Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Process Systems Engineering”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11

Cutting More than Metal: Breaking the Development Cycle

New technology is changing the way we do business at NASA. The ability to use these new tools is made possible by a learning culture able to embrace innovation, flexibility, and prudent risk tolerance, while retaining the hard-won lessons learned of other successes and failures. Technologies such as 3-D manufacturing and structured light scanning are re-shaping the entire product life cycle, from design and analysis, through production, verification, logistics and operations. New fabrication techniques, verification techniques, integrated analysis, and models that follow the hardware from initial concept through operation are reducing the cost and time of building space hardware. Using these technologies to be more efficient, reliable and affordable requires we bring them to a level safe for NASA systems, maintain appropriate rigor in testing and acceptance, and transition new technology. Maximizing these technologies also requires cultural acceptance and understanding and balancing rules with creativity. Evolved systems engineering processes at NASA are increasingly more flexible than they have been in the past, enabling the implementation of new techniques and approaches. This paper provides an overview of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center's new approach to development, as well as examples of how that approach has been incorporated into NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) Program, which counts among its key tenants - safety, affordability, and sustainability. One of the 3D technologies that will be discussed in this paper is the design and testing of various rocket engine components.

Singer, Chris↗

Systems Engineering Using Heritage Spacecraft Technology: Lessons Learned from Discovery and New Frontiers Deep Space Missions

In the design and development of complex spacecraft missions, project teams frequently assume the use of advanced technology or heritage systems to enable a mission or reduce the overall mission risk and cost. As projects proceed through the development life cycle, increasingly detailed knowledge of the advanced or heritage systems and the system environment identifies unanticipated issues that result in cost overruns or schedule impacts. The Discovery & New Frontiers (D&NF) Program Office recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays resulting from advanced technology or heritage assumptions for 6 D&NF missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that the cost and schedule growth did not result from technical hurdles requiring significant technology development. Instead, systems engineering processes did not identify critical issues early enough in the design cycle to ensure project schedules and estimated costs address the inherent risks. In general, the overruns were traceable to: inadequate understanding of the heritage system s behavior within the proposed spacecraft design and mission environment; an insufficient level of experience with the heritage system; or an inadequate scoping of the system-wide impacts necessary to implement the heritage or advanced technology. This presentation summarizes the study s findings and offers suggestions for improving the project s ability to identify and manage the risks inherent in the technology and heritage design solution.

Barley, Bryan↗

Design and Testing of a Prototype Lunar or Planetary Surface Landing Research Vehicle (LPSLRV)

This handbook describes a two-semester senior design course sponsored by the NASA Office of Education, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), and the NASA Space Grant Consortium. The course was developed and implemented by the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department (MAE) at Utah State University. The course final outcome is a packaged senior design course that can be readily incorporated into the instructional curriculum at universities across the country. The course materials adhere to the standards of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), and is constructed to be relevant to key research areas identified by ESMD. The design project challenged students to apply systems engineering concepts to define research and training requirements for a terrestrial-based lunar landing simulator. This project developed a flying prototype for a Lunar or Planetary Surface Landing Research Vehicle (LPSRV). Per NASA specifications the concept accounts for reduced lunar gravity, and allows the terminal stage of lunar descent to be flown either by remote pilot or autonomously. This free-flying platform was designed to be sufficiently-flexible to allow both sensor evaluation and pilot training. This handbook outlines the course materials, describes the systems engineering processes developed to facilitate design fabrication, integration, and testing. This handbook presents sufficient details of the final design configuration to allow an independent group to reproduce the design. The design evolution and details regarding the verification testing used to characterize the system are presented in a separate project final design report. Details of the experimental apparatus used for system characterization may be found in Appendix F, G, and I of that report. A brief summary of the ground testing and systems verification is also included in Appendix A of this report. Details of the flight tests will be documented in a separate flight test report. This flight test report serves as a complement to the course handbook presented here. This project was extremely ambitious, and achieving all of the design and test objectives was a daunting task. The schedule ran slightly longer than a single academic year with the complete design closure not occurring until early April. Integration and verification testing spilled over into late May and the first flight did not occur until mid to late June. The academic year at Utah State University ended on May 8, 2010. Following the end of the academic year, testing and integration was performed by the faculty advisor, paid research assistants, and volunteer student help

Murphy, Gloria A.↗

Space Mission Operations Concept

Developing a mission operations concept for a space mission is a system engineering process which involves multiple disciplines, working together to describe, in terms of the operators and the users (recipients of the data from the mission), the operational attributes of the flight and ground elements of the mission. A space mission operations concept emphasizes the way the mission is operated/used.

space mission operations mission concepts systems ↗

Requirement Assurance: A Verification Process

Requirement Assurance is an act of requirement verification which assures the stakeholder or customer that a product requirement has produced its "as realized product" and has been verified with conclusive evidence. Product requirement verification answers the question, "did the product meet the stated specification, performance, or design documentation?". In order to ensure the system was built correctly, the practicing system engineer must verify each product requirement using verification methods of inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test. The products of these methods are the "verification artifacts" or "closure artifacts" which are the objective evidence needed to prove the product requirements meet the verification success criteria. Institutional direction is given to the System Engineer in NPR 7123.1A NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements with regards to the requirement verification process. In response, the verification methodology offered in this report meets both the institutional process and requirement verification best practices.

