di
spla
ys)?
3.
H
ow c
an v
oice
reco
gniti
on a
nd a
udito
ry in
stru
ctio
ns b
e im
plem
ente
d in
em
erge
ncy
proc
edur
es fo
r thi
s kin
d of
dis
play
s? W
hat t
ype
of
proc
edur
es w
ill b
e us
ed?
4.
Wha
t are
the
requ
irem
ents
for h
ead-
mou
nted
dis
play
s and
in
form
atio
n fo
rmat
s nee
ded
for t
he h
ands
-fre
e ta
sks a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith
som
e of
thes
e di
spla
ys?
Prod
ucts
: G
uide
lines
and
requ
irem
ents
for n
on-tr
aditi
onal
dis
play
s in
term
s of e
rgon
omic
s and
info
rmat
ion
disp
lay
form
ats.
Non
-trad
ition
al
disp
lays
exa
mpl
es in
clud
e: h
elm
et/h
ead
mou
nted
dis
play
s, fle
xibl
e di
spla
ys, h
aptic
dis
play
s, au
dio
disp
lays
, etc
.
43
13
Ala
rms
War
ning
des
ensi
tizat
ion
is a
per
vasi
ve p
robl
em th
roug
hout
the
com
mer
cial
and
NA
SA sp
acef
light
com
mun
ity. D
urin
g th
e pr
evio
us
elev
en E
xped
ition
Cre
w D
ebrie
fs, c
rew
mem
bers
repe
ated
ly c
omm
ente
d on
the
over
use
of c
autio
n an
d w
arni
ng b
lock
s with
in p
roce
dure
s. Th
is
proj
ect w
ould
resu
lt in
gui
delin
es/re
quire
men
ts re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r th
e ch
arac
teris
tics o
f ala
rm e
vent
s (th
at ta
kes i
nto
acco
unt s
enso
ry
mod
ality
, per
ceiv
ed u
rgen
cy, t
ask
inte
rrup
tion,
ope
ratio
nal e
nviro
nmen
t, et
c.) a
nd v
isua
l cha
ract
eris
tics o
f war
ning
labe
ls w
ithin
the
NA
SA
oper
atio
nal c
onte
xt (i
nclu
ding
col
or, f
ont,
cont
ent,
and
pict
oria
l gu
idel
ines
): 1.
W
hat i
s the
mos
t eff
ectiv
e m
etho
d of
pre
sent
ing
alar
ms a
nd a
lerts
to
a di
vers
e cr
ew?
Wha
t int
erna
tiona
l con
side
ratio
ns w
ill b
e us
ed?
D
oes t
he p
ropo
sed
met
hod
diff
er a
ccor
ding
to w
hat t
ype
of a
ctiv
ity
the
crew
is e
ngag
ed in
(e.g
. crit
ical
stag
es o
f flig
ht, n
omin
al E
VA
op
erat
ions
)?
2.
Whe
n sh
ould
aud
itory
vs.
visu
al a
larm
s be
used
?
3.
How
can
ala
rm d
esen
sitiz
atio
n be
miti
gate
d (e
.g. m
inim
izin
g fa
lse
alar
ms,
adeq
uate
ly d
efin
ing
"whe
n to
war
n" c
riter
ia)?
4.
Sh
ould
the
caut
ions
and
war
ning
s for
subs
yste
ms b
e in
tegr
ated
into
th
e ov
eral
l veh
icle
arc
hite
ctur
e (e
.g. m
edic
al)?
Pr
oduc
t: G
uide
lines
and
requ
irem
ents
for t
he p
rese
ntat
ion
of a
larm
s.
14
Dis
play
s and
C
ontro
ls
Ergo
nom
ics
Dev
elop
gui
delin
es a
nd re
quire
men
ts fo
r dis
play
s and
con
trols
er
gono
mic
s:
3.
Wha
t are
the
min
imum
size
requ
irem
ents
(cle
aran
ces)
and
loca
tion
requ
irem
ents
for d
ispl
ays a
nd c
ontro
ls fo
r per
sonn
el w
earin
g sp
ace
suits
(bot
h pr
essu
rize
and
unpr
essu
rized
). 4.
D
esig
ning
for s
enso
ry-m
otor
dec
ondi
tioni
ng --
how
can
wor
ksta
tions
an
d co
ntro
ls, b
e co
nfig
ured
to m
inim
ize
ergo
nom
ic p
robl
ems
invo
lvin
g va
riatio
ns in
the
oper
ator
’s st
ate
(e.g
., se
nsor
y-m
otor
de
cond
ition
ing,
fatig
ue)?
Pr
oduc
ts:
Gui
delin
es a
nd re
quire
men
ts o
n D
&C
Erg
onom
ics.
Emph
asis
sh
ould
be
on p
hysi
cal r
equi
rem
ents
for d
iffer
ent m
issi
on p
hase
s and
44
how
dis
play
s and
con
trols
shou
ld b
e ta
ilore
d to
miti
gate
sens
ory-
mot
or
deco
nditi
onin
g.
15
Extra
-Veh
icul
ar
Act
ivity
(EV
A)
The
luna
r sor
tie m
issi
ons w
ill re
quire
the
crew
to d
ivid
e in
to tw
o te
ams
to c
ondu
ct d
aily
(or n
ear-
daily
) EV
As o
f up
to 8
hou
rs d
urat
ion.
The
se
team
s will
use
the
luna
r rov
er v
ehic
le to
exp
lore
are
as u
p to
20
km fr
om
the
land
er.
1.
Wha
t inf
orm
atio
n sy
stem
s will
be
need
ed to
supp
ort t
hese
mis
sion
s?
2.
Can
thes
e sy
stem
s be
valid
ated
with
ana
log
appl
icat
ions
(suc
h as
Se
lf C
onta
ined
Atm
osph
eric
Pro
tect
ive
Ense
mbl
e, o
r SC
APE
, su
its)?
Pr
oduc
t: (1
) Too
l tha
t pro
vide
s hum
an e
rror
/sys
tem
ana
lyse
s, (2
) qu
antif
ied
hum
an re
liabi
lity
data
, and
(3) a
"w
ork
effe
ctiv
enes
s" m
etric
si
mila
r to
that
bei
ng d
evel
oped
by
the
EVA
gro
up.
