Search

The study, discovery, and application of information about human abilities, human limitations, and other human characteristics to the design of tools, devices, machines, systems, job tasks and environments for effective human performance.

As NASA plans to send human explorers beyond low Earth orbit, onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system, there will be new challenges to address in terms of HSI. These exploration missions will be quite different from the current and past missions such as Apollo, Shuttle, and International Space Station. The exploration crew will be more autonomous from ground mission control with delayed, and at times, no communication. They will have limited to no resupply for much longer mission durations. Systems to deliver and support extended human habitation at these destinations are extremely complex and unique, presenting new opportunities to employ HSI practices. In order to have an effective and affordable HSI implementation, both research and programmatic efforts are required. Currently, the HSI-related research at NASA is primarily in the area of space human factors and habitability. The purpose is to provide human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and update standards, requirements, and processes to verify and validate these requirements. In addition, HSI teams are actively engaged in technology development and demonstration efforts to influence the mission architecture and next-generation vehicle design. Finally, appropriate HSI references have been added to NASA' s systems engineering documentation, and an HSI Practitioner's Guide has been published to help design engineers consider HSI early and continuously in the acquisition process. These current and planned HSI-related activities at NASA will be discussed in this panel.

As NASA is planning to send humans deeper into space than ever before, adequate crew health and performance will be critical for mission success. Within the NASA Human Research Program (HRP), the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) team is responsible for characterizing the risks associated with human capabilities and limitations with respect to long-duration spaceflight, and for providing mitigations (e.g., guidelines, technologies, and tools) to promote safe, reliable and productive missions. SHFH research includes three domains: Advanced Environmental Health (AEH), Advanced Food Technology (AFT), and Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE). The AEH portfolio focuses on understanding the risk of microbial contamination of the spacecraft and on the development of standards for exposure to potential toxins such as chemicals, bacteria, fungus, and lunar/Martian dust. The two risks that the environmental health project focuses on are adverse health effects due to changes in host-microbe interactions, and risks associated with exposure to dust in planetary surface habitats. This portfolio also proposes countermeasures to these risks by making recommendations that relate to requirements for environmental quality, foods, and crew health on spacecraft and space missions. The AFT portfolio focuses on reducing the mass, volume, and waste of the entire integrated food system to be used in exploration missions, and investigating processing methods to extend the shelf life of food items up to five years, while assuring that exploration crews will have nutritious and palatable foods. The portfolio also delivers improvements in both the food itself and the technologies for storing and preparing it. SHFE sponsors research to establish human factors and habitability standards and guidelines in five risk areas, and provides improved design concepts for advanced crew interfaces and habitability systems. These risk areas include: Incompatible vehicle/habitat design, inadequate human-computer interaction, inadequate critical task design, inadequate human-automation/robotic interaction, and performance errors due to training deficiencies. To address the identified research gaps within each risk, SHFH's research plan includes studies in the laboratory, in analogs, and on International Space Station (ISS). In addition to establishing and maintaining the risk-based research portfolio, SHFH is also implementing a qualitative approach to determine how we at NASA evaluate human performance. Via interviews with experts, such as trainers, flight controllers, and flight surgeons, we are collecting the metrics by which they assess human performance, evidence of performance issues, and potential or actual consequences. The Human Performance Data Project will determine what human performance data have been collected in the past at NASA, and what data should be collected in the future in order to complete our knowledgebase and reduce risks related to human factors and habitability.

NASA-STD-3001 Space Flight Human-System Standard Volume 1, Crew Health, Volume 2, Human Factors, Habitability and Environmental Health, and the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH) have replaced the Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS), NASA-STD-3000. For decades, NASA-STD-3000 was a significant contribution to human spaceflight programs and to human-systems integration. However, with research program and project results being realized, advances in technology, and the availability of new information in a variety of topic areas, the time had arrived to update this extensive suite of standards and design information. NASA-STD-3001, Volume 2 contains the Agency level standards from the human and environmental factors disciplines that ensure human spaceflight operations are performed safely, efficiently, and effectively. The HIDH is organized in the same sequence and serves as the companion document to NASA-STD-3001, Volume 2, providing a compendium of human spaceflight history and knowledge. The HIDH is intended to aid interpretation of NASA-STD-3001, Volume 2 standards and to provide guidance for requirement writers and vehicle and habitat designers. Keywords Human Factors, Standards, Environmental Factors, NASA

