Search NASASearch

Engineering topics

Nash, Alfred

Publications and source records attributed to Nash, Alfred.

At least 19 records

Gaussian Process Regression Method for Costing SmallSat Bus Capabilities

NASA is responding to the growing interest in, andcapabilities of, small satellites for science applications with an increasingnumber and frequency of Announcements of Opportunityfor small satellite space missions. Estimating the probabilitythat these mission concepts will fit within the small cost capsof these opportunities is largely driven by the probability thatone of the burgeoning number of small satellite providers will beable to meet the payload’s accommodation requirements withinthe budget for the spacecraft. JPL has collected a databasecontaining technical specifications and cost of commerciallyavailable Smallsat buses across various vendors. The primarypurpose of the database is for use in JPL’s Team X architecturestudies to inform cost estimates of a spacecraft bus which fitsthe customer’s technical requirements for their payload andmission. Customer needs are often unique and don’t alignperfectly with an off-the-shelf commercial spacecraft bus, whichmotivates the need to develop a cost model across the continuoustechnical parameter space.Al’s Bus Cost Distribution Estimator (ABCDE) uses Gaussianprocess regression (GPR) to predict commercial Smallsat spacecraftbus cost based on a subset of a customer’s technicalrequirements (payload mass, payload power, delta V, pointingcontrol, and downlink rate). GPR is implemented in ABCDE asa Bayesian method which fits an implied multivariate regressionon the technical parameters and uses kriging to intentionally“overfit” the residuals. Overfitting the residuals allows costestimates to collapse in uncertainty closer to the data pointswhile maintaining larger uncertainty intervals in regions of parameterspace with fewer data records. The data used to fit thismodel is sensitive and represents cost estimates for off-the-shelfcommercial buses. GPR simultaneously protects the sensitivityof the database and uses the sparse nature of the database toaccount for uncertainty in cost in a useful way. For a givenset of customer technical requirements, the tool provides a costestimate distribution, the percentiles of which can be interpretedas a confidence level of finding a commercial bus under a specifiedcost cap. ABCDE dramatically pushes the boundaries ofspacecraft cost estimation models due to its Bayesian methodology(accounting for the maximum uncertainty in the underlyingregression), the mathematically advanced kriging methodology,and the novelty of its application in Team X architecture tradestudies.

Austin, Alex

Developing Compelling and Science-Focused Mission Concepts for NASA Competed Mission Proposals

Since the mid 1990s, NASA has used a competitive selection process to initiate new mission concepts. These competed missions are motivated by high-value science with low implementation and cost risks. Selectable mission concepts require highly focused science approaches—delivering high quality science “on a budget.” Prospective Principal Investigators (PIs) need to convince NASA that the science they are proposing is both compelling and has high programmatic value. Unfortunately, many of these PIs are not trained in the communication skills needed for “selling” a mission concept to stakeholders. This requires a proposal that presents an investigation in an accessible, relatable, authentic, and believable way. It is the onus of the proposing PI to convince NASA of the value of their particular science concept in a competitive environment, addressing any pre-conceived notions reviewers might have about the concept’s value, complexities, urgency, and other impediments to understanding.The importance of this can be seen in the NASA-sponsored PI Launchpad (Nov 2019 & Jun 2021)1 which was designed to help early career scientists understand the skills, methods, processes, and resources needed to develop compelling science mission concepts; as well as in JPL’s update to their concept maturity model (Jan 2020) which included the addition of Story and Strategy dimensions. This paper provides guidance to assist prospective PIs in developing compelling, science-focused mission concepts. It will provide direction for communicating concepts more clearly to make science objectives more relatable to both reviewers and a broader audience, improving the probability of selection.

Ziemer, John

Fundamental Problems In SmallSat Concept Development

The standardization of launch opportunities as secondary payloads, coupled with the miniaturization of digital electronics due to Moore’s law, has enabled a new class of space missions at greatly reduced costs – SmallSat missions. Unfortunately, the desires of concept developers are often in conflict with the limited technical budgets afforded within the constraints of a SmallSat mission. Chief amongst these limited technical budgets, ironically, are the limited mass and volume budgets that enable them in the first place.Mass and volume budgets are consumed in closure of the other technical budgets in space systems: science error budgets, delta-v and propellent budgets, power and energy budgets, and thermal budgets, to name a few. Most aspects of these budgets are unaffected by the miniaturization of digital electronics enabled by modern physics, but are instead governed by the laws of classical physics, worked out by Europeans, long since dead.The fundamental laws of classical physics provide the couplings between these budgets, and provide a way to help potential users realize the practical limitations inherent in SmallSat systems. Understanding the fundamental limitations better positions concept developers to find innovative solutions with these systems and not inefficiently pursue infeasible approaches to their needs.

