Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 20051
Space Mission Output Optimization: Considering
The Human Side of Human-Machine Interaction
in Space
Introduction
For the past four centuries, our knowledge of the science of locomotion and its
applications has grown at an exponential rate. From the automobile conceptualized as
early as 1769 by Cugnot in France to the Wright Brothers who created the first enginepowered airplane in 1903, human civilization has been able to traverse long distances and
make of the world what we refer to nowadays as the “Global Village”. As it is human
nature to conquer as much territory as possible, the next challenge after these
revolutionary inventions was the design of machines that would take us into the unknown
and fascinating realm of Space. As with the previous scientific endeavors, much success
has been attained with space exploration. With brilliant rocket scientists such as Dr.
Goddard at Clark University who invented the first liquid fuel rocket in 1926, significant
progress in the study of extraterrestrial bodies was made, as illustrated by the successful
Apollo 11 mission that landed on the Moon on July 20th of 1969. Another triumph of
space technology is the Hubble Telescope that has been orbiting the Earth for 15 years,
has taken more than 700,000 (Hubblesite.org) pictures of the cosmos, and has very much
enriched our knowledge about nebulae and clusters that are millions of kilometers away
from us.
This rapid and exciting development of space technology did not come without
several disasters that indicate the great degree of uncertainty under which technology and
1
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 20052
humans operate once they leave Earth. The most recent accident occurred on February
2nd, 2003 (Nasa.gov) when the shuttle Columbia broke apart as it was re-entering the
atmosphere, resulting in the death of its crew of two women and five men. Fatal accidents
of this type, killing the entire crew, have been reported before, as in the instance of the
tragedy of the Apollo 1 that exploded due to an electric spark that triggered a fire in the
capsule, or the explosion of the Challenger shuttle on January, 1986, 73 seconds after
launch (Nasa.gov). All of these accidents have one feature in common: irreversible
equipment failure. Indeed, traditional space missions have always relied heavily on the
performance of the machine, requiring less from the human. However, as these past
accidents have shown, design flaws and environmental risks in the cosmos are
unpredictable. Therefore, there is a need to facilitate human interaction, which allows for
compensation in cases of unexpected circumstances, into future space technology
designs. Since both humans and technology reach asymptotic performance limits as
ground guidance becomes limited in space, there is a need for an efficient integration of
these factors to produce an optimal output during space missions. A major area of
research that deals with this integration problem is the design of malleable human
machine interfaces.
The major ordeal that such research presents is the accounting of the subjective
analysis of the human operator in space. As a matter of fact, over the years of
development of space technology, the psychological aspect of human-machine interface
design has been neglected. Instead a narrow-minded approach focused solely on the
development of the machine has led to more complicated, but not necessarily more
efficient space vehicles. This paper will explore several propositions that were made by
2
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 20053
psychologists and scientists working for the better integration of the man in the space
machine. In this sense the issue of balancing the complementarity between the man and
the machine will be tackled. Moreover, a review of mission training and how it relates to
the mission output will be presented. Finally, a general assessment of potential manmachine interfaces will be done and further suggestions for better designs will be given.
Financial Concerns
The financial aspect of space missions has always been a center of controversial
debate amongst the scientific and greater community. Several people think that space
exploration is a waste of resources when the money that is invested in that area could be
used to relieve current problems that humanity is facing, such as hunger and disease
proliferation. To this day, the Hubble Telescope has cost the American government about
3 billion dollars (Hubble.org). This is why major space research centers such as NASA
have included in their agenda the minimization of the ratio of shuttle cost to the number
of expected flights. This cost minimization objective calls for a better use of the
resources, among which is the human resource. That is, over the years, space mission
training has aimed at bringing crewmembers to ‘peak proficiency in order to obtain the
maximum amount of research information in the minimum amount of time’1. This
objective has led to a very strict screening of crewmembers prior to space flight.
However, it appears that this selection based on financial motives does not take into
account psychological factors that come into play. Neglecting these psychological factors
could lead to unexpected mission complications.
1
Day, Richard: Training aspects of the X5.
3
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 20054
Man and machine’s role in space: Where is the dividing line?