Human Systems Integration seeks to design systems around the capabilities and limitations of the humans which use and interact with the system, ensuring greater efficiency of use, reduced error rates, and less rework in the design, manufacturing and operational deployment of hardware and software. One of the primary goals of HSI is to get the human factors practitioner involved early in the design process. In doing so, the aim is to reduce future budget costs and resources in redesign and training. By the preliminary design phase of a project nearly 80% of the total cost of the project is locked in. Potential design changes recommended by evaluations past this point will have little effect due to lack of funding or a huge cost in terms of resources to make changes. Three key concepts define an effective HSI program. First, systems are comprised of hardware, software, and the human, all of which operate within an environment. Too often, engineers and developers fail to consider the human capacity or requirements as part of the system. This leads to poor task allocation within the system. To promote ideal task allocation, it is critical that the human element be considered early in system development. Poor design, or designs that do not adequately consider the human component, could negatively affect physical or mental performance, as well as, social behavior. Second, successful HSI depends upon integration and collaboration of all the domains that represent acquisition efforts. Too often, these domains exist as independent disciplines due to the location of expertise within the service structure. Proper implementation of HSI through participation would help to integrate these domains and disciplines to leverage and apply their interdependencies to attain an optimal design. Via this process domain interests can be integrated to perform effective HSI through trade-offs and collaboration. This provides a common basis upon which to make knowledgeable decisions. Finally, HSI must be considered early in the requirements development phase of system design and acquisition. This will provide the best opportunity to maximize return on investment (ROI) and system performance. HSI requirements must be developed in conjunction with capability ]based requirements generation through functional. HSI requirements will drive HSI metrics and embed HSI issues within the system design. After a system is designed, implementation of HSI oversights can be very expensive. An HSI program should be included as an integral part of a total system approach to vehicle and habitat development. This would include, but not limited to, workstation design, D&C development, volumetric analysis, training, operations, and human -robotic interaction. HSI is a necessary process for Human Space Flight programs to meet the Agency Human ]System standards and thus mitigate human risks to acceptable levels. NASA has been involved in HSI planning, procedures development, process, and implementation for many years, and has been building several internal and publicly accessible products to facilitate HSI fs inclusion in the NASA Systems Engineering Lifecycle. Some of these products include: NASA STD 3001 Volumes 1 and 2, Human Integration Design Handbook, NASA HSI Implementation Plan, NASA HSI Implementation Plan Templates, NASA HSI Implementation Handbook, and a 2 ]hour short course on HSI delivered as part of the NASA Space and Life Sciences Directorate Academy. These products have been created leveraging industry best practices and lessons learned from other Federal Government agencies.

This slide presentation reviews the appropriate NASA standards and Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) standards for human rated spacecraft developed by commercial vendors. Included are the HMTA requirements for the Constellation Program (CxP)

Proper attention to the integration of the human needs in the vehicle displays and controls design process creates a safe and productive environment for crew. Although this integration is critical for all phases of flight, for crew interfaces that are used during dynamic phases (e.g., ascent and entry), the integration is particularly important because of demanding environmental conditions. This panel addresses the process of how human engineering involvement ensures that human-system integration occurs early in the design and development process and continues throughout the lifecycle of a vehicle. This process includes the development of requirements and quantitative metrics to measure design success, research on fundamental design questions, human-in-the-loop evaluations, and iterative design. Processes and results from research on displays and controls; the creation and validation of usability, workload, and consistency metrics; and the design and evaluation of crew interfaces for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle are used as case studies.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Constellation Program is responsible for planning and implementing those programs necessary to send human explorers back to the moon, onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system, and to support missions to the International Space Station. The Constellation Program has the technical management responsibility for all Constellation Projects, including both human rated and non-human rated vehicles such as the Crew Exploration Vehicle, EVA Systems, the Lunar Lander, Lunar Surface Systems, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets. With NASA s new Vision for Space Exploration to send humans beyond Earth orbit, it is critical to consider the human as a system that demands early and continuous user involvement, inclusion in trade offs and analyses, and an iterative "prototype/test/ redesign" process. Personnel at the NASA Johnson Space Center are involved in the Constellation Program at both the Program and Project levels as human system integrators. They ensure that the human is considered as a system, equal to hardware and software vehicle systems. Systems to deliver and support extended human habitation on the moon are extremely complex and unique, presenting new opportunities to employ Human Systems Integration, or HSI practices in the Constellation Program. The purpose of the paper is to show examples of where human systems integration work is successfully employed in the Constellation Program and related Projects, such as in the areas of habitation and early requirements and design concepts.

The development of a new space vehicle, the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), provides Human Factors engineers an excellent opportunity to have an impact early in the design process. This case study highlights a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) evaluation conducted in a Space Vehicle Mock-Up Facility and will describe the human-centered approach and how the findings are impacting design and operational concepts early in space vehicle design. The focus of this HITL evaluation centered on the activities that astronaut crewmembers would be expected to perform within the functional internal volume of the Crew Module (CM) of the space vehicle. The primary objective was to determine if there are aspects of a baseline vehicle configuration that would limit or prevent the performance of dynamically volume-driving activities (e.g. six crewmembers donning their suits in an evacuation scenario). A second objective was to step through concepts of operations for known systems and evaluate them in integrated scenarios. The functional volume for crewmember activities is closely tied to every aspect of system design (e.g. avionics, safety, stowage, seats, suits, and structural support placement). As this evaluation took place before the Preliminary Design Review of the space vehicle with some designs very early in the development, it was not meant to determine definitely that the crewmembers could complete every activity, but rather to provide inputs that could improve developing designs and concepts of operations definition refinement.