Alexander, Michael G.↗

How Should Life Support Be Modeled and Simulated?

Why do most space life support research groups build and investigate large models for systems simulation? The need for them seems accepted, but are we asking the right questions and solving the real problems? The modeling results leave many questions unanswered. How then should space life support be modeled and simulated? Life support system research and development uses modeling and simulation to study dynamic behavior as part of systems engineering and analysis. It is used to size material flows and buffers and plan contingent operations. A DoD sponsored study used the systems engineering approach to define a set of best practices for modeling and simulation. These best practices describe a systems engineering process of developing and validating requirements, defining and analyzing the model concept, and designing and testing the model. Other general principles for modeling and simulation are presented. Some specific additional advice includes performing a static analysis before developing a dynamic simulation, applying the mass and energy conservation laws, modeling on the appropriate system level, using simplified subsystem representations, designing the model to solve a specific problem, and testing the model on several different problems. Modeling and simulation is necessary in life support design but many problems are outside its scope.

Jones, Harry W.↗

Validation (not just verification) of Deep Space Missions

ion & Validation (V&V) is a widely recognized and critical systems engineering function. However, the often used definition 'Verification proves the design is right; validation proves it is the right design' is rather vague. And while Verification is a reasonably well standardized systems engineering process, Validation is a far more abstract concept and the rigor and scope applied to it varies widely between organizations and individuals. This is reflected in the findings in recent Mishap Reports for several NASA missions, in which shortfalls in Validation (not just Verification) were cited as root- or contributing-factors in catastrophic mission loss. Furthermore, although there is strong agreement in the community that Test is the preferred method for V&V, many people equate 'V&V' with 'Test', such that Analysis and Modeling aren't given comparable attention. Another strong motivator is a realization that the rapid growth in complexity of deep-space missions (particularly Planetary Landers and Space Observatories given their inherent unknowns) is placing greater demands on systems engineers to 'get it right' with Validation.

verification↗

Automated Sequence Processor: Something Old, Something New

High productivity required for operations teams to meet schedules Risk must be minimized. Scripting used to automate processes. Scripts perform essential operations functions. Automated Sequence Processor (ASP) was a grass-roots task built to automate the command uplink process System engineering task for ASP revitalization organized. ASP is a set of approximately 200 scripts written in Perl, C Shell, AWK and other scripting languages.. ASP processes/checks/packages non-interactive commands automatically.. Non-interactive commands are guaranteed to be safe and have been checked by hardware or software simulators.. ASP checks that commands are non-interactive.. ASP processes the commands through a command. simulator and then packages them if there are no errors.. ASP must be active 24 hours/day, 7 days/week..

Automated↗

The Use of Human Modeling of EVA Tasks as a Systems Engineering Tool

Computer-generated human models have been used in aerospace design for a decade. They have come to be highly reliable for worksite analysis of certain types of EVA tasks. In many design environments, this analysis comes after the structural design is largely complete. However, the use of these models as a development tool is gaining acceptance within organizations that practice good systems engineering processes. The design of the United States Propulsion Module for the International Space Station provides an example of this application. The Propulsion Module will provide augmentation to the propulsion capability supplied by the Russian Service Module Zvezda. It is a late addition to the set of modules provided by the United States to the ISS Program, and as a result, faces design challenges that result from the level of immaturity of its integration into the Station. Among these are heat dissipation and physical envelopes. Since the rest of the Station was designed to maximize the use of the cooling system, little margin is available for the addition of another module. The Propulsion Module will attach at the forward end of the Station, and will be between the Orbiter and the rest of ISS. Since cargo must be removed from the Payload Bay and transferred to Station by the Canadarm, there is a potential for protrusions from the module, such as thruster booms, to interfere with robotic operations. These and similar engineering issues must be addressed as part of the development. In the implementation of good system design, all design solutions should be analyzed for compatibility with all affected subsystems. Human modeling has been used in this project to provide rapid input to system trades of design concepts. For example, the placement of radiators and avionics components for optimization of heat dissipation had to be examined for feasibility of EVA translation paths and worksite development. Likewise, the location of and mechanism for the retraction of thruster booms was partly driven by available Orbiter, robotic arm, and other module envelopes; worksite analysis was required for early assessment of task success. Since these trade studies included the EVA analysis as part of the decision criteria, the design had a high degree of assurance of EVA supportability from the outset. This approach contributes greatly to mission success.