16
Ant
hrop
omet
ry
– Sp
ace
Suits
R
esea
rch
prot
otyp
e su
it co
nfig
urat
ions
, mak
ing
mea
sure
men
ts to
de
term
ine
desi
gns t
hat w
ill im
prov
e su
it fit
and
func
tiona
lity:
1.
H
ow c
an su
its b
e de
sign
ed to
aff
ord
user
s gre
ater
dex
terit
y w
ith le
ss
stre
ss a
nd fa
tigue
? T
his i
nclu
des i
dent
ifica
tion
and
clas
sific
atio
n of
th
e ta
sks a
nd ta
sk d
river
s tha
t req
uire
dex
tero
us p
erfo
rman
ce.
2.
Det
erm
ine
the
affe
ct o
f bod
y sh
ape
chan
ges o
n fit
and
mob
ility
(e.g
. 0-
G tr
ansf
er o
f bod
y flu
ids,
elon
gatio
n of
spin
e in
1/6
g)?
Spi
nal
elon
gatio
n an
d its
eff
ects
on
pres
sure
suit
sizi
ng --
will
we
need
to
resi
ze th
e pr
essu
re su
its?
3.
Wha
t for
ces a
re e
xerte
d by
per
sonn
el a
s the
y m
ove
and
wor
k in
side
a
spac
e su
it an
d ho
w to
redu
ce th
e fo
rces
? T
here
is a
nee
d by
med
ical
pe
rson
nel o
f det
erm
inin
g lo
ads a
pplie
d to
var
ious
mus
cle
grou
ps
durin
g th
e co
urse
of a
n EV
A; p
artic
ular
ly o
n a
redu
ced
g su
rfac
e.
Prod
ucts
: Su
it de
sign
gui
delin
es
17
Ant
hrop
omet
ry
– G
ener
al
Des
ign
Gui
delin
es
Con
duct
lab
stud
ies o
n th
e m
ovem
ent,
size
s, an
d st
reng
th o
f per
sonn
el
in o
rder
to d
evel
op d
esig
n gu
idel
ines
: 1.
M
ore
rese
arch
is n
eede
d to
cre
ate
func
tiona
l stre
ngth
cap
abili
ties
data
, esp
ecia
lly w
hen
wea
ring
spac
e su
its.
2.
Wha
t is t
he b
est d
esig
n fo
r too
ls th
at a
re to
be
used
in sp
ace
(und
er
45
vario
us g
ravi
ty e
nviro
nmen
ts a
nd b
y pe
rson
nel w
earin
g sp
ace
suits
)?
3.
Wha
t will
be
the
trans
latio
n re
quire
men
ts?
(e.g
., w
hat i
s the
hat
ch
size
requ
irem
ent t
o ac
com
mod
ate
a cr
ewm
embe
r car
ryin
g an
un
cons
ciou
s cre
wm
embe
r thr
ough
the
hatc
h?)
4.
Cre
w-c
ockp
it in
tera
ctio
ns u
nder
asc
ent/e
ntry
g lo
ads -
- res
earc
h is
ne
eded
on
crew
’s c
apab
ility
to in
tera
ct w
ith c
rew
stat
ion
disp
lays
by
the
tradi
tiona
l met
hods
of m
anua
l rea
chin
g / t
oggl
ing
switc
hes a
nd
push
ing
butto
ns u
nder
the
high
and
var
iabl
e g
forc
es d
urin
g C
LV/C
EV a
scen
ts a
nd e
ntrie
s. Pr
oduc
t: C
rew
stat
ion
desi
gn g
uide
lines
18
A
nthr
opom
etry
–
Hum
an
Mod
els
Exam
ine
exis
ting
anth
ropo
met
ric d
ata
and
CA
D /
hum
an m
odel
ing
softw
are
reso
urce
s to
dete
rmin
e th
e be
st d
ata
and
softw
are
com
bina
tion
to m
eet d
esig
ner’
s nee
ds:
1.
How
can
we
mod
ify e
xist
ing
hum
an m
odel
s to
adeq
uate
ly re
pres
ent
the
spec
ified
use
r pop
ulat
ion
(e.g
., re
ach,
fiel
d of
vie
w, a
nd
visi
bilit
y) in
redu
ced
grav
ity a
nd b
e po
rtabl
e to
oth
er si
mul
atio
n en
viro
nmen
ts?
Prod
uct:
Hum
an m
odel
ing
softw
are
and
the
acco
mpa
nyin
g an
thro
pom
etric
dat
abas
e
19
Func
tion
Allo
catio
n D
evel
op g
uide
lines
and
requ
irem
ents
on
func
tion
allo
catio
n fo
r fut
ure
hum
an-r
ated
spac
e ve
hicl
es:
1.
How
shou
ld N
ASA
det
erm
ine
whi
ch fu
nctio
ns /
task
s sho
uld
be
perf
orm
ed b
y fli
ght c
rew
/ gr
ound
cre
w?
Wha
t mis
sion
func
tions
sh
ould
be
allo
cate
d to
hum
ans a
nd w
hat s
houl
d be
aut
omat
ed?
W
hen
and
how
shou
ld d
ynam
ic a
nd a
dapt
ive
auto
mat
ion
be u
tiliz
ed?
H
ow c
an a
ll pa
rties
be
kept
info
rmed
of t
he a
ctio
ns o
f oth
er a
gent
s in
volv
ed in
the
proc
edur
es?
Ana
lyst
s wou
ld in
put f
unct
iona
l re
quire
men
ts, s
yste
m p
aram
eter
s, an
d cr
ew re
sour
ce in
form
atio
n in
to
the
tool
. The
tool
wou
ld m
ake
a re
com
men
datio
n (b
ased
on
hum
an
and
tech
nolo
gy c
apab
ilitie
s) fo
r eff
ectiv
e fu
nctio
n al
loca
tion.
2.
Pr
oced
ures
and
aut
omat
ed c
heck
lists
: Can
the
crew
ove
rrid
e
46
inap
prop
riate
act
ions
of a
utom
atio
n? H
ow c
an th
e cr
ew b
e ke
pt in
th
e lo
op?
Wha
t is t
he b
est w
ay fo
r hum
ans t
o in
tera
ct w
ith th
e au
tom
atio
n? H
ow d
oes t
he a
utom
atio
n pr
iorit
ize
diff
eren
t act
ions
or
item
s suc
h th
at th
ey d
on't
conf
lict w
ith e
ach
othe
r (e.
g., c
ompl
etin
g ch
eckl
ists
in p
aral
lel)?
