RSSI测距在蓝牙室内定位抗差算法中的应用

蓝牙信号强度在室内环境下易受人员扰动等环境因素影响,从而影响定位精度。基于RSSI测距的蓝牙室内定位原理,将人员等扰动视为异常误差,采用胡贝尔、汉佩尔、IGG和LEGE四种抗差算法,比较分析了不同抗差算法的定位提升效果。试验结果表明,不管有无人员扰动,四种抗差算法均可改善定位精度,其中IGG法定位精度最高,约为3m,且有较好的稳定性。     

大学生求职挑战与求职机遇的理性认识

大学生毕业遇到的头等大事是就业。如何理性认识求职过程中的挑战与机遇，成为求职心理准备和求职实务准备的首要问题。因此，理性认识大学生求职挑战与求职机遇所面临的就业市场的现实状态，不仅是学校、大学生家庭、个人应着重考虑的问题，也是整个社会应该正视的问题。     

基于模糊层次分析法的航空人为因素问题重要性识别

针对现代航空中存在的沟通、压力、团队合作以及生理和心理方面的人为因素问题,采用模糊层次分析法对其重要性进行识别.结果显示,语音信息沟通、机组资源管理、书面信息沟通、空管班组资源管理、疲劳、情景意识、维修班组资源管理、过分自信和满足在现代航空人为因素问题中占有比较突出的地位.     

人力资源管理信息系统

人力资源是企业管理的中心环节,计算机辅助管理对人力资源管理的规范化、科学化以及信息集成起到重大的推动作用。为此,洪都航空集团公司开发了人力资源管理信息系统软件。本文论述了该系统的技术特点、运行环境及系统的功能结构等。     

航天员转体技术仿真

航天员在自由状态下的转体技术是航天员训练和太空任务完成好坏的重要指标。本文借助１５段的人体模型,使用多刚体动力学的方法建立起航天员转体动作的力学模型。该模型易于编程,适合于实时计算。并使用计算机动画技术,建立了航天员转体运动的实时动态仿真系统。该系统只要求输入基本的人体测量数据和肢体的相对运动规律,以图形动画形式输出,具有良好的交互性。     

载人航天器人-机界面宜人设计方法的研究

根据载人航天器人－机界面宜人设计的必要性，详细论述了人－机界面的发展趋势和未来的研究方向，在此基础上，提出宜人设计的具体措施，最后，形成几点看法以供讨论。     

Humans to Mars: a feasibility and cost-benefit analysis

Mars is a compelling astrobiological target, and a human mission would provide an opportunity to collect immense amounts of scientific data. Exploration alone, however, cannot justify the increased risk. Instead, three factors drive a human mission: economics, education, and exploration. A human mission has a unique potential to inspire the next generation of young people to enter critically needed science and engineering disciplines. A mission is economically feasible, and the research and development program put in place for a human mission would propel growth in related high-technology industries. The main hurdles are human physiological responses to 1–2 years of radiation and microgravity exposure. However, enabling technologies are sufficiently mature in these areas that they can be developed within a few decade timescale. Hence, the decision of whether or not to undertake a human mission to Mars is a political decision, and thus, educational and economic benefits are the crucial factors.     

Cooperation and dialogical modeling for designing a safe Human space exploration mission to Mars

This paper proposes an approach for a complex and innovative project requiring international contributions from different communities of knowledge and expertise. Designing a safe and reliable architecture for a manned mission to Mars or the Asteroids necessitates strong cooperation during the early stages of design to prevent and reduce risks for the astronauts at each step of the mission. The stake during design is to deal with the contradictions, antagonisms and paradoxes of the involved partners for the definition and modeling of a shared project of reference. As we see in our research which analyses the cognitive and social aspects of technological risks in major accidents, in such a project, the complexity of the global organization (during design and use) and the integration of a wide and varie d range of sciences and innovative technologies is likely to increase systemic risks as follows: human and cultural mistakes, potential defaults, failures and accidents. We identify as the main danger antiquated centralized models of organization and the operational limits of interdisciplinarity in the sciences. Beyond this, we can see that we need to take carefully into account human cooperation and the quality of relations between heterogeneous partners. Designing an open, self-learning and reliable exploration system able to self-adapt in dangerous and unforeseen situations implies a collective networked intelligence led by a safe process that organizes interaction between the actors and the aims of the project. Our work, supported by the CNES (French Space Agency), proposes an innovative approach to the coordination of a complex project.     

The perfect boring situation—Addressing the experience of monotony during crewed deep space missions through habitability design

In contemporary orbital missions, workloads are so high and varied that crew may rarely experience stretches of monotony. However, in historical long duration missions, occurrences of monotony were, indeed, reported anecdotally by crew. Of the effective countermeasures that appear to be at hand, many rely on visual or logistical proximity to the Earth, and are not feasible in the remote context of an extended deep space mission scenario. There, particularly in- and outbound cruising stages would be characterised by longer, comparably uneventful periods of low workload, coupled with confinement and unchanging vehicle surroundings.     

Redefining safety in commercial space: Understanding debates over the safety of private human spaceflight initiatives in the United States

In 2009 President Obama proposed a budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that canceled the Constellation program and included the development of commercial crew transportation systems into low Earth orbit. This significant move to shift human spaceflight into the private sector sparked political debate, but much of the discourse has focused on impacts to “safety.” Although no one disputes the importance of keeping astronauts safe, strategies for defining safety reveal contrasting visions for the space program and opposing values regarding the privatization of U.S. space exploration. In other words, the debate over commercial control has largely become encoded in arguments over safety. Specifically, proponents of using commercial options for transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) argue that commercial vehicles would be safe for astronauts, while proponents of NASA control argue that commercial vehicles would be unsafe, or at least not as safe as NASA vehicles. The cost of the spaceflight program, the technical requirements for designing a vehicle, the track record of the launch vehicle, and the experience of the launch provider are all incorporated into what defines safety in human spaceflight. This paper analyzes these contested criteria through conceptual lenses provided by fields of science and technology policy (STP) and science, technology, and society (STS). We ultimately contend that these differences in definition result not merely from ambiguous understandings of safety, but from intentional and strategic choices guided by normative positions on the commercialization of human spaceflight. The debate over safety is better considered a proxy debate for the partisan preferences embedded within the dispute over public or private spaceflight.