Dischinger, H. Charles, Jr.↗

Europa Explorer Operational Scenarios Development

In 2007, NASA conducted four advanced mission concept studies for outer planets targets: Europa, Ganymede, Titan and Enceladus. The studies were conducted in close cooperation with the planetary science community. Of the four, the Europa Explorer Concept Study focused on refining mission options, science trades and implementation details for a potential flagship mission to Europa in the 2015 timeframe. A science definition team (SDT) was appointed by NASA to guide the study. A JPL-led engineering team worked closely with the science team to address 3 major focus areas: 1) credible cost estimates, 2) rationale and logical discussion of radiation risk and mitigation approaches, and 3) better definition and exploration of science operational scenario trade space. This paper will address the methods and results of the collaborative process used to develop Europa Explorer operations scenarios. Working in concert with the SDT, and in parallel with the SDT's development of a science value matrix, key mission capabilities and constraints were challenged by the science and engineering members of the team. Science goals were advanced and options were considered for observation scenarios. Data collection and return strategies were tested via simulation, and mission performance was estimated and balanced with flight and ground system resources and science priorities. The key to this successful collaboration was a concurrent development environment in which all stakeholders could rapidly assess the feasibility of strategies for their success in the full system context. Issues of science and instrument compatibility, system constraints, and mission opportunities were treated analytically and objectively leading to complementary strategies for observation and data return. Current plans are that this approach, as part of the system engineering process, will continue as the Europa Explorer Concept Study moves toward becoming a development project.

Lock, Robert E.↗

Practical Application of Model-based Programming and State-based Architecture to Space Missions

Innovative systems and software engineering solutions are required to meet the increasingly challenging demands of deep-space robotic missions. While recent advances in the development of an integrated systems and software engineering approach have begun to address some of these issues, they are still at the core highly manual and, therefore, error-prone. This paper describes a task aimed at infusing MIT's model-based executive, Titan, into JPL's Mission Data System (MDS), a unified state-based architecture, systems engineering process, and supporting software framework. Results of the task are presented, including a discussion of the benefits and challenges associated with integrating mature model-based programming techniques and technologies into a rigorously-defined domain specific architecture.

state analysis↗

POLARIS: Helping Managers Get Answers Fast!

This viewgraph presentation reviews the Project Online Library and Resource Information System (POLARIS) system. It is NASA-wide, web-based system, providing access to information related to Program and Project Management. It will provide a one-stop shop for access to: a searchable, sortable database of all requirements for all product lines, project life cycle diagrams with reviews, project life cycle diagrams with reviews, project review definitions with products review information from NPR 7123.1, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, templates and examples of products, project standard WBSs with dictionaries, and requirements for implementation and approval, information from NASA s Metadata Manager (MdM): Attributes of Missions, Themes, Programs & Projects, NPR7120.5 waiver form and instructions and much more. The presentation reviews the plans and timelines for future revisions and modifications.

program management↗

An Approach to Tailoring Major Technical Reviews Based on Project Characteristics and Stakeholder Interests

There are numerous technical reviews that occur throughout the systems engineering process life cycle. Many are well known by project managers and stakeholders such as developers and end users, an example of much is the critical design review (CDR). This major milestone for a large, complex new project may last two or more days, include an extensive agenda of topics, and entail hundreds of hours of developer time to prepare presentation materials and associated documents. Additionally, the weeks of schedule spent on review preparation is at least partly at the expense of other work. This paper suggests an approach for tailoring technical reviews, based on the project characteristics and the project manager s identification of the key stakeholders and understanding of their most important issues and considerations. With this insight the project manager can communicate to, manage expectations oc and establish formal agreement with the stakeholders as to which reviews, and at what depth, are most appropriate to achieve project success. The authors, coming from diverse organizations and backgrounds, have drawn on their personal experiences and summarized the best practices of their own organizations to create a common framework to provide guidance on the adaptation of design reviews to other system engineers.

Richstein, Alan B.↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

Knowledge-matching based computational framework for genome-scale metabolic model refinement

Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) are mathematically structured knowledge base reconstructed from annotated genome of different organisms. With the advancement of next-generation sequencing technology, many organisms have had their genomes sequenced. However, obtaining a high-quality GEM is highly time-consuming, even with the introduction of several genome-scale reconstruction tools that offer automated draft network generation and gap filling. It has been recognized that the iterative process of manual curation and refinement is the limiting step of GEM development, and how to expedite the GEM refinement is still an open question. As cellular metabolism is a complex system with very high degree of freedom and redundancy, the principles and techniques developed in process systems engineering can be adapted to expedite GEM refinement. In this paper we present a knowledge-matching based computation framework for GEM refinement, and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed solution using the refinement of a GEM for Clostridium tyrobutyricum.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