3.
W
hat f
unct
ions
shou
ld b
e au
tom
ated
? P
rovi
de g
uida
nce
to a
ssis
t in
ensu
ring
that
the
func
tions
that
requ
ire h
uman
judg
men
t and
are
not
co
st-e
ffec
tive
to a
utom
ate
are
desi
gned
to o
ptim
ize
the
hum
an
cont
ribut
ion.
Com
e up
with
mor
e ef
fect
ive
and
cost
eff
icie
nt to
ols
and
proc
esse
s for
des
ign
/ des
ign
anal
ysis
and
aut
omat
ed m
onito
ring
of sy
stem
s suc
h as
hab
itats
, rob
ots,
rove
rs, e
tc.
Prod
ucts
: G
uide
lines
, req
uire
men
ts, a
nd to
ols f
or m
issi
on fu
nctio
n al
loca
tion
desi
gn a
nd c
orre
ctio
n of
faul
tily
exec
uted
aut
omat
ed
proc
edur
es.
20
Aut
omat
ion
Eval
uatio
n To
ols
Dev
elop
men
t
Dev
elop
gui
delin
es a
nd re
quire
men
ts o
n de
velo
ping
aut
omat
ion
eval
uatio
n to
ols f
or fu
ture
hum
an-r
ated
spac
e ve
hicl
es:
1.
Tool
s and
tech
niqu
es fo
r eva
luat
ion
of h
uman
inte
ract
ion
desi
gns o
f au
tom
atio
n sy
stem
s, in
clud
ing
robo
tic sy
stem
s, ro
vers
, tel
eope
rate
d sy
stem
s, pi
lotin
g sy
stem
s, co
ntro
l, m
onito
ring,
and
faul
t m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s, sc
hedu
ling
/ pla
nnin
g sy
stem
s, as
wel
l as d
ata
anal
ysis
syst
ems f
or h
abita
ts, h
ealth
car
e, m
anuf
actu
ring
and
scie
nce
oper
atio
ns. T
ools
and
tech
niqu
es fo
r eva
luat
ing
perf
orm
ance
of
hum
an/a
utom
atio
n “t
eam
s,” w
ith v
aryi
ng le
vels
of a
uton
omy,
he
tero
gene
ity, d
istri
butio
n an
d m
obili
ty.
2.
Ada
ptiv
e co
ckpi
ts -
Mod
ify in
form
atio
n di
spla
y an
d cr
ew/a
utom
atio
n fu
nctio
nal a
lloca
tions
in re
spon
se to
real
-tim
e as
sess
men
t of c
rew
con
ditio
n, in
form
atio
n pr
oces
sing
act
iviti
es, a
nd
curr
ent c
apab
ilitie
s. So
ftwar
e to
ols a
re n
eede
d to
col
lect
and
ana
lyze
su
ch m
easu
res i
n re
al ti
me
in o
rder
to 1
) cla
ssify
thes
e ac
tiviti
es a
s ly
ing
in th
e cr
ewm
embe
rs n
omin
al ra
nge,
or d
evia
ting
from
that
ra
nge,
2) m
atch
ing
the
off-
nom
inal
pat
tern
aga
inst
a k
now
n pe
rfor
man
ce m
oder
ator
fact
or (i
.e. t
his c
rew
mem
ber i
s exc
essi
vely
fa
tigue
d), a
nd p
rovi
ding
app
ropr
iate
cou
nter
mea
sure
s (i.e
., ta
king
47
proc
edur
al a
ctio
ns th
at a
re n
orm
ally
und
er c
rew
mem
ber c
ontro
l, au
tom
atic
ally
brin
ging
up
info
rmat
ion
disp
lays
, sou
ndin
g an
ale
rt,
etc.
) Pr
oduc
ts:
Dev
elop
tool
s and
tech
niqu
es fo
r eva
luat
ion
of a
utom
atio
n 21
R
obot
ics
Dev
elop
a tu
toria
l and
des
ign
guid
e to
add
ress
the
follo
win
g qu
estio
ns:
1.
Wha
t are
the
key
para
met
ers t
o ad
dres
s in
the
desi
gn o
f mul
ti-ag
ent
cond
ition
s (su
ch a
s a c
rew
mem
ber o
n a
plan
etar
y su
rfac
e w
orki
ng
next
to a
robo
t tha
t is b
eing
tele
oper
ated
by
grou
nd p
erso
nnel
)?
2.
Giv
en th
e co
ntex
t for
a g
iven
ope
ratio
nal s
cena
rio, w
hat g
uida
nce
can
be u
sefu
lly g
iven
to d
esig
n en
gine
ers s
o th
at th
ey c
onsi
der a
ll pl
ausi
ble
alte
rnat
ives
with
in th
e de
sign
spac
e, a
nd m
inim
ize
alte
rnat
ives
that
are
like
ly to
resu
lt in
sub-
optim
al d
esig
ns?
3.
Wha
t gui
danc
e ca
n be
giv
en to
des
igne
rs re
gard
ing
late
ncy
(del
ay)
and
erro
r of c
omm
unic
atio
n w
hen
tele
oper
atin
g a
robo
t?
4.
Wha
t are
all
know
n m
etho
ds o
f hum
an-r
obot
ic in
tera
ctio
n, a
nd w
hat
are
the
adva
ntag
es a
nd d
raw
back
s of e
ach,
rela
tive
to ty
pe o
f rob
ot
and
type
of o
pera
tiona
l sce
nario
? 5.
In
terf
aces
: En
surin
g fle
xibl
e ye
t con
sist
ent,
intu
itive
, and
safe
in
terf
aces
to in
form
atio
n an
d au
tom
atio
n fo
r bot
h fli
ght a
nd g
roun
d cr
ews i
s a fu
ndam
enta
l cha
lleng
e of
spac
e hu
man
fact
ors.