Austin, Alexander

Lessons Learned in Remote Participant Concurrent Engineering Concept Development Studies

Team-X was born from a need to perform rapid space mission design for principal investigator-led competed proposals in the mid-1990s. Throughout the last 25 years, Team-X at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has expanded its application of the collaborative, concurrent study approach into every facet necessary to win competed proposals. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 created an immediate and new constraint on these studies – the need to conduct them with remote participants, both on the client side requesting the study, but also on the provider side producing the study. This paper provides lessons learned from dozens of design studies run by Team-X at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic. These lessons span all aspects of the information infrastructure: the people, processes, procedures, methods, tools, and “facilities”. These lessons learned will have applicability post-pandemic, as they have shown how best to incorporate participants, both on the provider side, and on the client side, who cannot travel or otherwise be co-located during collaborative, concurrent study sessions.

Nash, Alfred

The Evolution of Team-X: 25 Years of Concurrent Engineering Design Experience

Established in 1995 in response to NASA’s “Faster, Better, Cheaper” era, Team-X was born from a need to perform rapid space mission design for principal investigator-led competed proposals. The success and sustainability of Team-X over the 25 years that have followed is directly attributable to the Team-X business model and its evolution over time. While dozens of organizations and institutions have emulated the Team-X design process, there are nuances to the Team-X business model that are unique to JPL, and explain why it is different than other concurrent design teams. One of the key components of a business model is the customer segments that are served. Team-X was founded to conduct the Pre-Phase A work necessary to formulate a portfolio of multiple planetary mission concepts, but has since expanded to include the capability to conduct studies for Earth science, astrophysics, and heliophysics missions as well as Human Exploration and Operations missions and space technology development. Team-X delivers value to its clients both in terms of speed and cost. Team-X has also added value by creating teams to enable the development of Instrument and SmallSat Concepts. Value has further been enhanced through a revision of its process for reviews and the addition of pre-design architecting capabilities. Other aspects of the Team-X infrastructure, in addition to study process, have enabled it to succeed for over a quarter century. From our most important resource, the people, our tools, especially for cost estimating, as well as our increasing capable IT infrastructure have contributed to our capability to meet the demands of our clients. The Team-X business model and its evolution over time, position it well for success in the decades to come.

Murphy, Jonathan

Efficient Trade Space Exploration

Two of the principal challenges in efficient trade space exploration are (1) quickly evaluating options, and (2) quickly obtaining stakeholder understanding of the results of the evaluation. This presentation describes the processes & methodology that have led to a factor of nine improvement in the efficiency of trade space exploration of space systems in Team-X at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The principal method that has enabled this increase in efficiency is the separation of the exploration figures of merit into two distinct types, which are then addressed in an efficient order. The figures of merit in a trade space exploration of N subsystems either scale with the number of interactions between the subsystems and the external constraints, O(N), or with the number of interactions between subsystems, O(N2-N).

Nash, Alfred

How Do You Go From a Concept Idea to a NASA Selected Mission? Formulating the Psyche Discovery Mission with JPL's Concurrent Engineering Teams

JPL’s Office of Formulation provides continuity of support and access to domain subject matter experts, as Principal Investigators mature their mission concepts from “cocktail napkin” ideas to Preliminary Design Reviews [1]. Using NASA’s Psyche mission as a case study, we describe JPL’s concurrent engineering A-Team and Team X support to the Psyche competed concept study team in the areas of 1) Initial Feasibility, 2) Trade Space Exploration, 3) Spacecraft Point Design and Cost Estimate, 4) Science, Technical, Management, and Cost Review, and 5) Strategy and Communication Development. NASA’s Psyche Discovery-class mission started as a grassroots idea from Principal Investigator L.T. ElkinsTanton. Is there a compelling Discovery mission to visit the interior of a body for the first time, by sending a mission to an iron metal asteroid? In less than five years the Psyche concept was selected as a mission under NASA’s Discovery Program. While Psyche had a dedicated concept development team [2], they utilized JPL’s concurrent engineering teams, methods, analysis tools, and subject matter experts throughout their mission concept formulation lifecycle

Ziemer, John

How Do You Go From a Concept Idea to a NASA Selected Mission? Formulating the Psyche Discovery Mission with JPL's Concurrent Engineering Teams

JPL’s Office of Formulation provides continuity of support and access to domain subject matter experts, as Principal Investigators mature their mission concepts from “cocktail napkin” ideas to Preliminary Design Reviews [1]. Using NASA’s Psyche mission as a case study, we will describe JPL’s concurrent engineering ATeam and Team X support to the Psyche competed concept study team in the areas of 1) Science Feasibility, 2) Trade Space Exploration, 3) Spacecraft Point Design and Cost Estimate, 4) Science, Technical, Management, and Cost Review, and 5) Strategy and Communication Development. NASA’s Psyche Discovery class mission started as a grassroots idea in our A-Team facility, and in less than five years was selected as a mission under NASA’s Discovery Program. While Psyche had a dedicated concept development team [2], they utilized JPL’s concurrent engineering teams, methods, analysis tools, and experts throughout their mission concept lifecycle.

Ziemer, John