Techniques and Results for Determining Window Placement and Configuration for the Small Pressurized Rover (SPR)

A natural component to driving any type of vehicle, be it Earth-based or space-based, is visibility. In its simplest form visibility is a measure of the distance at which an object can be seen. With the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS), there are human factors design guidelines for windows. However, for planetary exploration related vehicles, especially land-based vehicles, relatively little has been written on the importance of windows. The goal of the current study was to devise a proper methodology and to obtain preliminary human-in-the-loop data on window placement and location for the small pressurized rover (SPR). Nine participants evaluated multiple areas along the vehicle s front "nose", while actively maneuvering through several lunar driving simulations. Subjective data was collected on seven different aspects measuring areas of necessity, frequency of views, and placement/configuration of windows using questionnaires and composite drawings. Results indicated a desire for a large horizontal field-of-view window spanning the front of the vehicle for most driving situations with slightly reduced window areas for the lower front, lower corners, and side views

A Comparison of the Unpressurized Rover and Small Pressurized Rover During a Desert Field Evaluation

To effectively explore the lunar surface, astronauts will need a transportation vehicle which can traverse all types of terrain. Currently, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) is investigating two lunar rover configurations to meet such a requirement. Under the Lunar Electric Rover (LER) project, a comparison study between the unpressurized rover (UPR) and the small pressurized rover (SPR) was conducted at the Black Point Lava Flow in Arizona. The objective of the study was to obtain human-in-the-loop performance data on the vehicles with respect to human-machine interfaces, vehicle impacts on crew productivity, and scientific observations. Four male participants took part in four, one-day field tests using the exact same terrain and scientific sites for an accurate comparison between vehicle configurations. Subjective data was collected using several human factors performance measures. Results indicate either vehicle configuration was generally acceptable for a lunar mission; however, the SPR configuration was preferred over the UPR configuration primarily for the SPR s ability to cause less fatigue and enabling greater crew productivity

Human Habitation in a Lunar Electric Rover During a 14-Day Field Trial

Various military and commercial entities, as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), have conducted space cabin confinement studies. However, after an extensive literature search, only one study was found using a simulated lunar rover (LUNEX II), under laboratory conditions, with a crew of two for an eighteen day lunar mission. Forty-three years later, NASA human factors engineers conducted a similar study using the Lunar Electric Rover (LER) in a dynamic real-world lunar simulation at the Black Point Lava Flow in Arizona. The objective of the study was to obtain human-in-the-loop performance data on the vehicle s interior volume with respect to human-system interfaces, crew accommodations, and habitation over a 14-day mission. Though part of a larger study including 212 overall operational elements, this paper will discuss only the performance of fifty different daily habitational elements within the confines of the vehicle carried out by two male subjects. Objective timing data and subjective questionnaire data were collected. Results indicate, much like the LUNEX II study, the LER field study suggest that a crew of two was able to maintain a satisfactory performance of tasks throughout the 14-day field trail within a relative small vehicle volume

Deep Space Habitability Design Guidelines Based on the NASA NextSTEP Phase 2 Ground Test Program

This report summarizes habitation design guidelines for deep space habitats, which were derived from the NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Phase 2 Habitat Ground Test Program. All data presented in this document have been contractor-deidentified and approved for public release. The report prioritizes capabilities and recommends allocating those capabilities to either the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) or the International Habitat (I-Hab). A review of the design guidelines is presented in the main body of the report, along with a list of the 170 specific design guidelines with references to the specific data sources from which they were derived

Human Factors in Human-Systems Integration

Any large organization whose mission is to design and develop systems for humans, and train humans needs a well-developed integration and process plan to deal with the challenges that arise from managing multiple subsystems. Human capabilities, skills, and needs must be considered early in the design and development process, and must be continuously considered throughout the development lifecycle. This integration of human needs within system design is typically formalized through a Human-Systems Integration (HSI) program. By having an HSI program, an institution or organization can reduce lifecycle costs and increase the efficiency, usability, and quality of its products because human needs have been considered from the beginning

Determining Window Placement and Configuration for the Small Pressurized Rover (SPR)

This slide presentation reviews the process of the evaluation of window placement and configuration for the cockpit of the Lunar Electric Rover (LER). The purpose of the evaluation was to obtain human-in-the-loop data on window placement and configuration for the cockpit of the LER

