Interaction Design in Commercial Human Spaceflight
INTRODUCTION
A new wave of companies are re-igniting the space race in the form of human travel to other planets. In the 1950s much of the space race was dominated by the USA and the Soviet Union. In the past decade, we’ve seen that replicated by new private companies. When it comes to space tourism, humans are involved and hence, interaction design is something that needs to be addressed to make sure a customer’s experience is met. This article is an Interface Evaluation of a human-rated space capsule.
The Human-Rated Space Capsule
When it comes to Interaction Design, one may not think of human space flight. This article will focus on SpaceX’s Dragon V2 (Dragon) capsule but will occasionally mention the Soyuz Descent Module (SDM) and Apollo Command Module (ACM) primarily because they are the first successful human-rated space capsules and hence, the baseline/reference implementation for all future capsules.
The space capsule has three important functions namely: take-off; travel and; re-entry. A typical space capsule will have other external (modular) systems. It is the command and control center for the mission from start to end. It consists of seats and control panels.
Main Control Panel (MCP)
The MCP handles mission-critical tasks. Being the most important interfaces, it should be an extension to a crew member’s body. Older capsules’ (ACM and SDM) MCPs are considerably complex while the Dragon 2 (Figure 5) is minimalist. The primary reason is technological change spanning over 50 years.
Cabin Space and Seats (CS&S)
The Dragon capsule has a maximum capacity for seven crew members and seats made of carbon fiber and Alcantara cloth.
INTERFACE EVALUATION
The problem space is defined as the human-rated space capsule. The primary
objectives are:
- The need to have all the necessary essentials for crew survival and aborts.
- The need to protect passengers from the cold and radiation in space and therefore ensuring system safety.
- The need to provide control of the system.
The following sections will discuss the good and bad interfaces within the interior of the Dragon V2 capsule taking into account the cognitive, social and emotional issues.
GOOD FEATURES
COGNITIVE
Cognitive Modes
The presence of fewer buttons and dials handling only critical functions is a good aspect of interface design for the crew within the Dragon 2 capsule. This setup moves away from the traditional implementation (Figure 12). From a cognitive standpoint, critical functions are for reflective modes of cognition and therefore, having fewer buttons and dials move the crew away from spending too much time being trained. For example, deorbiting a planet. Traditionally, such an action requires considerable thought prior to performing the maneuver. It also requires multiple steps (interfaces) which require extensive training. Reducing these interfaces as mentioned above, it reduces the crew’s ability to be reflective considerably while not going through a major learning curve to perform a cognitive process.
Cognitive Processes
Attention
When it comes to the cognitive process of attention, Dragon 2 makes information displayed on control panels salient. Firstly, by using a moderate number of screens. Based on the current implementation, three overhead screens (Figure 10) and four on the main control panel (Figure 5). It uses a dark background on the bezel easing for the eyes. Finally, as mentioned in SpaceX Dragon V2, Unveil Event, only critical functions such as deorbiting, depress, manual control, have been interfaced into buttons and dials. This reduces the need to be attentive and multi-task unlike in the ACM MCP which has myriad of buttons and requires a large learning curve.
Memory
Recognition-based memory is heavily involved within the implementation of the Dragon 2. Moving away from recall-based memory where the crew would need extensive training, there is a use of better visual aids such as 3D animation (Figure 10, Figure 11) of the Earth, International Space Station (ISS); fewer and easier to understand controls and the presence of automated Guidance and Navigation systems. The latter a significant improvement when compared to the ACM that had a section in the cabin dedicated to it (manual) This is now embedded within software and is mostly automated with some manual control in emergencies. Although no evidence of information encoding (categories; color; flagging; time-stamping) was found on the Dragon 2 MCP, it is complementary in nature when truncating information on missions and must be considered.
Problem-solving, planning, reasoning, and decision-making
This is an aspect seen in Figure 9 and can be categorized as being both a good and bad aspect of interface design. It is good because the MCP displays information with good visual aids such as charts, graphs, large fonts when indicating temperature and pressure readings. All this is beneficial for rapid problem-solving and decision making but, the information displayed is cluttered and overloaded. The software architect must decipher whether this information presented could be done with simple computational aids spaced apart to avoid clutter while keeping the visuals that make problem-solving, planning, reasoning and rapid decision-making more streamlined.
Learning
In older capsules, a large learning curve was required where years of training was needed prior to using an MCP or any other interface. The crew would have to learn the myriad of steps to perform it. In Dragon 2, functions can be performed with a simple dial or button while most other steps are automated by software. In addition, a recommendation would be the use of virtual assistants such as Siri for speech-based menus to navigate through options on the MCP or even adjusting attributes within the cabin like temperature control.