Hum
an
inte
rfac
e an
d in
tera
ctio
n te
chno
logi
es fo
r rob
otic
s ass
ista
nts f
or IV
A
and
EVA
act
iviti
es to
per
form
task
s (bo
ring
and
repe
titio
us) s
uch
as
hous
ekee
ping
, sam
ple
colle
ctio
n, a
s wel
l as b
e a
“thi
rd h
and”
in
repa
irs a
nd e
xplo
ratio
n. E
mph
asis
shou
ld b
e on
han
dlin
g de
lays
and
ba
ndw
idth
lim
itatio
ns in
rem
ote
oper
atio
ns a
nd p
rom
otin
g si
tuat
ion
awar
enes
s, su
perv
isio
n, c
oope
ratio
n, h
ando
vers
, and
pha
sed
shift
s in
auto
nom
y le
vel.
Pr
oduc
ts: D
esig
n gu
ides
that
wou
ld e
xpla
in th
e m
ost i
mpo
rtant
ele
men
ts
of th
e de
sign
and
how
to se
lect
des
ign
alte
rnat
ives
that
are
mos
t lik
ely
to
be su
cces
sful
. Thi
s gui
de w
ould
giv
e us
eful
par
amet
ers i
n th
e de
sign
sp
ace,
such
that
har
dwar
e an
d so
ftwar
e de
sign
ers c
an b
e gu
ided
to
48
cons
ider
a w
ide
rang
e of
pla
usib
le a
ltern
ativ
es d
urin
g ea
rly st
ages
for
desi
gn. T
he g
uide
wou
ld a
lso
poin
t out
how
mul
ti-ag
ent c
once
pts c
an b
e ev
alua
ted
durin
g ea
rly a
nd la
te st
ages
of d
evel
opm
ent p
roce
ss. T
hat i
s, th
e pr
oduc
t wou
ld g
uide
dev
elop
ers a
nd h
uman
fact
ors e
ngin
eers
on
how
to e
valu
ate
early
pap
er p
roto
type
s fro
m e
arly
in th
e pr
oces
s and
ho
w to
eva
luat
e la
ter p
roto
type
s with
hig
h fid
elity
sim
ulat
ion.
22
A
cous
tics -
M
odel
ing
Dev
elop
com
pute
r-ba
sed
acou
stic
env
ironm
ent m
odel
for k
now
n or
pr
opos
ed v
ehic
le sy
stem
s. Th
e qu
estio
ns n
eeds
to b
e ad
dres
sed
are:
1.
H
ow c
an a
cous
tic e
nviro
nmen
t be
mod
eled
for k
now
n or
pro
pose
d ve
hicl
e sy
stem
s?
2.
Bas
ed o
n an
exi
stin
g co
nfig
urat
ion
and
know
n ac
oust
ic
envi
ronm
ent,
how
can
we
mod
el e
xpec
ted
chan
ges d
ue to
add
ed
equi
pmen
t or e
quip
men
t mod
ifica
tion?
3.
H
ow ro
bust
is m
odel
ed p
redi
ctio
n re
lativ
e to
mea
sure
d ac
oust
ic
envi
ronm
ent o
f act
ual d
eplo
yed
hard
war
e?
Prod
uct:
Com
pute
r-ba
sed
acou
stic
mod
el th
at p
redi
cts a
cous
tic
envi
ronm
ent f
or a
giv
en se
t of i
nsta
lled
hard
war
e. T
he m
odel
wou
ld b
e hi
gh-f
idel
ity, a
nd v
erifi
ed w
ith a
ctua
l mea
sure
men
ts o
n gr
ound
and
on
spac
ecra
ft. T
he m
odel
wou
ld a
llow
eas
y in
puts
of p
ropo
sed
vehi
cle
com
pone
nts s
uch
as d
uctin
g, p
umps
, fan
s, et
c.
23
Aco
ustic
s –
Req
uire
men
ts
Dev
elop
men
t
Dev
elop
requ
irem
ents
for n
oise
aba
tem
ent f
or fu
ture
spac
e pr
ogra
ms:
1.
W
hat t
ype
of n
oise
aba
tem
ent r
equi
rem
ents
, suc
h as
hea
ring
prot
ectio
n an
d no
ise
abat
emen
t for
mul
tiple
-sys
tem
inte
grat
ions
(e
.g.,
payl
oads
, com
ms,
etc.
), w
ill b
e ne
eded
for f
utur
e sp
ace
prog
ram
s?
Prod
uct:
Gui
delin
es a
nd re
quire
men
ts fo
r noi
se a
bate
men
t.
24
Ligh
ting
Des
ign
Aid
D
evel
op a
stru
ctur
ed li
st o
f lig
htin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
, gui
delin
es, a
nd
ques
tions
to b
e po
sed
to th
e sy
stem
des
igne
rs d
urin
g in
itial
des
ign
of
spac
ecra
ft, h
abita
tions
, and
wor
ksta
tions
. The
doc
umen
t wou
ld e
ither
be
usef
ul fo
r bui
ldin
g lig
htin
g de
sign
pap
er c
heck
lists
, or f
orm
the
basi
s for
a
com
pute
r-ba
sed
desi
gn a
id. T
he u
ser o
f the
doc
umen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
a pe
rson
with
und
ergr
adua
te e
duca
tion
in p
hysi
cs o
r eng
inee
ring,
and
49
term
s spe
cific
to li
ghtin
g an
alys
is a
nd d
esig
n w
ould
be
defin
ed in
the
outli
ne d
ocum
ent.
Use
ful r
elat
ions
hips
bet
wee
n un
its a
nd d
efin
ition
s of
light
ing
met
rics w
ould
als
o be
pro
vide
d fo
r rev
iew
. Lig
htin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
add
ress
ed in
the
outli
ne w
ould
incl
ude
the
follo
win
g:
1.
Obs
erve
r cha
ract
eris
tics:
age
, sta
tes o
f ada
ptat
ion,
con
trast
se
nsiti
vity
/ ac
uity
, and
col
or p
erce
ptio
n 2.
V
isua
l tas
k el
emen
ts: f
ield
of v
iew
, con
trast
, obj
ect s
ize
(spa
tial
freq
uenc
y), a
nd lu
min
ance
con
trast
(lig
ht so
urce
lum
inan
ce a
nd
surf
ace
refle
ctan
ce)
3.