It is hard to dichotomize the role of the man and the machine in space. Rather, it
is better to think of their different tasks as integrative rather than additive. The role of
man has evolved from being a mere passive observer to an integrated part of the system.
Indeed, in the early days of space technology development, scientists considered
anesthetizing the shuttle occupant so that he would not interfere with the shuttle
operation. The basic roles of the man were defined to be: a scientific observer, a
corrective operator in case of machine malfunction, and a flexibility factor to adapt to
unexpected flight conditions. Several redundancies were present in the control system so
as to make the man the final back up of the system. The NASA Mercury Capsule built in
1958 is one of the earliest space projects that seeked to ‘activate’ the role of the man in
the shuttle2. The man’s functions were redefined with control revitalization: failure
detection and diagnosis, attitude control of the capsule and location of the position of the
vehicle in the space. Figure 1 (Jones) provides a diagram of the interaction between the
machine and the integrated human operator when a malfunction is present in the Mercury
capsule. Even though the Mercury project was successful in sending a manned capsule in
orbit and recovering it with success, figure 1 indicates that the closed loop relation
between the man and the machine does not offer the man many degrees of freedom when
it comes to decision making. Indeed as shown in the loop, the machine has the final call
on the state of the spacecraft; radical corrections cannot be made by the cosmonaut. As
modern technology advances, machines become more and more complex. Controlling
these intricate machines efficiently and maintaining system reliability remains crucial.
Armed Forces-NRC Committee on Bio-astronautics: The training of astronauts;
report of a working group
2
4
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 20055
Figure 1: Man-Machine Relationship During A Malfunction on Mercury Vehicle
Psychological factors: Psychiatric morbidity in space
It is clear that becoming a crewmember for a space flight is no simple
achievement. Interviewing Daniel Barry, a Princeton alumnus who now is a NASA
astronaut, gave us a sense of how selective the screening is to be chosen as a crew
member: “I got rejected so many times that I recognized the voice of the person who calls
to announce rejections. The day I was rejected, he called me while I was on vacation to
the Bahamas and I automatically assumed that I had been rejected once again. However
as he announced the good news, I was incredibly skeptical. It took me a while to realize
what had just happened to me.” Even for individuals with high academic achievements
and honors, becoming an astronaut is a major challenge. However, it seems that all these
prerequisites do not determine the state or predict the reactions of the crewmember once
5
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 20056
in space. The study of the anxiety level of crewmembers is an important factor that is
often neglected in assessing in assessing the crew’s performance.
Scientists at the University of California, San Diego have conducted some studies
to assess the psychiatric morbidity that results from extended isolation and confinement,
which simulates experiences in space. The Antarctic-Space Analog Program was
conducted by submitting a psychological survey to a group of American men and women
who spent an austral winter in Antarctica. It was found that 12.1 % of the participants
developed symptoms that met DSM-IV3 criteria, which is widely recognized for
identifying common psychological disorders (Palinkas et al.). The most common
diagnoses were mood disorders and adjustment disorders (31.6% of all diagnoses). Other
disorders that were also diagnosed were sleep-related disorders (21%), substance-related
disorders (10.5%) and personality disorders (7.9%) (Palinkas et al.). These diagnoses
were unrelated to age, sex, year, education level or prior winter-over experience, as can
be seen in Figure 2. Such results suggest that the provision of psychological support to
crewmembers in isolated and confined extreme environments is crucial in order to
diminish anxiety and improve human performance. Diminishing anxiety will not only
increase the attention span of crewmembers, but also increase human self-confidence and
the effective control power of the crew over the machine.
3
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)
6
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 20057
Figure 2: Selected Results from Antarctic-Space Analog Program
Training as a psychological exercise: The Simulators
Training is not only designed for the crew to get technical mastery of the machine
that they are going to accompany into space, but also meant to provide a routine that
might be a remedy to space anxiety. The primary training aid that is used is the simulator.
Several simulator types are available; the ones that are most often used are the MSV
(Mobile Satellite Ventures). These simulators consist of several components that perform
different tasks as shown in Figure 24:
‘Computer system (CS) – performs main space flight real-time simulation tasks. It is
based on powerful distributed computers and uses Solaris, Irix, Windows NT, OS/2 and
other operating systems.