A viewgraph presentation on extravehicular activities in space exploration in collaboration with other NASA centers, industries, and universities is shown. The topics include: 1) Concept of Operations for Future EVA activities; 2) Desert Research and Technology Studies (RATS); 3) Advanced EVA Walkback Test; 4) Walkback Subjective Results; 5) Integrated Suit Test 1; 6) Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS); 7) Flex PLSS Design Process; and 8) EVA Information System; 9)

NASA s Space Exploration vision for humans to venture to the moon and beyond provides interesting human factors opportunities and challenges. The Human Engineering group at NASA has been involved in the initial phases of development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Orion. Getting involved at the ground level, Human Factors engineers are beginning to influence design; this involvement is expected to continue throughout the development lifecycle. The information presented here describes what has been done to date, what is currently going on, and what is expected in the future. During Phase 1, prior to the contract award to Lockheed Martin, the Human Engineering group was involved in generating requirements, conducting preliminary task analyses based on interviews with subject matter experts in all vehicle systems areas, and developing preliminary concepts of operations based on the task analysis results. In addition, some early evaluations to look at CEV net habitable volume were also conducted. The program is currently in Phase 2, which is broken down into design cycles, including System Readiness Review, Preliminary Design Review, and Critical Design Review. Currently, there are ongoing Human Engineering Technical Interchange Meetings being held with both NASA and Lockheed Martin in order to establish processes, desired products, and schedules. Multiple design trades and quick-look evaluations (e.g. display device layout and external window size) are also in progress. Future Human Engineering activities include requirement verification assessments and crew/stakeholder evaluations of increasing fidelity. During actual flights of the CEV, the Human Engineering group is expected to be involved in in-situ testing and lessons learned reporting, in order to benefit human space flight beyond the initial CEV program.

The Respiratory Support Pack (RSP) is a medical pack onboard the International Space Station (ISS) that contains much of the necessary equipment for providing aid to a conscious or unconscious crewmember in respiratory distress. Inside the RSP lid pocket is a 5.5 by 11 inch paper procedural cue card, which is used by a Crew Medical Officer (CMO) to set up the equipment and deliver oxygen to a crewmember. In training, crewmembers expressed concerns about the readability and usability of the cue card; consequently, updating the cue card was prioritized as an activity to be completed. The Usability Testing and Analysis Facility at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) evaluated the original layout of the cue card, and proposed several new cue card designs based on human factors principles. The approach taken for the assessment was an iterative process. First, in order to completely understand the issues with the RSP cue card, crewmember post training comments regarding the RSP cue card were taken into consideration. Over the course of the iterative process, the procedural information was reorganized into a linear flow after the removal of irrelevant (non-emergency) content. Pictures, color coding, and borders were added to highlight key components in the RSP to aid in quickly identifying those components. There were minimal changes to the actual text content. Three studies were conducted using non-medically trained JSC personnel (total of 34 participants). Non-medically trained personnel participated in order to approximate a scenario of limited CMO exposure to the RSP equipment and training (which can occur six months prior to the mission). In each study, participants were asked to perform two respiratory distress scenarios using one of the cue card designs to simulate resuscitation (using a mannequin along with the hardware). Procedure completion time, errors, and subjective ratings were recorded. The last iteration of the cue card featured a schematic of the RSP, colors, borders, and simplification of the flow of information. The time to complete the RSP procedure was reduced by approximately three minutes with the new design. In an emergency situation, three minutes significantly increases the probability of saving a life. In addition, participants showed the highest preference for this design. The results of the studies and the new design were presented to a focus group of astronauts, flight surgeons, medical trainers, and procedures personnel. The final cue card was presented to a medical control board and approved for flight. The revised RSP cue card is currently onboard ISS.

With NASA's new Vision for Exploration to send humans beyond Earth orbit, it is critical to consider the human as a system that demands early and continuous user involvement, and an iterative prototype/test/redesign process. Addressing human-system interface issues early on can be very cost effective even cost reducing when performed early in the design and development cycle. To achieve this goal within Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Project Office, human engineering (HE) team is formed. Key tasks are to apply HE requirements and guidelines to hardware/software, and provide HE design, analysis and evaluation of crew interfaces. Initial activities included many practice-orientated evaluations using low-fidelity CEV mock-ups. What follows is a description of such evaluations that focused on a HE requirement regarding Net Habitable Volume (NHV). NHV is defined as the total remaining pressurized volume available to on-orbit crew after accounting for the loss of volume due to deployed hardware and structural inefficiencies which decrease functional volume. The goal of the NHV evaluations was to develop requirements providing sufficient CEV NHV for crewmembers to live and perform tasks in support of mission goals. Efforts included development of a standard NHV calculation method using computer models and physical mockups, and crew/ stakeholder evaluations. Nine stakeholders and ten crewmembers participated in the unsuited evaluations. Six crewmembers also participated in a suited evaluation. The mock-up was outfitted with volumetric representation of sub-systems such as seats, and stowage bags. Thirteen scenarios were developed to represent mission/crew tasks and considered to be primary volume drivers (e.g., suit donning) for the CEV. Unsuited evaluations included a structured walkthrough of these tasks. Suited evaluations included timed donning of the existing launch and entry suit to simulate a contingency scenario followed by doffing/ stowing of the suits. All mockup evaluations were videotaped. Structured questionnaires were used to document user interface issues and volume impacts of layout configuration. Computer model and physical measures of the NHV agreed within 1 percent. This included measurement of the gross habitable volume, subtraction of intrusive volumes, and other non-habitable spaces. Calculation method developed was validated as a standard means of measuring NHV, and was recommended as a verification method for the NHV requirements. Evaluations confirmed that there was adequate volume for unsuited scenarios and suit donning/ doffing activity. Seats, suit design stowage and waste hygiene system noted to be critical volume drivers. The low-fidelity mock-up evaluations along with human modeling analysis generated discussions that will lead to high-level systems requirements and human-centered design decisions. This approach allowed HE requirements and operational concepts to evolve in parallel with engineering system concepts and design requirements. As the CEV design matures, these evaluations will continue and help with design decisions, and assessment, verification and validation of HE requirements.