EMOTIONAL
Emotions and User Experience
Cabin space and crew seating is a good aspect of the interface design within the Dragon 2. The cabin carries more passengers than older capsules and still has plenty of room. Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17 shows you the progression in cabin interior space from the ACM, the SDM with the Dragon 2 and then finally with seven NASA astronauts sitting inside the Dragon 2. From an emotional aspect, this improves crew experience of space travel. This is equivalent to comparing seat and leg space in the economy versus business/first class on airlines. When a passenger has more room he/she feels more comfortable and thus improves positive emotional responses to that comfort.
BAD FEATURES
COGNITIVE
Perception and Recognition
When it comes to perception and recognition, it is a challenge to identify any good aspects with the Dragon 2 MCP. Based on current evidence, it seems there are some distinguishing factors when grouping information on the screens. Looking at the MCP (Figure 5), it’s not too hard to notice the clutter of information. Recognition of the differences in the information displayed may be a challenge for the user.
SOCIAL
Conversational rules
Traditionally, the ACM, the ISS and space shuttle has had communication protocols defined prior to a mission. These communications protocols established rules of conversation between crew and those on the ground. Although these may sound appropriate for such a system, the notion of Dragon 2 was to re-defined space travel such that common people can travel to Earth’s orbit and beyond as we travel to other cities and continents via airlines. The Interaction Design of human spacecraft on the hit TV Show “The Expanse” is probably the best example of what we should and possibly end up doing to interact with the inside of spacecraft. Conservational rules whether implicit or explicit are — in Dragon 2’s case — more of a bad aspect of interface design. There is no evidence yet that suggests the case except, an inference implied within the company’s mission statement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
COGNITIVE
Reading, Speaking and Listening
Although not mentioned explicitly during the unveiling or on their website, Dragon 2 could implement interfaces that encourage exploration, guided learning on aspects bounding the mission. For example, a guided tour and safety video incorporated with a natural-language system when in orbit or just prior to lift-off (like an airline) or during inter-planetary travel. Another example is the use of virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa that could either read out or listen to information or the crew interact by speaking to it. Another feature exhibited in the TV show “The Expanse” where spacecraft have voice interfaces (maybe not the best reference). This would provide an instructive, conversing and explorative types of interaction.
SOCIAL
Remote conversations
Remote conversations in the form of AV conferencing is currently in use on the ISS. Although not evident with Dragon 2, it is assumed this will be the case. The ISS has its own internet and astronauts can use email, AV conferencing, and social media to interface with friends, family, and co-workers on Earth. This is standard and should be expected to exist on the Dragon 2.
Tele-presence
There is no evidence to suggest that telepresence will be used on the Dragon 2. Therefore, this is a recommendation of the potential of using telepresence within Dragon to interface with the external environment. For example, crew traveling to Mars or the Moon could control robots on the planet when in orbit. In the case of a tourist to Mars, controlling a Virtual Reality (VR) capable robot could give them an idea of the weather on Mars and help them decide if they would want to land or just take a trip around Mars. Tele-presence can also be used for manual docking by crew in the case of an emergency.
Co-presence
It is not evident currently whether co-presence technologies actually exist as part of the Dragon 2 for the crew experience therefore, it is hard to establish whether their interface is good or bad. Saying this, having co-presence technologies is something to consider and thus, a recommendation to improve the private/public astronaut’s experience. For example, Surface tablets would be vital at performing on-the-fly orbital simulations or designing a custom trip around planets. This could aid the crew in figuring out how they could perform maneuvers to reach a target destination.
Coordination mechanisms
These are bread-n-butter mechanisms for coordination currently in place and used in the past. Albeit most checklists, to-do lists, calendars are on checkerboards and paper. A suggestion to improve this would be to use tablets and co-presence technologies where the crew can coordinate with each other. Not evident with Dragon 2, it is suspected this will be implemented.
EMOTIONAL
Expressive interfaces
It is not evident what Dragon 2 is equipped with when considering long-haul travel. In these cases, expressive and friendly interfaces will aid in better emotional outcomes for the crew. Research suggests that crew in space can be predisposed to emotional fatigue and therefore, having warm colors, expressive and friendly interfaces can provide a more positive experience for the crew. This should also include when dealing with frustrating interfaces. For example, including a warm and soothing sound rather something exasperating when an error occurs.
Anthropomorphism
It is not evident in the case of introducing anthropomorphism within interfaces in Dragon 2. This is definitely a recommendation. Mentioned prior — virtual agents such as Siri, Alexa or Cortana are great examples to improve user experience prior, during and after space travel. Having a reassuring voice other than another human has a positive impact on them and it has been shown that psychological closing can occur among isolated groups over time. On long-haul trips, for example, crew members communicate less with some ground control personnel which could perturb communication flow. By having a virtual agent/assistant, it can be an intermediary between the crew and health personnel on the ground monitoring the crews’ health.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, evaluating the interface design of a modern space capsule has been a challenge primarily due to the emerging nature of the industry like that of the personal computing age in the 1970s. With the limited amount of information available currently, it provided a platform to recommend features that were either currently in use in the industry (calendars, checklist, email, AV conferencing, social media) and features (co-presence, telepresence) that could be incorporated today.