Object interface device (OID) – converts signals of computer system exchange with the
other simulator equipment. It consists of the stand with different signal converters and
built-in computer, which works under the control of specialized operational system.
4
http://www.gctc.ru/eng/facility/train_facil_e.htm#1.
7
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 20058
Operator workstation (OWS) – is based on the nominal MSV fragment with the same
interior, panels, cable network, etc. This provides maximum similarity of the simulation
to the real flight conditions.
Visual area imitation system (VAIS) – generates and shows in real time visual scene,
which can be seen by the operator in the window or another device according to the
simulated flight. It is based on specialized computer image generation systems or
powerful graphic stations using TV or projection display devices and signal commutators.
Simulation control and monitoring panel (CMP) – is a workstation of the instructor and
simulator engineer. It includes computers, TV displays, means of communication with
the crew and simulator stuff and other equipment, which provides the possibility to
control simulation process.
“Board to Ground” communication imitation system (BGCIS) – imitates communication
channel between cosmonauts and MCC without broadcasting, and also onboard
equipment noises.
Medical panel (MP) – receives, processes, and accumulates signals from the nominal
medical monitoring system to provide operative monitoring after psychophysiological
state of the operator during simulation and its subsequent analysis.’
Figure 3: MSV simulator
8
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 20059
This modern simulator has essentially the same features as those used in the early
days of space technology, except that is has more advanced electronic and mechanical
components. There are several problems that these simulators present as Robert Voas
from the NASA space Task group suggested (p.48). One important issue that he
emphasized was the “Handbook Approach” used when designing the space simulators.
Rather than providing operational data, most of the handbooks accompanying the
simulators offer design data, which explains how the simulator was made and not how it
is supposed to be handled. Such a problem has a direct impact on the training proficiency
of the cosmonauts who are supposed to master the use of the simulator equipment.
Another problem encountered with training is operator maintenance. Indeed simulator
training is done only for a few hours; thus for long space missions, the operator might
face a problem of maintenance of the skills that were practiced in simulators. We cannot
rely on the fidelity of simulation as suggested by Jack A. Adams of the Aviation
Psychology Lab at the University of Illinois (p.80). An alternative to this problem might
be to build larger simulators with the proper equipment that would accommodate the
cosmonauts for longer periods of time. But again a cost optimization analysis would need
to be carried out since the budget is a limiting factor for space missions.
Designing the human-machine interface:
Besides training design, another area of research that seeks to improve the
integration of the human operator in space systems is the design of the human-machine
interface. Indeed, the smoother and easier the interaction between the machine and the
astronaut, the more optimally decisions can be made during space flight. It is important to
9
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 2005
10
consider all of the available interfaces in order to select the most efficient one. Typically,
NASA space shuttles contain significantly more complicated technology than is found in
common human-machine interfaces such as those seen in small plane cockpits. Another
approach taken by the private company, Scaled Composites, was a bare bones interface,
which only included the stick and rudder controls of a small plane (Binnie). Although it
is not fair to compare these two designs on the same level since NASA and Scaled
Composites each had different mission goals, the success of each provides insight into the
range of possibilities for human-machine interfaces.
Scientists have used several approaches to improve the man-machine interface.
One interesting approach in this field of research is the design of malleable humanmachine interfaces conducted by scientists at the Advanced Technology Branch of the
NASA Johnson Space Center. The ideology behind this project is to provide the crew,
who will be spending considerable amounts of time in deep space, with the ability to fully
control the vehicle and their destiny in any given circumstance. Malleable interfaces
include tangible controllers such as steering devices, which not currently present in space
shuttles. For this purpose malleable interfaces that allow manual machine control should
be developed and integrated into future shuttle and capsule designs. Instead of
programming commands to be executed by the machine, the operators will have
additional control to navigate the machine according to personal judgment. This permits
flexibility as unexpected circumstances arise. Such an interface would result in a new
human-machine interaction diagram that is presented in figure 4 (dsl.edu). Compared to
the early Mercury design in 1958, this new design will provide an open-loop system with
a feedback and feed-forward control, enabling the crew to make more decisions
10
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 2005
11
manually. Some of the testing for this project was conducted on a virtual Rover landing
mission on Mars by integrating navigation display and safety data in the vehicle. Actual
Mars Terrain data and also atmospheric and gravitational characteristics of the Martian
terrain were simulated for this testing. Only virtual cues were given to the users, there
were no detailed maps. The results are still under analysis but so far it was found that user
performance increased with increased autonomous control. This result is very promising
in terms of optimization of the human factor potential during space missions and the
scientists at the Johnson center are currently seeking more funds to carry deeper analysis
of the efficiency of malleable interfaces.