Ope
ratio
nal c
onst
rain
ts: t
ask
requ
irem
ents
, lig
ht so
urce
/ ob
serv
er
loca
tion
/ int
erac
tion,
ligh
t sou
rce
adju
stab
ility
/ po
rtabi
lity,
gla
re
(dire
ct a
nd re
flect
ed),
view
ing
equi
pmen
t (he
lmet
face
plat
es,
win
dow
s, et
c.),
and
colo
r ren
derin
g Pr
actic
al e
xam
ples
of i
ssue
s and
app
licat
ions
from
spac
ecra
ft w
ould
be
incl
uded
. Pr
oduc
t: G
uide
lines
for d
esig
n an
d re
quire
men
ts d
evel
opm
ent
25
Ligh
ting
Tool
D
evel
opm
ent
Dev
elop
a c
ompu
ter-
base
d lig
htin
g si
mul
atio
n to
ol to
ass
ist d
esig
ners
an
d re
quire
men
t dev
elop
ers i
n re
alis
tical
ly a
sses
sing
the
effe
cts o
f dy
nam
ic e
lem
ents
in th
e in
terio
r env
ironm
ent o
f spa
cecr
aft a
nd o
ther
ha
bita
ble
spac
es. S
uch
elem
ents
mig
ht in
clud
e th
e ad
ditio
n of
var
ious
nu
mbe
rs o
f per
sonn
el, c
hang
es in
pos
ition
s of t
hese
per
sonn
el,
plac
emen
t of s
tow
age
item
s, in
stal
latio
n of
mob
ile e
quip
men
t in
the
volu
me
unde
r con
side
ratio
n, a
nd in
tera
ctio
ns w
ith li
ght s
ourc
es o
utsi
de
the
volu
me.
The
tool
shou
ld a
lso
com
preh
end
chan
ges i
n th
e nu
mbe
r an
d po
sitio
ns o
f lig
ht so
urce
s with
in th
e vo
lum
e an
d fir
st-o
rder
in
tera
ctio
ns w
ith v
olum
e an
d eq
uipm
ent s
urfa
ces t
o pr
edic
t pot
entia
l gl
are
sour
ces a
nd th
e ef
fect
iven
ess o
f por
tabl
e lig
htin
g.
Prod
uct:
A li
ghtin
g to
ol fo
r des
igne
rs a
nd re
quire
men
t dev
elop
ers
26
Labe
ling
Dev
elop
des
ign
guid
elin
es, r
equi
rem
ents
, and
trai
ning
pro
cedu
res f
or
labe
ling
of C
EV a
nd C
onst
ella
tion
hard
war
e pr
oduc
ts th
at a
ddre
ss th
e fo
llow
ing
issu
es:
1.
Wha
t is t
he p
rope
r for
mat
for l
abel
s to
ensu
re c
onsi
sten
t app
licat
ion
50
acro
ss a
ll C
onst
ella
tion
prog
ram
s? F
orm
attin
g in
clud
es le
gibi
lity
of
the
labe
ls.
2.
How
shou
ld it
ems b
e la
bele
d to
hel
p cr
ew in
terf
ace
with
har
dwar
e du
ring
the
initi
al fa
mili
ariz
atio
n ph
ase
whi
le, a
t the
sam
e tim
e, n
ot
over
load
ing
the
hard
war
e w
ith la
bels
that
mig
ht le
ad to
de
sens
itiza
tion
of it
ems o
nce
the
crew
is fa
mili
ar w
ith th
e en
viro
nmen
t (e.
g., m
ovin
g fr
om a
nov
ice
to e
xper
t)? E
valu
ate
how
no
vice
and
exp
ert c
rew
mem
bers
vie
w la
bels
and
see
how
/if th
eir
perc
eptio
n ch
ange
s. 3.
W
hat a
re g
uide
lines
on
dete
rmin
ing
whe
n to
use
icon
s (e.
g., s
afet
y,
icon
s and
med
ical
icon
s)?
Dev
elop
requ
irem
ents
or g
uide
lines
for
grap
hic
sym
bols
that
can
be
clea
rly u
nder
stoo
d an
d ve
rifie
d 4.
H
ow c
an o
r sho
uld
indu
stry
stan
dard
s be
tailo
red
for l
abel
ing
for
Con
stel
latio
n pr
ogra
m?
Doe
s Con
stel
latio
n pr
ovid
e a
uniq
ue
envi
ronm
ent t
hat r
equi
res f
urth
er in
vest
igat
ion?
Cur
rent
issu
es o
n IS
S in
clud
e: to
o m
any
labe
ls b
eing
use
d, n
ot o
pera
tiona
lly re
leva
nt,
dese
nsiti
zatio
n of
labe
ls, a
nd n
ot re
adab
le. A
re th
ese
‘issu
es’ d
ue to
w
eak
requ
irem
ents
, lac
k of
com
plia
nce
to re
quire
men
ts, o
r re
quire
men
ts th
at a
re n
ot ta
ilore
d to
this
env
ironm
ent?
Thi
s wou
ld
incl
ude
orie
ntat
ion
codi
ng a
nd h
ow c
rew
dec
isio
n an
d re
actio
n tim
e ar
e af
fect
ed.
Prod
uct:
Gui
delin
es a
nd re
quire
men
ts fo
r lab
elin
g an
d de
cal i
cons
27
In
vent
ory
Man
agem
ent
Dev
elop
des
ign
guid
elin
es, r
equi
rem
ents
, and
alte
rnat
ives
for s
tow
age
and
inve
ntor
y m
anag
emen
t of C
EV a
nd C
onst
ella
tion
hard
war
e an
d co
nsum
able
s:
1.
Wha
t inv
ento
ry sy
stem
s are
bes
t for
giv
en sp
ace
fligh
t con
text
s?
Wha
t are
the
key
aspe
cts o
f inv
ento
ry sy
stem
s to
be c
onsi
dere
d in
de
sign
ing
inve
ntor
y sy
stem
s?
2.
For a
giv
en c
onte
xt, w
hat f
unct
ion
allo
catio
n is
app
ropr
iate
-- w
hat
shou
ld b
e ac
com
plis
hed
by c
rew
, aut
omat
ion,
and
gro
und
supp
ort?
3.
H
ow c
an ra
dio
freq
uenc
y id
entif
icat
ion
(RFI
D) t
ag te
chno
logy
be
used
to im
prov
e In
vent
ory
Man
agem
ent S
yste
m?
4.
Wha
t typ
e of
trac
king
syst
em is
nee
ded
for f
utur
e ve
hicl
es a
nd fu
ture
51
habi
tatio
n m
odul
es?
Wha
t are
the
need
s for
eac
h?