Usability of Operational Performance Support Tools - Findings from Sea Test II

Sea Test II, aka NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations 17(NEEMO 17) took place in the Florida Aquarius undersea habitat. This confined underwater environment provides a excellent analog for space habitation providing similarities to space habitation such as hostile environment, difficult logistics, autonomous operations, and remote communications. This study collected subjective feedback on the usability of two performance support tools during the Sea Test II mission, Sept 1014, 2013; Google Glass and iPAD. The two main objectives: - Assess the overall functionality and usability of each performance support tool in a mission analog environment. - Assess the advantages and disadvantages of each tool when performing operational procedures and JustInTimeTraining (JITT)

Acoustical and Intelligibility Test of the Vocera(Copyright) B3000 Communication Badge

To communicate with each other or ground support, crew members on board the International Space Station (ISS) currently use the Audio Terminal Units (ATU), which are located in each ISS module. However, to use the ATU, crew members must stop their current activity, travel to a panel, and speak into a wall-mounted microphone, or use either a handheld microphone or a Crew Communication Headset that is connected to a panel. These actions unnecessarily may increase task times, lower productivity, create cable management issues, and thus increase crew frustration. Therefore, the Habitability and Human Factors and Human Interface Branches at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) are currently investigating a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) wireless communication system, Vocera(C), as a near-term solution for ISS communication. The objectives of the acoustics and intelligibility testing of this system were to answer the following questions: 1. How intelligibly can a human hear the transmitted message from a Vocera(c) badge in three different noise environments (Baseline = 20 dB, US Lab Module = 58 dB, Russian Module = 70.6 dB)? 2. How accurate is the Vocera(C) badge at recognizing voice commands in three different noise environments? 3. What body location (chest, upper arm, or shoulder) is optimal for speech intelligibility and voice recognition accuracy of the Vocera(C) badge on a human in three different noise environments

Maintenance Procedure Display: Head Mounted Display (HMD) Evaluations

A viewgraph presentation describing maintenance procedures for head mounted displays is shown. The topics include: 1) Study Goals; 2) Near Eye Displays (HMDs); 3) Design; 4) Phase I-Evaluation Methods; 5) Phase 1 Results; 6) Improved HMD Mounting; 7) Phase 2 -Evaluation Methods; 8) Phase 2 Preliminary Results; and 9) Next Steps

Evaluation of Hands-Free Devices for the Display of Maintenance Procedures

Over the past year, NASA's focus has turned to crewed long duration and exploration missions. On these journeys, crewmembers will be required to execute thousands of procedures to maintain life support systems, check out space suits, conduct science experiments, and perform medical exams. To support the many complex tasks crewmembers undertake in microgravity, NASA is interested in providing crewmembers a hands-free work environment to promote more efficient operations. The overarching objective is to allow crewmembers to use both of their hands for tasks related to their mission, versus holding a paper manual or interacting with a display. The use of advanced, hands-free tools will undoubtedly make the crewmembers task easier, but they can also add to overall task complexity if not properly designed. A leading candidate technology for supporting a hands-free environment is the Head-Mounted Display (HMD). A more recent technology (e-book reader) that could be easily temp-stowed near the work area is also a potential hands-free solution. Previous work at NASA involved the evaluation of several commercially available HMDs for visual quality, comfort, and fit, as well as suitability for use in microgravity. Based on results from this work, three HMDs were selected for further evaluation (along with an e-book reader), using International Space Station (ISS)-like maintenance procedures. Two evaluations were conducted in the Space Station Mockup and Trainer Facility (SSMTF) located at the NASA Johnson Space Center (building 9). The SSMTF is a full scale, medium fidelity replica of the pressurized portions of the ISS. It supports crew training such as ingress and egress, habitability, and emergency procedures. In each of the two evaluations, the participants performed two maintenance procedures. One maintenance procedure involved inspecting air filters in a life support system and replacing them with a clean filter if one were found to be contaminated. The second maintenance procedure focused on working in a confined space; specifically, pulling down a rack to inspect wiring configurations, and rewiring in a different pattern. The maintenance procedures were selected to assess mobility, tool use, and access to multiple document sources during task performance. That is, the participant had to move from rack to rack, use a wrench, a camera, etc., replace components, and refer to diagrams to complete tasks. A constraint was imposed that the ISS-like format of the procedures was to be retained, and not modified or optimized for the electronic device ("plug and play" approach). This was based on future plans to test with real procedures on ISS