Refine Your Search

Search Results

Viewing 1 to 5 of 5
Technical Paper

Crew Exploration Vehicle Environmental Control and Life Support Design Reference Missions

In preparation for the contract award of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) produced two design reference missions for the vehicle. The design references used teams of engineers across the agency to come up with two configurations. This process helped NASA understand the conflicts and limitations in the CEV design, and investigate options to solve them.
Technical Paper

The Walkback Test: A Study to Evaluate Suit and Life Support System Performance Requirements for a 10 Kilometer Lunar Traverse in a Planetary Suit

As planetary suit and planetary life support systems develop, specific design inputs for each system relate to a presently unanswered question concerning operational concepts: What distance can be considered a safe walking distance for a suited crew member exploring the surface of the Moon to ‘walkback’ to the habitat in the event of a rover breakdown, taking into consideration the planned extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks as well as the possible traverse back to the habitat? It has been assumed, based on Apollo program experience, that 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) will be the maximum EVA excursion distance from the lander or habitat to ensure the crew member's safe return to the habitat in the event of a rover failure. To investigate the feasibility of performing a suited 10 km walkback, NASA-JSC assembled a multi-disciplinary team to design and implement the ‘Lunar Walkback Test’.
Technical Paper

Enhancing the Human Factors Engineering Role in an Austere Fiscal Environment

An austere fiscal environment in the aerospace community creates pressure to reduce program costs, often minimizing or even deleting human interface requirements from the design process. With the assumption that the flight crew can recover, in real time, from a poorly human factored space vehicle design, the classical crew interface requirements have either been not included in the design or not properly funded, even though they are carried as requirements. Cost cuts have also affected the quality of retained human factors engineering personnel. Planning is ongoing to correct these issues. Herein are techniques for ensuring that human interface requirements are integrated with flight design from proposal through verification and launch activation.
Technical Paper

Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project, Phase II: Human Factors and Crew Interactions

Phase II of the Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project was conducted in June and July of 1996 at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The primary objective for Phase II was to develop and test an integrated human life support system capable of sustaining a crew of four for 30 days in a closed chamber. The crew was continuously present inside a chamber throughout the 30-day test. The objective of this paper is to describe crew interactions and human factors for the test. Crew preparations for the test included training and familiarization of chamber systems and accommodations, and medical and psychological evaluations. During the test, crew members provided metabolic loads for the life support systems, performed maintenance on chamber systems, and evaluated human factors inside the chamber. Overall, the four crew members found the chamber to be comfortable for the 30-day test.
Technical Paper

First Astronaut - Rover Interaction Field Test

The first ever Astronaut - Rover (ASRO) Interaction Field Test was conducted successfully on February 22-27, 1999, in Silver Lake, Mojave Desert, California in a representative surface terrain. This test was a joint effort between the NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California and the NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas to investigate the interaction between humans and robotic rovers for potential future planetary surface exploration. As prototype advanced planetary surface space suit and rover technologies are being developed for human planetary surface exploration, it is desirable to better understand the interaction and potential benefits of an Extravehiclar Activity (EVA) crewmember interacting with a robotic rover. This interaction between an EVA astronaut and a robotic rover is seen as complementary and can greatly enhance the productivity and safety of surface excursions.