This study describes the development of requirements for a cognitive assistant (CA) for use onboard a space vehicle/station. For missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), delayed communication will limit mission control’s ability to support the space crew in real time. During off-nominal situations, where no procedures have been developed prior to missions, crews must develop responses in real time and may increasingly rely on automation. A systematic approach was used to model the domain knowledge of the collaborative decision-making process of current space operations, extrapolate to missions beyond LEO, and develop the design requirements for a CA. Document analysis and interviews were conducted to create an abstraction hierarchy and a decision-action diagram of the cognitive functions currently performed by space crew, mission control, and onboard automation. These domain models were extrapolated to missions beyond LEO by identifying the breakpoints where current decision-making processes would break down due to increased communication delay between mission control and the space crew. Design requirements were identified for future CA systems that offer real-time decision-making support to mitigate the negative effect of limited support in off-nominal situations. The approach developed for this research can be generalized to identify the design requirements for future support systems in domains beyond space operations.
AllenC. S.BurnettR.CharlesJ.CucinottaF.FullertonR.GoodmanJ. R.RajuluS. (2003). Guidelines and capabilities for designing human missions (Report No. NASA/TM-2003-210785). Houston, TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnston Space Center.
2.
AshooriM.BurnsC. (2013). Team cognitive work analysis structure and control tasks. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7(2), 123–140.
3.
AshooriM.BurnsC. M.D’EntremontB.MomtahanK. (2014). Using team cognitive work analysis to reveal healthcare team interactions in a birthing unit. Ergonomics, 57(7), 973–986.
BurnsC. M.BisantzA. M.RothE. M. (2004). Lessons from a comparison of work domain models: Representational choices and their implications. Human Factors, 46(4), 711–727.
6.
ClanceyW. J. (2003, February). Agent interaction with human systems in complex environments: Requirements for automating the function of capcom in Apollo 17. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Human Interaction With Autonomous Systems in Complex Environments, Standford, CA.
DorneichM. C.DudleyR.Letsu-DakeE.RogersW.WhitlowS. D.DillardM.NelsonE. (2017). Interaction of automation visibility and information quality in flight deck automation. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, PP(99), 1–12. doi:10.1109/THMS.2017.2717939
9.
FearyM.RothE. (2014, July). Some challenges in the design of human-automation interaction for safety-critical systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE. Kraków, Poland.
FischerU.MosierK. (2014). The impact of communication delay and medium on team performance and communication in distributed teams. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 115–119). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
12.
FischerU.MosierK.OrasanuJ.MorrowD.MillerC.VeinottB. (2013). Exploring communication in remote teams: Issues and methods. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting (Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 309–313). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
13.
FreitasR. A.Jr.HealyT. J.LongJ. E. (1982, June–August). Advanced automation for space missions. In Proceedings of the 1980 NASA/ASEE Summer Study sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the American Society for Engineering Education (NASA Conference Publication Vol. 225). Santa Clara, CA.
14.
FrieseS. (2014). NCT—A method for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis. In FrieseS. (Ed.), Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti (pp. 12–21). London, UK: Sage.
KirwanB.AinsworthL. K. (1992). A guide to task analysis. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
17.
KleinG.KaempfG. L.WolfS.ThorsdenM.MillerT. (1997). Applying decision requirements to user-centered design. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 46(1), 1–15.
18.
Letsu-DakeE.RogersW.DorneichM. C.DeMersR. (2012). Innovative flight deck function allocation concepts for nextGen. In LandryS. J. (Ed.), Advances in human aspects of aviation (p. 301). Boca Raton: FL: CRC Press.
McCannR. S.McCandlessJ.HiltyB. (2005). Automating vehicle operations in next-generation Spacecraft: Human factors issues. Journal of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1, 1–14.
21.
MeitingerC.SchulteA. (2009). Human-UAV co-operation based on artificial cognition. In HarrisD. (Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (pp. 91–100). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
22.
MillerC. A.ParasuramanR. (2007). Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: Delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Human Factors, 49(1), 57–75.
23.
MillerM. J.McGuireK. M.FeighK. M. (2016). Decision support system requirements definition for human extravehicular activity based on cognitive work analysis. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11(2), 136–165.
24.
NaikarN.HopcroftR.MoylanA. (2005). Work domain analysis: Theoretical concepts and methodology (No. DSTO-TR-1665). Victoria, Australia: Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Air Operations Division.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2016a). HARI-01: We need to evaluate, develop, and validate methods and guidelines for identifying human-automation/robot task information needs, function allocation, and team composition for future long duration, long distance space missions. Retrieved from https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/gaps/gap.aspx?i=326
27.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2016b). HCI-06: We need guidelines to ensure crewmembers receive all of the information required to accomplish necessary tasks in a timely fashion, even when operating autonomously (previous title: SHFE-HCI-06). Retrieved from https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/gaps/gap.aspx?i=307
28.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2016c). MPTASK-02: We need methods and tools to support mission, process, and task design. (previous title: SHFE-TASK-02). Retrieved from https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/gaps/gap.aspxcx?i=347
O’NealM.ManahanM. (1993). Spacecraft crew procedures from paper to computers. In National Aeronautics and Space Administration, crew interface analysis: Selected articles on space human factors research, 1987–1991 (pp. 5–9). Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19910011406
32.
OrasanuJ.ConnollyT.KleinG. A. (1993). Decision making in action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
33.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model for types and level of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297.
34.
PattersonE. S.Watts-PerottiJ.WoodsD. D. (1999). Voice loops as coordination aids in space shuttle mission control. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(4), 353–371.
35.
ProudR. W.HartJ. J.MrozinskiR. B. (2003). Methods for determining the level of autononomy to design into a human spaceflight vehicle: A function specific approach. Houston, TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space Center.
36.
RaderS. N.ReaganM. L.JanoikoB.JohnsonJ. E. (2013, July). Human-in-the-loop operations over time delay: NASA analog missions lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Environmental Systems. Vail, CO.
37.
RasmussenJ. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
38.
StantonN. A.SalmonP. M.WalkerG. H.BaberC.JenkinsD. P. (2005). Process charting methods: Decision action diagram (DAD). In StantonN. A.SalmonP. M.WalkG. H.BaberC.JenkinsD. P. (Eds.), Human factors methods: A practical guide for engineering and design (pp. 127–130). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
39.
Torres-PomalesW. (2015). Considering risk and resilience in decision-making. Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center.
VicenteK. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
WickensC. C.LeeJ. D.LiuY.BeckerS. E. (2004). Decision making. In WickensC. C.LeeJ. D.LiuY.BeckerS. E. (Eds.), An introduction to human factors engineering (pp. 156–183). New York, NY: Longman.