Figure 4: Human machine interaction induced by the use of malleable interfaces
Another interesting man-machine interface design has been developed by
scientists at the Johnson center, Princeton University, and the University of West Florida
11
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 2005
12
is the haptic interface. The motivation for such research is to decrease the workload of the
visual sensory system that, according to these scientists, performs most of the information
retrieval between the crewmembers and the robotic devices. For this reason, the project
focuses on communicating with the human through the sense of touch, an underutilized
sense in most human-machine interfaces. It is called the Tactile Situation Awareness
System (TSAS) and is being implemented to aid in performing orientation and situation
awareness tasks (dsl.edu). The outcome of this design is a more efficient allocation of
sensory information retrieval for the human operator from the division of information
amongst several senses as opposed to relying more heavily on visual and auditory
processing. The testing for this problem was done on male and female subjects from 18 to
56, and their tactile sensory threshold was measured using low-pass filtered digitally
generated white noise measured by tactors implemented on their torso. It was found that
the different tactors used induced responses at different noise frequency ranges (Figure
5). Therefore, given the sensitivity of the signals perceived by the cosmonaut in the
shuttle, a specific tactor can be used to activate the TSAS. These results are very
promising and suggest further use of tactile interfaces for the purpose of man-machine
interaction in space. Several major problems that this design encounters, however, are
the limited resolution of the human tactile sense, its limited bandwidth and its
susceptibility to habituation and adaptation, that is, it becomes less sensitive to stimuli
with time. Nevertheless, further study should be conducted to solve these problems and
implement tactile interaction methods to improve human-machine interfaces.
12
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 2005
13
Figure 5(dsl.edu): Perceived Loudness by Tactor Type
Finally, an ongoing research area that worthy of discussion is the development of
Augmented Reality (AR) interface designs. The kernel of such designs is to combine real
and synthetic features to ‘control human operator attention, support short term and longterm memory, and aid information integration’ (Majoros). Such design would boost
human information processing and make problem solving and recalling more efficient,
which is essential for the human operator in the case of machine malfunction. The
interface for such a design is based on cognitive models of the human brain; it seeks to
implement features that capture attention such as augmented realities and the capacity to
communicate with ground control. It is important to differentiate such designs from
virtual realities. The purpose of AR’s is not to substitute for reality but rather to maintain
the situational awareness of the operator by focusing attention appropriately in order to
“improve the synchronization between computer generated information and the real
world.” (Majoros) This synchronization feature is of the utmost importance when it
13
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 2005
14
comes to mission success because failure can occur in only a matter of seconds with very
limited time for alleviating the situation.
Conclusion
Due to the financial costs of space exploration, operational optimization and
efficiency are essential to make missions successful and worthwhile. When developing
machines to aid humans in accomplishing any end, it is crucial to consider how the two
will work in conjunction; the machine must be designed first to work in tandem with the
human before it can successfully be implemented to accomplish the task at hand.