With permanent human presence onboard the International Space Station (ISS), crews will be living and working in microgravity, dealing with the challenges of a weightless environment. In addition, the confined nature of the spacecraft environment results in ergonomic challenges such as limited visibility and access to the activity areas, as well as prolonged periods of unnatural postures. Without optimum restraints, crewmembers may be handicapped for performing some of the on-orbit tasks. Currently, many of the tasks on ISS are performed with the crew restrained merely by hooking their arms or toes around handrails to steady themselves. This is adequate for some tasks, but not all. There have been some reports of discomfort/calluses on the top of the toes. In addition, this type of restraint is simply insufficient for tasks that require a large degree of stability. Glovebox design is a good example of a confined workstation concept requiring stability for successful use. They are widely used in industry, university, and government laboratories, as well as in the space environment, and are known to cause postural limitations and visual restrictions. Although there are numerous guidelines pertaining to ventilation, seals, and glove attachment, most of the data have been gathered in a 1-g environment, or are from studies that were conducted prior to the early 1980 s. Little is known about how best to restrain a crewmember using a glovebox in microgravity. Another ISS task that requires special consideration with respect to restraints is robotic teleoperation. The Robot Systems Technology Branch at the NASA Johnson Space Center is developing a humanoid robot astronaut, or Robonaut. It is being designed to perform extravehicular activities (EVAs) in the hazardous environment of space. An astronaut located inside the ISS will remotely operate Robonaut through a telepresence control system. Essentially, the robot mimics every move the operator makes. This requires the operator to be stable enough to prevent inadvertent movements, while allowing the flexibility to accomplish the controlled movements of the robot. Some type of special purpose restraint will be required to operate Robonaut and similar devices.

Within the scope of the Multi-purpose Crew Restraints for Long Duration Spaceflights project, funded by Code U, it was proposed to conduct a series of evaluations on the ground and on the KC-135 to investigate the human factors issues concerning confined/unique workstations, such as the design of crew restraints. The usability of multiple crew restraints was evaluated for use with the Life Sciences Glovebox (LSG) and for performing general purpose tasks. The purpose of the KC-135 microgravity evaluation was to: (1) to investigate the usability and effectiveness of the concepts developed, (2) to gather recommendations for further development of the concepts, and (3) to verify the validity of the existing requirements. Some designs had already been tested during a March KC-135 evaluation, and testing revealed the need for modifications/enhancements. This flight was designed to test the new iterations, as well as some new concepts. This flight also involved higher fidelity tasks in the LSG, and the addition of load cells on the gloveports.

The Respiratory Support Pack (RSP) is a medical pack onboard the International Space Station (ISS) that contains much of the necessary equipment for providing aid to a conscious or unconscious crewmember in respiratory distress. Inside the RSP lid pocket is a 5.5 by 11 inch paper cue card, which is used by a Crew Medical Officer as the procedure to set up the equipment and deliver oxygen to a crewmember. In training, crewmembers expressed concerns about the readability and usability of the cue card; consequently, updating the cue card was prioritized as an activity to be completed prior to Space Shuttle return-to-flight. The Usability Testing and Analysis Facility at the Johnson Space Center evaluated the current layout of the cue card, and proposed several new cue card designs based on human factors principals. A series of three studies were performed in order to experimentally compare performance with each of the cue card designs. Nonmedically trained personnel used either a redesigned RSP cue card, or the original card to simulate resuscitation (using a mannequin along with the hardware). Time to completion, errors and subjective ratings were recorded. The addition of pictures, colors, borders, and simplification of the flow of information (making minimal changes to the actual procedure content) elicited great benefits during testing. Time to complete RSP procedures was reduced by as much as three minutes with the final cue card design. Detailed results from these studies, as well as general guidelines for cue card design will be discussed.

The Usability Testing and Analysis Facility (UTAF) is part of the Space Human Factors Laboratory at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The facility performs research for NASA's HumanSystems Integration Program, under the HumanSystems Research and Technology Division. Specifically, the UTAF provides human factors support for space vehicles, including the International Space Station, the Space Shuttle, and the forthcoming Crew Exploration Vehicle. In addition, there are ongoing collaborative research efforts with external corporations and universities. The UTAF provides human factors analysis, evaluation, and usability testing of crew interfaces for space applications. This includes computer displays and controls, workstation systems, and work environments. The UTAF has a unique mix of capabilities, with a staff experienced in both cognitive human factors and ergonomics. The current areas of focus are: human factors applications in emergency medical care and informatics; control and display technologies for electronic procedures and instructions; voice recognition in noisy environments; crew restraint design for unique microgravity workstations; and refinement of human factors processes and requirements. This presentation will provide an overview of ongoing activities, and will address how the UTAF projects will evolve to meet new space initiatives.