Prod
uct:
Tut
oria
l-lik
e gu
idel
ines
to h
elp
syst
em d
esig
ners
bec
ome
mor
e co
gniz
ant o
f the
key
asp
ects
of t
heir
uniq
ue sp
ace
fligh
t con
text
by
pres
entin
g al
l the
issu
es to
be
cons
ider
ed a
nd d
iscu
ssin
g ho
w to
ana
lyze
th
e is
sues
to d
eter
min
e al
tern
ativ
e so
lutio
ns. B
ased
upo
n co
nsid
erat
ion
of th
ese
aspe
cts,
an e
xper
t-sys
tem
app
licat
ion
wou
ld p
rese
nt p
oten
tial
desi
gn a
ltern
ativ
es. T
hese
alte
rnat
ives
wou
ld in
clud
e a
spec
ifica
tion
of
the
func
tion
allo
catio
n am
ong
crew
, aut
omat
ion,
and
gro
und
supp
ort.
In
addi
tion,
an
RFI
D ta
g sy
stem
cou
ld re
plac
e or
aug
men
t the
exi
stin
g ba
rcod
e sy
stem
. 28
St
owag
e Th
is re
sear
ch p
roje
ct w
ill e
xam
ine
stow
age
desi
gn e
ffic
ienc
y:
1.
How
to d
esig
n st
owag
e th
at a
llow
s gre
ates
t fle
xibi
lity
in p
acki
ng b
y un
ders
tand
ing
the
hard
war
e ca
paci
ty a
nd c
hang
es in
orb
it?
2.
Dev
elop
men
t of a
tool
(e.g
., 3_
D m
odel
ing)
and
des
ign
requ
irem
ents
th
at e
nabl
es d
esig
ners
to p
rodu
ce b
ette
r sto
wag
e co
nfig
urat
ion
and
geom
etry
with
eno
ugh
flexi
bilit
y.
Prod
uct:
Des
ign
Gui
delin
es /
Req
uire
men
t Dev
elop
men
t Too
ls
29
Mai
ntai
nabi
lity
This
pro
ject
will
dev
elop
tool
s tha
t ena
ble
asse
ssm
ent o
f iss
ues s
uch
as
lifec
ycle
cos
ts, a
nd m
aint
aina
bilit
y:
1.
How
can
NA
SA e
nsur
e th
at sy
stem
des
igne
rs c
onsi
der l
ife c
ycle
co
sts,
and
mai
ntai
nabi
lity
early
in th
e co
ncep
tual
des
ign
phas
e?
2.
Can
we
deve
lop
a su
ite o
f adv
ance
d in
spec
tion
tech
nolo
gies
that
ad
dres
s pro
blem
s of a
cces
sibi
lity,
vis
ibili
ty, r
isk
of c
olla
tera
l da
mag
e, a
s wel
l as t
he la
ck o
f pro
ven
insp
ectio
n to
ols /
stan
dard
s for
ne
w m
ater
ials
and
pro
cess
ing
tech
niqu
es?
Prod
ucts
: (1)
gui
delin
es fo
r im
prov
ed re
usab
ility
/ext
ensi
bilit
y of
sy
stem
s; (2
) an
elec
troni
c in
form
atio
n sy
stem
that
is a
dapt
able
to
diff
eren
t wor
k si
tuat
ions
(and
exp
erie
nce
leve
ls),
and
is li
nked
to
supp
ortin
g in
form
atio
n sy
stem
such
as p
arts
cat
alog
s, tra
inin
g m
odul
es,
oper
atio
nal f
low
mod
els,
and
less
ons l
earn
ed; (
3) d
evel
opm
ent a
nd
valid
atio
n of
adv
ance
d in
spec
tion
tech
nolo
gies
for i
dent
ifyin
g,
52
mea
surin
g an
d ch
arac
teriz
ing
com
pone
nts t
hat m
ay b
e da
mag
ed.
30
Hum
an F
acto
rs
Engi
neer
ing
Tool
s
Dev
elop
Hum
an F
acto
rs E
ngin
eerin
g (H
FE) t
ools
to b
ette
r im
plem
ent
Hum
an C
ente
red
Des
ign
and
assi
st th
e H
uman
Fac
tors
(HF)
pro
cess
for
CEV
and
Con
stel
latio
n pr
ogra
ms i
n ad
dres
sing
the
follo
win
g is
sues
: 1.
H
ow c
an w
e he
lp d
esig
n te
ams c
onfir
m e
stim
ates
of v
olum
e, la
yout
, vi
sibi
lity,
wor
k flo
w, a
nd re
ach
requ
irem
ents
rela
tive
to th
e ar
chite
ctur
e? D
evel
opm
ent o
f HFE
tool
s, su
ch a
s mod
elin
g to
ols
(e.g
., ge
neric
com
pute
r-ai
ded
desi
gn [C
AD
] mod
elin
g te
mpl
ates
that
w
ould
allo
w e
ngin
eers
to p
lug
thei
r spe
cific
dat
a) a
nd ta
sk a
naly
sis
tool
s (e.
g., T
ask
Arc
hite
ct),
to im
prov
e th
e ac
cura
cy a
nd v
alid
ity o
f th
e es
timat
es.
2.
How
do
desi
gner
s kno
w w
hat m
etho
dolo
gies
are
app
ropr
iate
and
op
timal
for e
valu
atin
g hu
man
-sys
tem
inte
rfac
es?
Too
ls c
an b
e de
velo
ped
to a
id d
esig
ners
(e.g
., a
deci
sion
-aid
usi
ng a
sim
ple
wiz
ard
or c
heck
-list
to d
eter
min
e th
e be
st a
nd m
ost e
ffic
ient
met
hod
for e
valu
atin
g a
desi
gn).
3.
How
can
tool
sele
ctio
n, st
reng
th re
quire
men
ts, a
nd lo
catio
n of
re
stra
ints
/ m
obili
ty a
ids b
e us
ed to
supp
ort c
rew
tim
elin
ing?
Wha
t m
etho
d w
ill b
e us
ed in
det
erm
inin
g on
e-pe
rson
ver
sus t
wo-
pers
on
task
s? C
rew
tim
elin
e an
d cr
ew ta
sk to
ols c
an b
e de
velo
ped
that
co
uld
dete
rmin
e cr
ew ti
mel
ines
, man
pow
er fo
r tas
ks, a
nd th
e cr
ew’s
ph
ysic
al in
terf
ace
with
the
syst
em (e
.g.,
tool
loca
tion,
nee
d fo
r re
stra
int a
nd m
obili
ty a
ids,
acce
ssib
ility
, etc
.) 4.
