Apollo looking forward: Crew task challenges

Major, Laura; Brady, Tye; Paschall, Stephen

doi:10.1109/aero.2009.4839353

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This period of auto-flight provided two benefits: 1) it allowed the pilots to prepare for the next phase (manual flight); and, 2) it was representative of an operational profile, where the auto-flight system will fly to a certain altitude, but the crew will take-over manually for the final landing. This procedure was done for all Apollo flights [27] and will likely occur for other crewed missions. An additional motivation is that this auto-flight period might be representative of a re-designation period where the crew might be evaluating real-time sensor data and navigation systems data to decide if the planned landing zone is safe and appropriate or if a landing zone re-designation is necessary [29].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As NASA looked to return to the lunar surface, the design issues and lessons-learned of Apollo were closely studied as they are still relevant today for practical planetary and lunar lander vehicle designs and missions [22][23][24][25][26][27]. From this baseline, additional challenges for the vehicle design were levied to improve the scientific return for manned lunar missions.…”

Section: Lunar Lander Handling Qualities Design Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Automated landing of Apollo was possible, but all landings were manually flown with the crew taking over control between 550 and 240 ft above the touchdown zone elevation [26]. After Apollo 11, each crew performed at least 1, and as many as 18, landing zone re-designations during the pitch-up phase [27].…”

Section: Lunar Lander Handling Qualities Design Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Handling qualities implications for crewed spacecraft operations

Bailey

Jackson

Arthur

2012

2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Handling qualities embody those qualities or characteristics of an aircraft that govern the ease and precision with which a pilot is able to perform the tasks required in support of an aircraft role. These same qualities are as critical, if not more so, in the operation of spacecraft.A research, development, test, and evaluation process was put into effect to identify, understand, and interpret the engineering and human factors principles which govern the pilot-vehicle dynamic system as they pertain to space exploration missions and tasks. Toward this objective, piloted simulations were conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center and Ames Research Center for earth-orbit proximity operations and docking and lunar landing.These works provide broad guidelines for the design of spacecraft to exhibit excellent handling characteristics. In particular, this work demonstrates how handling qualities include much more than just stability and control characteristics of a spacecraft or aircraft. Handling qualities are affected by all aspects of the "pilot-vehicle dynamic system," including the motion, visual and aural cues of the vehicle response as the pilot performs the required operation or task. A holistic approach to spacecraft design, including the use of manual control, automatic control, and pilot intervention/supervision is described. The handling qualities implications of design decisions are demonstrated using these pilot-in-the-loop evaluations of docking operations and lunar landings.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lunar Lander Handling Qualities Design Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lunar Lander Handling Qualities Design Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Handling qualities implications for crewed spacecraft operations

Bailey

Jackson

Arthur

2012

2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This period of auto-flight provided two benefits: 1) it allowed the pilots to prepare for the manual flight phase; and, 2) it was representative of an operational profile, where the auto-flight system would fly to a certain altitude, but the crew will take-over manually for the final landing. This procedure was done for all Apollo flights 22 and will likely occur for other crewed missions. An additional motivation is that this auto-flight period might be representative of a "re-designation" period where the crew might be evaluating real-time sensor data and navigation systems data to decide if the planned landing zone is safe and appropriate, or if a landing zone re-designation is necessary.…”

Section: Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Part-task simulation of synthetic and enhanced vision concepts for lunar landing

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During Apollo, the constraints placed by the design of the Lunar Module (LM) window for crew visibility and landing trajectory were "a major problem." Lunar landing trajectories were tailored to provide crew visibility using nearly 70 degrees look-down angle from the canted LM windows. Apollo landings were scheduled only at specific times and locations to provide optimal sunlight on the landing site.The complications of trajectory design and crew visibility are still a problem today. Practical vehicle designs for lunar lander missions using optimal or near-optimal fuel trajectories render the natural vision of the crew from windows inadequate for the approach and landing task. Further, the sun angles for the desirable landing areas in the lunar polar regions create visually powerful, season-long shadow effects. Fortunately, Synthetic and Enhanced Vision (S/EV) technologies, conceived and developed in the aviation domain, may provide solutions to this visibility problem and enable additional benefits for safer, more efficient lunar operations. Piloted simulation evaluations have been conducted to assess the handling qualities of the various lunar landing concepts, including the influence of cockpit displays and the informational data and formats. Evaluation pilots flew various landing scenarios with S/EV displays. For some of the evaluation trials, an eye glasses-mounted, monochrome monocular display, coupled with head tracking, was worn. The head-worn display scene consisted of S/EV fusion concepts.The results of this experiment showed that a head-worn system did not increase the pilot's workload when compared to using just the head-down displays. As expected, the head-worn system did not provide an increase in performance measures. Some pilots commented that the head-worn system provided greater situational awareness compared to just head-down displays.

show abstract