With the advent of the ISS and the experience of Russian, European, and US crewmembers on Mir, the importance of the psychological element in long duration missions is increasingly recognized. An integrated imagery system or Magic Window System could enhance the habitability, performance, and productivity for long term stays in space. Because this is type of system is a new concept for space, functional and technical requirements need to be determined. As part of a three-year project, the functional and technical requirements for an Imagery System onboard the International Space Station (ISS) have been explored. Valuable information was gathered from a survey completed by participants that had been in analog environments (remote/isolated) such as Antarctica, Aquarius, ISS crewmember debriefs, and crew support meetings to identify key functions desired for an integrated Magic Window System. Exercise and medical care activities were identified as areas that could benefit from such a system. It was determined that for exercise, it was worth exploring the concept of displaying a dynamic screen that changes as the crewmember's speed changes while showing physiological measures in a combined display. In terms of enhancing the interfaces for medical care activities, the Magic Window System could show video clips along side procedures for just-in-time training scenarios through a heads-up display. In addition, the portability, usability, and reliability were stressed as important considerations for an integrated system of technologies or Magic Window System. In addition, a review of state-of-the-art screens and other existing technologies such as tablet PCs and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) was conducted and contributed to defining technical requirements and feasibility of systems. Some heuristic evaluations of large displays and PDAs were conducted. Finally, feasibility for implementation onboard ISS has been considered. Currently, specific headset units are undergoing usability testing. The outcome of these activities will be valuable to determine the best candidates for an integrated system that could accommodate different needs depending on task.

Habitability, and the associated architectural and design attributes of an environment, is a powerful performance shaping factor. By identifying how inhabitants use an area, we can draw conclusions about what design or architectural attributes cause what behaviors and systematically design in desired human performance. We are analyzing how a crew uses a long duration habitat and work environment during a four-day underwater mission and identifying certain architectural and design attributes that are related to, and potential enablers of, certain crew behaviors. By identifying how inhabitants use the habitat, we can draw conclusions about what habitability attributes cause what behaviors and systematically design in desired human performance (applicable to NASA's Bioastronautics Human Behavior and Performance Critical Path Roadmap question 6.12). This assessment replicates a methodology reported in a chapter titled "Sociokinetic Analysis as a Tool for Optimization of Environmental Design" by C. Adams.' That study collected video imagery of certain areas of a closed habitat during a 91 day test and from that data calculated time spent in different volumes during the mission, and characterized the behaviors occurring in certain habitat volumes thus concluding various rules for design of such habitats. This study assesses the utilization of the Aquarius Habitat, an underwater station, which will support six Aquanauts for a fourteen-day mission during which the crew will perform specific scientific and engineering studies. Video is recorded for long uninterrupted periods of time during the mission and from that data the time spent in each area is calculated. In addition, qualitative and descriptive analysis of the types of behaviors in each area is performed with the purpose of identifying any behaviors that are not typical of a certain area. If a participant uses an area in a way different from expected, a subsequent analysis of the features of that area may result in conclusions of performance shaping factors. With the addition of this study, we can make comparisons between the two different habitats and begin drawing correlation judgments about design features and behavior. Ideally, this methodology should be repeated in additional Aquarius missions and other analog environments because the real information will come from comparisons between habitats.

With permanent human presence onboard the International Space Station (ISS), a crew will be living and working in microgravity, interfacing with their physical environment. Without optimum restraints and mobility aids (R&MA' s), the crewmembers may be handicapped for perfonning some of the on-orbit tasks. In addition to weightlessness, the confined nature of a spacecraft environment results in ergonomic challenges such as limited visibility and access to the activity area and may cause prolonged periods of unnatural postures. Thus, determining the right set of human factors requirements and providing an ergonomically designed environment are crucial to astronauts' well-being and productivity. The purpose of this project is to develop requirements and guidelines, and conceptual designs, for an ergonomically designed multi-purpose crew restraint. In order to achieve this goal, the project would involve development of functional and human factors requirements, design concept prototype development, analytical and computer modeling evaluations of concepts, two sets of micro gravity evaluations and preparation of an implementation plan. It is anticipated that developing functional and design requirements for a multi-purpose restraint would facilitate development of ergonomically designed restraints to accommodate the off-nominal but repetitive tasks, and minimize the performance degradation due to lack of optimum setup for onboard task performance. In addition, development of an ergonomically designed restraint concept prototype would allow verification and validation of the requirements defined. To date, we have identified "unique" tasks and areas of need, determine characteristics of "ideal" restraints, and solicit ideas for restraint and mobility aid concepts. Focus group meetings with representatives from training, safety, crew, human factors, engineering, payload developers, and analog environment representatives were key to assist in the development of a restraint concept based on previous flight experiences, the needs of future tasks, and crewmembers' preferences. Also, a catalog with existing IVA/EVA restraint and mobility aids has been developed. Other efforts included the ISS crew debrief data on restraints, compilation of data from MIR, Skylab and ISS on restraints, and investigating possibility of an in-flight evaluation of current restraint systems. Preliminary restraint concepts were developed and presented to long duration crewmembers and focus groups for feedback. Currently, a selection criterion is being refined for prioritizing the candidate concepts. Next steps include analytical and computer modeling evaluations of the selected candidate concepts, prototype development, and microgravity evaluations.