W
hat s
impl
e ve
rific
atio
n to
ols c
an b
e us
ed to
hel
p de
velo
pers
ver
ify
hum
an fa
ctor
s req
uire
men
ts?
Wha
t too
ls c
an b
est d
eter
min
e if
crew
ca
n ca
rry
out t
he n
eces
sary
task
s dur
ing
nom
inal
and
off
-nom
inal
as
cent
? Pr
oduc
ts:
Tool
s inc
lude
, but
are
not
lim
ited
to, (
1) M
odel
ing
(e.g
., ge
neric
CA
D m
odel
ing
tem
plat
es th
at w
ould
allo
w e
ngin
eers
to p
lug
in
thei
r spe
cific
dat
a), (
2) T
ask
Ana
lysi
s (gu
idel
ines
, how
to),
(3) G
ener
ic
Eval
uatio
n Pl
ans (
allo
w e
ngin
eerin
g to
tailo
r it t
o th
eir d
esig
n), (
4) H
F ve
rific
atio
n (to
be
cond
ucte
d by
eith
er H
F en
gine
ers o
r des
igne
rs),
and
(5) I
nteg
ratio
n (a
llow
har
dwar
e de
velo
pers
the
abili
ty to
look
at s
yste
ms
as th
ey a
re fu
lly im
plem
ente
d in
to th
e de
sign
)
53
31
Des
ign
Cap
ture
D
evel
op m
etho
ds fo
r cap
turin
g an
d re
cord
ing
the
logi
c an
d ra
tiona
le o
f de
cisi
ons m
ade
durin
g th
e de
sign
pro
cess
. Thi
s will
hel
p en
able
m
anag
ers,
desi
gner
s and
eng
inee
rs id
entif
y th
e im
pact
of c
hang
ing
assu
mpt
ions
, tec
hnol
ogy,
or m
issi
ons.
In a
dditi
on it
will
hel
p th
em
mod
ify o
r reu
se th
e de
sign
. The
exp
ecte
d be
nefit
is im
prov
ed c
orpo
rate
kn
owle
dge
and
desi
gn e
ffic
ienc
y. T
he ta
sk w
ill a
ddre
ss th
e fo
llow
ing:
1.
H
ow c
an w
e fu
lly d
ocum
ent s
yste
m d
esig
ns in
clud
ing
desi
gn
philo
soph
ies,
assu
mpt
ions
, and
ratio
nale
, so
that
des
ign
know
ledg
e w
ill b
e ac
cess
ible
and
reus
able
dur
ing
oper
atio
ns a
nd fo
r des
ign
mod
ifica
tions
and
des
ign
reus
e?
2.
How
can
NA
SA e
nsur
e th
at in
form
atio
n ab
out m
issi
on o
bjec
tives
, de
sign
phi
loso
phy,
and
hum
an o
pera
tors
' nee
ds, l
imita
tions
, and
ca
pabi
litie
s are
con
side
red
early
in th
e de
sign
pro
cess
bef
ore
desi
gn
deci
sion
s are
mad
e? H
ow c
an th
is in
form
atio
n be
bet
ter
com
mun
icat
ed a
nd d
isse
min
ated
to d
esig
ners
, eng
inee
rs, a
nd
rese
arch
ers?
Pr
oduc
t: A
dis
tribu
ted
com
pute
r-ba
sed
syst
em th
at e
nabl
es re
al-ti
me
arch
ivin
g, sy
nthe
sis,
and
retri
eval
of i
mpo
rtant
des
ign
deci
sion
s and
ra
tiona
le.
32
Usa
bilit
y Ev
alua
tion
Cen
ter a
nd
Tool
s
Cre
ate
a ke
y fa
cilit
y to
pro
vide
cut
ting-
edge
tech
nolo
gy a
nd e
xper
tise
for d
esig
ning
and
eva
luat
ing
optim
um h
uman
syst
em in
tera
ctio
n (H
SI)
for c
ompl
ex sy
stem
s. Sp
ecifi
cally
, thi
s pro
ject
will
dev
elop
stan
dard
ized
us
abili
ty m
etho
ds a
nd to
ols:
1.
R
esea
rch
into
hum
an fa
ctor
s eva
luat
ion
met
hods
and
tool
s: I
n or
der
to p
rovi
de c
ente
r of e
xcel
lenc
e in
usa
bilit
y an
d H
SI d
esig
n /
eval
uatio
n, th
e fa
cilit
y sh
ould
pro
vide
exp
ertis
e in
syst
em a
s wel
l as
hum
an p
erfo
rman
ce a
nd w
orkl
oad
mod
elin
g (“
wha
t if”
pre
dict
ions
), a
tele
pres
ence
test
bed
, aut
omat
ed d
ata
acqu
isiti
on &
ana
lysi
s too
ls,
rem
ote
usab
ility
test
ing,
and
con
text
aw
are
usab
ility
(e.g
., sm
art
habi
tat)
test
ing.
2.
H
ow c
an N
ASA
det
erm
ine
whi
ch e
valu
atio
n m
etho
ds (o
r co
mbi
natio
ns o
f met
hods
) are
the
mos
t eff
icie
nt?
A to
ol o
r de
cisi
on-a
id n
eeds
to b
e de
velo
ped
to h
elp
desi
gner
s sel
ect t
he
54
appr
opria
te te
st(s
) for
hum
an-s
yste
m in
terf
aces
. An
exam
ple
is a
de
cisi
on a
id u
sing
a si
mpl
e w
izar
d or
che
ck-li
st to
det
erm
ine
the
best
and
mos
t eff
icie
nt m
etho
d fo
r eva
luat
ing
a de
sign
. 3.
W
hen
shou
ld a
heu
ristic
eva
luat
ion
be c
ondu
cted
ver
sus a
usa
bilit
y te
st o
r sub
ject
mat
ter e
xper
t rev
iew
?
4.
Whe
n sh
ould
a fa
st-ti
me
sim
ulat
ion
be u
sed
vers
us a
real
-tim
e,
hum
an-in
-the-
loop
sim
ulat
ion?
