2015 Space Human Factors Engineering Standing Review Panel
The 2015 Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 2 - 3, 2015. The SRP reviewed the updated research plans for the Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic I
Selection note: Curated because this 2015 other from Johnson Space Center specifically covers “2015 Space Human Factors Engineering Standing Review Panel”; its abstract describes The 2015 Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 2 - 3, 2015. The… This materially informs GShips human factors and habitability.
Evidence boundary: NTRS lists open full text, but this pass assessed catalog metadata and abstract rather than independently validating the document. Inclusion is contextual discovery support, not automatic evidence for a GShips claim.
Stable record
ntrs-20160004942
Topic
human-factors
Type
Other
Publisher
Johnson Space Center
Authors
Steinberg, Susan
Year
2015
Editorial state
metadata curated editorial draft
Reviewer
GShips Project editorial synthesis
Official link checked
2026-07-25
Source-supplied abstract
The 2015 Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 2 - 3, 2015. The SRP reviewed the updated research plans for the Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI Risk), the Risk of Inadequate Human-Computer Interaction (HCI Risk), and the Risk of Inadequate Mission, Process and Task Design (MPTask Risk). The SRP also received a status update on the Risk of Incompatible Vehicle/Habitat Design (Hab Risk) and the Risk of Performance Errors Due to Training Deficiencies (Train Risk). The SRP is pleased with the progress and responsiveness of the SHFE team. The presentations were much improved this year. The SRP is also pleased with the human-centered design approach. Below are some of the more extensive comments from the SRP. We have also made comments in each section concerning gaps/tasks in each. The comments below reflect more significant changes that impact more than just one particular section.
Abstract text has not been adopted as a GShips conclusion.
What would change this record?
A newer or corrected version, a retraction, a verified duplicate, a material topic mismatch, a changed access state, or claim-level review would trigger a dated editorial update.
NTRS lists open full text, but this pass assessed catalog metadata and abstract rather than independently validating the document. Inclusion is contextual discovery support, not automatic evidence for a GShips claim.
Source-supplied titles, abstracts, authors, and dates may require correction against the canonical full text.
What would change this page?
A newer or corrected version, retraction, verified duplicate, material topic mismatch, changed access state, or claim-level assessment would change this record.
People, review, and conflicts
Prepared by
GShips Project
Editorial status
metadata-curated-editorial-draft
Editorial reviewer
GShips Project editorial synthesis
Last editorial review
No editorial-review date recorded
Independent review
pending
Independent reviewer
No independent reviewer assigned
Last independent review
No independent-review date exists
Last content edit
Not recorded separately
Official source or link verified
2026-07-25
Declared conflicts
The maintainer intends to explore a commercial venture based on some GShips work. No entity, outside funding, customer, sponsor, or indexed-organization relationship currently exists.