With permanent human presence onboard the International Space Station (ISS), and long duration space missions being planned for the moon and Mars, humans will be living and working in microgravity over increasingly long periods of time. In addition to weightlessness, the confined nature of a spacecraft environment results in ergonomic challenges such as limited visibility, and access to the activity area. These challenges can result in prolonged periods of unnatural postures for the crew, ultimately causing pain, injury, and loss of productivity. Determining the right set of human factors requirements and providing an ergonomically designed environment is crucial to mission success. While a number of general purpose restraints have been used on ISS (handrails, foot loops), experience has shown that these general purpose restraints may not be optimal, or even acceptable for some tasks that have unique requirements. For example, some onboard activities require extreme stability (e.g., glovebox microsurgery), and others involve the use of arm, torso and foot movements in order to perform the task (e-g. robotic teleoperation); standard restraint systems will not work in these situations. The Usability Testing and Analysis Facility (WAF) at the NASA Johnson Space Center began evaluations of crew restraints for these special situations by looking at NASAs Robonaut. Developed by the Robot Systems Technology Branch, Robonaut is a humanoid robot that can be remotely operated through a tetepresence control system by an operator. It was designed to perform work in hazardous environments (e.g., Extra Vehicular Activities). A Robonaut restraint was designed, modeled for the population, and ultimately tested onboard the KC-135 microgravity aircraft. While in microgravity, participants were asked to get in and out of the restraint from different locations, perform maximum reach exercises, and finally to teleoperate Robonaut while in the restraint. The sessions were videotaped, and participants completed a questionnaire at the end of each flight day. Results from this evaluation are being used to develop the human factors design requirements for teleoperation tasks in microgravity.

Emergency medical capabilities aboard the ISS include a Crew Medical Officer (CMO) (not necessarily a physician), and back-up, resuscitation equipment, and a medical checklist. It is essential that CMOs have reliable, usable and informative medical protocols that can be carried out independently in flight. The study evaluates the existing ISS Medical Checklist layout against a checklist updated to reflect a human factors approach to structure and organization. Method: The ISS Medical checklist was divided into non-emergency and emergency sections, and re-organized based on alphabetical and a body systems approach. A desk-top evaluation examined the ability of subjects to navigate to specific medical problems identified as representative of likely non-emergency events. A second evaluation aims to focus on the emergency section of the Medical Checklist, based on the preliminary findings of the first. The final evaluation will use Astronaut CMOs as subjects comparing the original checklist against the updated layout in the task of caring for a "downed crewmember" using a Human Patient Simulator [Medical Education Technologies, Inc.]. Results: Initial results have demonstrated a clear improvement of the re-organized sections to determine the solution to the medical problems. There was no distinct advantage for either alternative, although subjects stated having a preference for the body systems approach. In the second evaluation, subjects will be asked to identify emergency medical conditions, with measures including correct diagnosis, time to completion and solution strategy. The third evaluation will compare the original and fully updated checklists in clinical situations. Conclusions: Initial findings indicate that the ISS Medical Checklist will benefit from a reorganization. The present structure of the checklist has evolved over recent years without systematic testing of crewmember ability to diagnose medical problems. The improvements are expected to enable ISS Crewmembers to more speedily and accurately respond to medical situations on the ISS.

Research has shown that the space environment induces physiological changes in the human body, such as fluid shifts in the upper body and chest cavity, spinal lengthening, muscular atrophy, space motion sickness, cardiopulmonary deconditioning, and bone mass loss, as well as some changes in visual perception. These require a period of adaptation and can substantially affect both crew member performance and posture. These physiological effects, when work activities are conducted, have been known to impact the body's center of gravity, reach, flexibility, and dexterity. All these aspects of posture must be considered to safely and efficiently design space systems and hardware. NASA has documented its microgravity body posture in the Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS); the space community uses the MSIS posture to design workstations and tools for space application. However, the microgravity body posture should be further investigated for several reasons, including small sample size in previous studies, possible imprecision, and lack of detail. JSC undertook this study to investigate human body posture exhibited under microgravity conditions. STS-57 crew members were instructed to assume a relaxed posture that was not oriented to any work area or task. Crew members were asked to don shorts and tank tops and to be blindfolded while data were recorded. Video data were acquired once during the mission from each of the six crew members. No one crew member exhibited the typical NBP called out in the MSIS; one composite posture is not adequate. A range of postures may be more constructive for design purposes. Future evaluations should define precise posture requirements for workstation, glove box, maintenance, foot-restraint, and handhold activities.

The purposes of this panel are to inform the human factors community regarding the challenges of designing the International Space Station (ISS) and to stimulate the broader human factors community into participating in the various basic and applied research opportunities associated with the ISS. This panel describes the variety of techniques used to plan and evaluate human factors for living and working in space. The panel members have contributed to many different aspects of the ISS design and operations. Architecture, equipment, and human physical performance requirements for various tasks have all been tailored to the requirements of operating in microgravity.

Within the scope of the Microgravity Workstation and Restraint Evaluation project, funded by the NASA Headquarters Life Sciences Division, evaluations were proposed to be conducted in ground, KC-135, and/or Shuttle environments to investigate the human factors engineering (HFE) issues concerning confined/unique workstations, including crew restraint requirements. As part of these evaluations, KC-135 flights were conducted to investigate user/ workstation/ restraint integration for microgravity use of the FRED with the RMS workstation. This evaluation was a pre-cursor to Detailed Supplementary Objective (DSO) - 904 on STS-88. On that mission, a small-statured astronaut will be using the FRED restraint while working at the Aft RMS workstation. The DSO will collect video for later posture analyses, as well as subjective data in the form of an electronic questionnaire. This report describes the current FRED KC-135 evaluations. The primary objectives were to evaluate the usability of the FRED and to verify the DSO in-flight setup. The restraint interface evaluation consisted of four basic areas of restraint use: 1) adjustability; 2) general usability and comfort; 3) usability at the RMS workstation; and 4) assembly and disassembly.