5.
H
ow c
an w
e de
velo
p st
anda
rdiz
ed u
sabi
lity
met
hods
of e
valu
atin
g co
mm
erci
al o
ff th
e sh
elf (
CO
TS) p
rodu
cts?
Nee
d to
dev
elop
gu
idel
ines
that
inco
rpor
ate
usab
ility
CO
TS tr
adeo
ff c
onsi
dera
tions
fo
r spa
cecr
aft o
pera
tions
, red
uced
-g, m
edic
al d
evic
es, u
ser
capa
bilit
y le
vel (
novi
ce to
exp
ert),
and
oth
er sp
ecifi
ed o
ptio
ns.
Prod
uct:
A c
olla
bora
tive
test
ing
and
eval
uatio
n en
viro
nmen
t be
esta
blis
hed
betw
een
JSC
& A
RC
to p
rovi
de h
uman
fact
ors i
mpr
ompt
u se
rvic
es (e
.g.,
cons
ultin
g on
des
ign
and
eval
uatio
n, u
sabi
lity
test
ing,
et
c.) f
or in
tern
al a
nd e
xter
nal c
usto
mer
s. C
olla
bora
tive
and
stan
dard
ized
ev
alua
tion
tool
s and
dec
isio
n ai
ds w
ill n
eed
to b
e de
velo
ped
for t
he
test
ing
/eva
luat
ion
envi
ronm
ent.
33
H
uman
R
elia
bilit
y an
d R
isk
Man
agem
ent
Hum
an ri
sk a
naly
sis t
ools
can
pro
vide
pre
limin
ary
estim
ates
of h
uman
er
ror a
s wel
l as r
ed fl
ags f
or si
tuat
ions
that
nee
d fu
rther
inve
stig
atio
n to
de
term
ine
actu
al ri
sk to
hum
ans o
r mis
sion
s:
1.
How
can
NA
SA m
ake
mor
e in
form
ed d
ecis
ions
abo
ut sy
stem
-leve
l ris
k th
at in
clud
e el
emen
ts o
f hum
an re
liabi
lity?
2.
H
ow to
des
ign
a ro
bust
and
relia
ble
syst
em fr
ee fr
om h
uman
err
ors?
a.
H
ow to
eva
luat
e th
e de
sign
, ant
icip
ate
thos
e er
rors
and
des
ign
a sy
stem
that
reco
vers
from
thos
e er
rors
?
b. W
hat i
s the
relia
bilit
y of
the
hum
an fo
r diff
eren
t tas
ks a
nd in
va
rious
ope
ratin
g m
odes
?
3.
A d
atab
ase
of p
erfo
rman
ce sh
apin
g fa
ctor
s (PS
F) (f
acto
rs th
at a
re
know
n to
deg
rade
or i
mpr
ove
hum
an p
erfo
rman
ce) s
peci
fic fo
r N
ASA
exp
lora
tion-
spec
ific
task
s is r
equi
red.
4.
Ris
k as
sess
men
t too
ls a
re re
quire
d th
at u
tiliz
e th
e PS
F da
taba
se to
ge
nera
te p
redi
ctio
ns o
f hum
an e
rror
and
hum
an re
liabi
lity
and
55
iden
tify
situ
atio
ns th
at m
ay c
halle
nge
hum
ans t
o pe
rfor
m o
ptim
ally
. a.
Th
e da
ta w
ould
be
a se
t of n
umbe
rs (s
imila
r to
hard
war
e re
liabi
lity
num
bers
) whi
ch w
ould
pre
dict
the
chan
ce o
f hum
an
failu
re. T
he d
ata
wou
ld b
e sp
ecifi
c to
task
s and
wor
king
en
viro
nmen
ts. T
hese
dat
a w
ould
allo
w e
ngin
eerin
g to
in
corp
orat
e th
e hu
man
into
thei
r ana
lyse
s and
dev
elop
a re
alis
tic
safe
ty a
sses
smen
t tha
t inc
lude
s hum
an e
rror
. b.
In
addi
tion,
ther
e m
ay b
e a
set o
f pro
cedu
res f
or e
stim
atin
g hu
man
relia
bilit
y in
uni
que
task
situ
atio
ns. Q
uant
ifica
tion
of
hum
an p
erfo
rman
ce re
liabi
lity
wou
ld h
elp
stre
ngth
en H
FE in
put
to d
esig
n Pr
oduc
t: (1
) Too
l tha
t pro
vide
s hum
an e
rror
/sys
tem
ana
lyse
s, (2
) qu
antif
ied
hum
an re
liabi
lity
data
, and
(3) a
"w
ork
effe
ctiv
enes
s" m
etric
si
mila
r to
that
bei
ng d
evel
oped
by
the
EVA
gro
up.
56
Appendix E Results of Stakeholder Review
57
Gap Topic Score High Med Low
Weighted Score
Display Information Content 4 1 0 14 Display Sizes 3 2 0 13 Displays and Controls Ergonomics 3 2 0 13 Behavioral Health and Performance - Cognition 3 1 1 12 Acoustics - Modeling 2 3 0 12 Teleoperations 2 2 1 11 Communications 2 2 1 11 Crew scheduling tools 2 2 1 11 Training 2 2 1 11 Alarms (Displays & Controls) 2 2 1 11 Anthropometry – Space Suits 3 0 2 11 Automation Evaluation Tools Development 3 0 2 11 Labeling 2 2 1 11 Stowage 3 0 2 11 Human Performance Models for Display Evaluation 2 1 2 10 Procedures 1 3 1 10 Function Allocation 2 1 2 10 Acoustics – Requirements Development 1 3 1 10 Lighting Design Aid 1 3 1 10 Inventory Management 2 1 2 10 Medical Procedures 1 2 2 9 Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) 1 2 2 9 Anthropometry – General Design Guidelines 1 2 2 9 Robotics 1 2 2 9 Lighting Tool Development 0 4 1 9 Maintainability 1 2 2 9 Human Factors Engineering Tools 1 2 2 9 Human Reliability and Risk Management 2 0 3 9 Non-traditional Multi-modal Displays 1 1 3 8 Usability Evaluation Center and Tools 1 1 3 8 Procedure Development 0 2 3 7 Design Capture 1 0 4 7 Anthropometry – Human Models 0 0 5 5
58