However, it is important not to neglect how human will work with the machine. Greater
efficiencies can be achieved by examining the human role in space missions more
carefully. This human-centered approach sheds light on a variety of angles that can be
used to attack the efficiency problem. Firstly, psychological factors should be considered
when forming crews and designing machine interfaces. Special attention should be given
to minimizing anxiety and disorders that stem from isolation and confinement. One way
to alleviate anxiety problems is to provide appropriate training that gives the crew
familiarity, and thus confidence once they are put to the task in space. Another angle of
attack for optimization is refining the human-machine interface by tailoring interaction
methods to the human’s abilities. Malleable interfaces provide improved human control
over the machine, facilitating manual responses to unexpected circumstances. TSAS
could increase efficiency by utilizing an extra sense for interaction between the machine
and the human. Finally, AR designs would be especially helpful because they use
cognitive tendencies to manipulate the human’s attention most efficiently. In this way,
14
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 2005
15
both the human and machine would be working to communicate in the most effective
way possible. By designing better space missions through crew selection, training, and
machine interfaces before liftoff, the space mission itself will be optimized, allowing
astronauts to concentrate on more daunting obstacles on the job.
Works Cited
Barry, Daniel. “Sensations of Space.” Princeton University, Princeton. 18 Apr. 2005.
Binnie, Brian. “Space Ship One.” Princeton University, Princeton. 23 Apr. 2005.
Cosmonaut training simulators. 2 May 2005.
<http://www.gctc.ru/eng/facility/train_facil_e.htm#1>
Day, Richard E. “Training Aspects of the X-15 Program.” The Training of Astronauts.
Washington: National Academy of Sciences – National Research Council, 1961.
“Haptic Interfaces To Augment Human Machine Interactions In Space Activities.”
Institute For Human and Machine Cognition, University of West Florida. 24 Apr.
2005 <http://www.dsls.usra.edu/meetings/bio2001/pdf/010.pdf>.
HubbleSite. 2 May 2005 <http://hubblesite.org/>.
Jones, Edward R. “ Man’s Integration Into the Mercury Capsule.” The Training of
Astronauts. Washington: National Academy of Sciences – National Research
Council, 1961.
Jung, T-P., S. Makeig, D. Stillwell, and D. Harm. “Accessing Cognitive State from
Physiological Data.” Institute for Neural Computation, University of California.
24 Apr. 2005 <http://www.dsls.usra.edu/meetings/bio2001/pdf/003.pdf>.
Lorenz, Bernd, Francesco Di Nocera, and Raja Parasuraman. “Human Performance
15
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 2005
16
During Simulated Space Operations Under Varied Levels of System Autonomy.”
Cognitive Science Laboratory, The Catholic University of America. 24 Apr. 2005
< http://www.dsls.usra.edu/meetings/bio2001/pdf/sessions/abstracts/020.pdf>.
Majoros, A. E. and Ulrich Neumann. “Support of Crew Problem-Solving and
Performance with Augmented Reality.” The Boeing Company, University of
Southern California. 24 Apr. 2005 < http://www.dsls.usra.edu/meetings/bio2001
/pdf/017.pdf >.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ed. Jim Wilson. 2 May 2005
<http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html?skipIntro=1>.
Palinkas, L. A., F. Glogower, M. Dembert, K. Hansen, and R. Smullen. “Psychiatric
Morbidity After Extended Isolation and Confinement In An Extreme
Environment: The Antarctic-Space Analog Program.” Department of Family and
Preventive Medicine, University of California. 24 Apr. 2005
<http://www.dsls.usra.edu/meetings/bio2001/pdf/002.pdf>.
Russo, D. and J. Whiteley. “Malleable Human Interfaces.” NASA Johnson Space Center.
24 Apr. 2005 <http://www.dsls.usra.edu/meetings/bio2001/pdf/030p.pdf>.
Staderman, W.P. “A Shared Augmented-Reality System for Communication Across
Environments.” Virginia Tech. 24 Apr. 2005 <http://www.dsls.usra.edu/meetings/
bio2001/pdf/016.pdf>.
Zamorano, L., A. Pandya, M. Siadat, J. Gong, Q. Li, J. Maida, I. Kakadiaris. “Augmented
Reality for Tele-“Operations.”” Neurosurgery Department, Wayne State
University. 24 Apr. 2005 <http://www.dsls.usra.edu/meetings/bio2001/pdf/
018.pdf>.
16
Nike Lawrence, Fatou Bintou Sagnang, and Jeff Stein
PSY/ORF 322 – Final Project
May, 2005
17
17