The International Space Station (ISS) will provide long-term missions which will enable the astronauts to live and work, as well as, conduct research in a microgravity environment. The dominant factor in space affecting the crew is "weightlessness" which creates a challenge for establishing workstation microgravity design requirements. The crewmembers will work at various workstations such as Human Research Facility (HRF), Microgravity Sciences Glovebox (MSG) and Life Sciences Glovebox (LSG). Since the crew will spend considerable amount of time at these workstations, it is critical that ergonomic design requirements are integral part of design and development effort. In order to achieve this goal, the Space Human Factors Laboratory in the Johnson Space Center Flight Crew Support Division has been tasked to conduct integrated evaluations of workstations and associated crew restraints. Thus, a two-phase approach was used: 1) ground and microgravity evaluations of the physical dimensions and layout of the workstation components, and 2) human modeling analyses of the user interface. Computer-based human modeling evaluations were an important part of the approach throughout the design and development process. Human modeling during the conceptual design phase included crew reach and accessibility of individual equipment, as well as, crew restraint needs. During later design phases, human modeling has been used in conjunction with ground reviews and microgravity evaluations of the mock-ups in order to verify the human factors requirements. (Specific examples will be discussed.) This two-phase approach was the most efficient method to determine ergonomic design characteristics for workstations and restraints. The real-time evaluations provided a hands-on implementation in a microgravity environment. On the other hand, only a limited number of participants could be tested. The human modeling evaluations provided a more detailed analysis of the setup. The issues identified during the real-time testing were investigated in the human modeling analyses. In some cases, the opposite was true where preliminary human modeling analyses provided the design engineers with critical issues that needed to be addressed further. This extensive approach provided an effective means to fully address ergonomic design considerations and accurately identify critical issues.

Advanced technology and the desire to explore space have resulted in increasingly longer manned space missions. Long Duration Space Flights (LDSF) have provided a considerable amount of scientific research on the ability of humans to adapt and function in microgravity environments. In addition, studies conducted in analogous environments, such as winter-over expeditions in Antarctica, have complemented the scientific understanding of human performance in LDSF. These findings indicate long duration missions may take a toll on the individual, both physiologically and psychologically, with potential impacts on performance. Significant factors in any manned LDSF are habitability, workload and performance. They are interrelated and influence one another, and therefore necessitate an integrated research approach. An integral part of this approach will be identifying and developing tools not only for assessment of habitability, workload, and performance, but also for prediction of these factors as well. In addition, these tools will be used to identify and provide countermeasures to minimize decrements and maximize mission success. The purpose of this paper is to identify research goals and methods for the International Space Station (ISS) in order to identify critical factors and level of impact on habitability, workload, and performance, and to develop and validate countermeasures. Overall, this approach will provide the groundwork for creating an optimal environment in which to live and work onboard ISS as well as preparing for longer planetary missions.

Advancing technology, coupled with the desire to explore space has resulted in increasingly longer manned space missions. Although the Long Duration Space Flights (LDSF) have provided a considerable amount of scientific research on human ability to function in extreme environments, findings indicate long duration missions take a toll on the individual, both physiologically and psychologically. These physiological and psychological issues manifest themselves in performance decrements; and could lead to serious errors endangering the mission, spacecraft and crew. The purpose of this paper is to document existing knowledge of the effects of LDSF on performance, habitability, and workload and to identify and assess potential tools designed to address these decrements as well as propose an implementation plan to address the habitability, performance and workload issues.

The Usability Testing and Analysis Facility (UTAF) at the NASA Johnson Space Center has identified and evaluated a potential automated software interface inspection tool capable of assessing the degree to which space-related critical and high-risk software system user interfaces meet objective human factors standards across each NASA program and project. Testing consisted of two distinct phases. Phase 1 compared analysis times and similarity of results for the automated tool and for human-computer interface (HCI) experts. In Phase 2, HCI experts critiqued the prototype tool's user interface. Based on this evaluation, it appears that a more fully developed version of the tool will be a promising complement to a human factors-oriented independent verification and validation (IV&V) process.

Various gloveboxes (GBXs) have been used aboard the Shuttle and ISS. Though the overall technical specifications are similar, each GBX's crew interface is unique. JSC conducted a series of ergonomic evaluations of the various glovebox designs to identify human factors requirements for new designs to provide operator commonality across different designs. We conducted 2 0g evaluations aboard the Shuttle to evaluate the material sciences GBX and the General Purpose Workstation (GPWS), and a KC-135 evaluation to compare combinations of arm hole interfaces and foot restraints (flexible arm holes were better than rigid ports for repetitive fine manipulation tasks). Posture analysis revealed that the smallest and tallest subjects assumed similar postures at all four configurations, suggesting that problematic postures are not necessarily a function of the operator s height but a function of the task characteristics. There was concern that the subjects were using the restrictive nature of the GBX s cuffs as an upper-body restraint to achieve such high forces, which might lead to neck/shoulder discomfort. EMG data revealed more consistent muscle performance at the GBX; the variability in the EMG profiles observed at the GPWS was attributed to the subjects attempts to provide more stabilization for themselves in the loose, flexible gauntlets. Tests revealed that the GBX should be designed for a 95 percentile American male to accommodate a neutral working posture. In addition, the foot restraint with knee support appeared beneficial for GBX operations. Crew comments were to provide 2 foot restraint mechanical modes, loose and lock-down, to accommodate a wide range of tasks without egressing the restraint system. Thus far, we have developed preliminary design guidelines for GBXs and foot.

The Apple(R) Newton(TM) MessagePad 110 was flown aboard the KC-135 reduced gravity aircraft for microgravity usability testing. The Newton served as the initial hand-held electronic logbook prototype for the International Space Station (ISS) Human Research Facility (HRF). Subjects performed three different tasks with the Newton: (1) using the stylus to tap on different sections of the screen in order to launch an application and to select options within it; (2) using the stylus to write, and; (3) correcting handwriting recognition errors in a handwriting-intensive application. Subjects rated handwriting in microgravity 'Borderline' and had great difficulties finding a way in which to adequately restrain themselves at the lower body in order to have their hands free for the Newton. Handwriting recognition was rated 'Unacceptable,' but this issue is hardware-related and not unique to the microgravity environment. It is suggested that the restraint and handwriting issues are related and require further joint research with the current Handheld Electronic Logbook prototype: the Norand Pen*key Model #6300.

SpaceHab-1 (STS-57) was the first of six scheduled Commercial Middeck Augmentation Module (CMAM) missions seeking to offer entrepreneurial companies an opportunity to use the resource of microgravity. The SpaceHab module, which occupies about one-fourth of the payload bay, is approximately 2-3/4 meters (9 feet) long and 4 meters (13.5 feet) in diameter. It provides a shirt-sleeve working environment and contains the storage space equivalent of 50 middeck lockers, considerably over and above the number of experiments that can be carried in the orbiter middeck alone. A modified Spacelab tunnel links the SpaceHab module to the middeck. While in orbit, the orbiter payload bay doors remain open, exposing the padded exterior of the lab and tunnel to space until preparation for reentry at the end of the flight. The crew for SpaceHab-1 was comprised of four males and two females, each of whom participated in some part of the human factors assessment (HFA) evaluation. The HFA was one of over twenty experiments manifested on this maiden flight of the SpaceHab module. HFA consisted of HFA-EPROC, HFA-LIGHT, HFA-SOUND, HFA-QUEST, and HFA-TRANS. The goal of HFA-EPROC was to assess the advantages and disadvantages of paper versus computer presentation for procedural tasks. The next two evaluations investigated the module's lighting and acoustic environment. HFA-TRANS sought to evaluate the design of the SpaceHab tunnel and to characterize translation through it. HFA-QUEST represented a consolidation of the in-flight questions generated by the HFA principal investigators involved in the acoustic, lighting, and translation studies.

In a work environment, it is important to identify and quantify the relationship among work activities, working posture, and workplace design. Working posture may impact the physical comfort and well-being of individuals, as well as performance. The Posture Video Analysis Tool (PVAT) is an interactive menu and button driven software prototype written in Supercard (trademark). Human Factors analysts are provided with a predefined set of options typically associated with postural assessments and human performance issues. Once options have been selected, the program is used to evaluate working posture and dynamic tasks from video footage. PVAT has been used to evaluate postures from Orbiter missions, as well as from experimental testing of prototype glove box designs. PVAT can be used for video analysis in a number of industries, with little or no modification. It can contribute to various aspects of workplace design such as training, task allocations, procedural analyses, and hardware usability evaluations. The major advantage of the video analysis approach is the ability to gather data, non-intrusively, in restricted-access environments, such as emergency and operation rooms, contaminated areas, and control rooms. Video analysis also provides the opportunity to conduct preliminary evaluations of existing work areas.

The methods and results of an evaluation of the Voice Navigator software package are discussed. The first phase or ground phase of the study consisted of creating, or training, computer voice files of specific commands. This consisted of repeating each of six commands eight times. The files were then tested for recognition accuracy by the software aboard the microgravity aircraft. During the second phase, both voice training and testing were performed in microgravity. Inflight training was done due to problems encountered in phase one which were believed to be caused by ambient noise levels. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Only one of the commands was found to offer consistently high recognition rates across subjects during the second phase.

Measuring human performance in a microgravity environment will aid in identifying the design requirements, human capabilities, safety, and productivity of future astronauts. The preliminary understanding of the microgravity effects on human performance can be achieved through evaluations conducted onboard NASA's KC-135 aircraft. These evaluations can be performed in relation to hardware performance, human-hardware interface, and hardware integration. Measuring human performance in the KC-135 simulated environment will contribute to the efforts of optimizing the human-machine interfaces for future and existing space vehicles. However, there are limitations, such as limited number of qualified subjects, unexpected hardware problems, and miscellaneous plane movements which must be taken into consideration. Examples for these evaluations, the results, and their implications are discussed in the paper.

Microgravity evaluations of workstation hardware as well as its system components were found to be very useful for determining the expected needs of the Space Station crew and for refining overall workstation design. Research at the Johnson Space Center has been carried out to provide optimal workstation design and human interface. The research included evaluations of hand controller configurations for robots and free flyers, the identification of cursor control device requirements, and the examination of anthropometric issues of workstation design such as reach, viewing distance, and head clearance.