Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CONTRACTOR”

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 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2001

Integrated System Test of an Airbreathing Rocket (ISTAR)

Rocket Based Combined Cycle (RBCC) propulsion system development and ground test is being conducted as part of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Integrated System Test of an Airbreathing Rocket (ISTAR) program. Rocketdyne, Aerojet and Pratt & Whitney have teamed as the Rocket Based Combined Cycle Consortium (RBC3) to work the propulsion system development. Each company offered unique RBCC propulsion concepts as candidates for the ISTAR propulsion system. A team of engine contractor, vehicle contractor and NASA representatives reviewed the concepts proposed by each company, reviewed the available data and selected the Aerojet RBCC propulsion system concept as the team propulsion system baseline for the ISTAR program. The ISTAR program is currently in a "Jumpstart" phase for development of the engine system leading to ground test of a thermally and power balanced RBCC propulsion system at Stennis Space Center in 2005. A parallel flight test demonstration of this propulsion system is anticipated to lead to first flight in the 2007 timeframe.

Faulkner, Robert F.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

This report covers the activities of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) for calendar year 1998-a year of sharp contrasts and significant successes at NASA. The year opened with the announcement of large workforce cutbacks. The slip in the schedule for launching the International Space Station (ISS) created a five-month hiatus in Space Shuttle launches. This slack period ended with the successful and highly publicized launch of the STS-95 mission. As the year closed, ISS assembly began with the successful orbiting and joining of the Functional Cargo Block (FGB), Zarya, from Russia and the Unity Node from the United States. Throughout the year, the Panel maintained its scrutiny of NASA's safety processes. Of particular interest were the potential effects on safety of workforce reductions and the continued transition of functions to the Space Flight Operations Contractor. Attention was also given to the risk management plans of the Aero-Space Technology programs, including the X-33, X-34, and X-38. Overall, the Panel concluded that safety is well served for the present. The picture is not as clear for the future. Cutbacks have limited the depth of talent available. In many cases, technical specialties are 'one deep.' The extended hiring freeze has resulted in an older workforce that will inevitably suffer significant departures from retirements in the near future. The resulting 'brain drain' could represent a future safety risk unless appropriate succession planning is started expeditiously. This and other topics are covered in the section addressing workforce. The major NASA programs are also limited in their ability to plan property for the future. This is of particular concern for the Space Shuttle and ISS because these programs are scheduled to operate well into the next century. In the case of the Space Shuttle, beneficial and mandatory safety and operational upgrades are being delayed because of a lack of sufficient present funding. Likewise, the ISS has little flexibility to begin long lead-time items for upgrades or contingency planning. For example, the section on computer hardware and software contains specific findings related to required longer range safety-related actions. NASA can be proud of its accomplishments this past year, but must remain ever vigilant, particularly as ISS assembly begins to accelerate. The Panel will continue to focus on both the short- and long-term aspects of risk management and safety planning. This task continues to be made manageable and productive by the excellent cooperation the Panel receives from both NASA and its contractors. Particular emphasis will continue to be directed to longer term workforce and program planning issues as well as the immediate risks associated with ISS assembly and the initial flights of the X-33 and X-34. Section 2 of this report presents specific findings and recommendations generated by ASAP activities during 1998. Section 3 contains more detailed information in support of these findings and recommendations. Appendix A is a current roster of Panel members, consultants, and staff. Appendix B contains NASA's response to the findings and recommendations from the 1997 ASAP Annual Report. Appendix C details the fact-finding activities of the Panel in 1998. During the year, Mr. Richard D. Blomberg was elected chair of the Panel and Vice Admiral (VADM) Robert F Dunn was elected deputy chair. VADM Bernard M. Kauderer moved from consultant to member. Mr. Charles J. Donlan retired from the Panel after many years of meritorious service. Ms. Shirley C. McCarty and Mr. Robert L. ('Hoot') Gibson joined the Panel as consultants.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

Engineering Management Capstone Project EM 697: Compare and Contrast Risk Management Implementation at NASA and the US Army

NASA at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and the U.S. Army at Redstone Arsenal were analyzed to determine whether they were successful in implementing their risk management program. Risk management implementation surveys were distributed to aid in this analysis. The scope is limited to NASA S&MA (Safety and Mission Assurance) at MSFC, including applicable support contractors, and the US Army Engineering Directorate, including applicable contractors, located at Redstone Arsenal. NASA has moderately higher risk management implementation survey scores than the Army. Accordingly, the implementation of the risk management program at NASA is considered good while only two of five of the survey categories indicated that the risk management implementation is good at the Army.

Brothers, Mary Ann↗
NASA NTRS2002

NASA New England Outreach Center

The NASA New England Outreach Center in Nashua, New Hampshire was established to serve as a catalyst for heightening regional business awareness of NASA procurement, technology and commercialization opportunities. Emphasis is placed on small business participation, with the highest priority given to small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned businesses, HUBZone businesses, service disabled veteran owned businesses, and historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions. The Center assists firms and organizations to understand NASA requirements and to develop strategies to capture NASA related procurement and technology opportunities. The establishment of the NASA Outreach Center serves to stimulate business in a historically underserved area. NASA direct business awards have traditionally been highly present in the West, Midwest, South, and Southeast areas of the United States. The Center guides and assists businesses and organizations in the northeast to target opportunities within NASA and its prime contractors and capture business and technology opportunities. The Center employs an array of technology access, one-on-one meetings, seminars, site visits, and targeted conferences to acquaint Northeast firms and organizations with representatives from NASA and its prime contractors to learn about and discuss opportunities to do business and access the inventory of NASA technology. This stimulus of interaction also provides firms and organizations the opportunity to propose the use of their developed technology and ideas for current and future requirements at NASA. The Center provides a complement to the NASA Northeast Regional Technology Transfer Center in developing prospects for commercialization of NASA technology. In addition, the Center responds to local requests for assistance and NASA material and documents, and is available to address immediate concerns and needs in assessing opportunities, timely support to interact with NASA Centers on a local level, and develop easy access to information. The Center acts in the manner of a "NASA Center or Field Office" with direction from NASA Headquarters, Code K.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2001

NASA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) within NASA promotes the utilization of small, disadvantaged, and women-owned small businesses in compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and policies. We assist such firms in obtaining contracts and subcontracts with NASA and its prime contractors. The OSDBU also facilitates the participation of small businesses in NASA's technology transfer and commercialization activities. Our driving philosophy is to consider small businesses as our products. Our customers are the NASA Enterprises, Field Centers, Functional Staff Offices, major prime contractors, and other large institutions. We hone the skills of our products to make them marketable to our customers in the performance of NASA missions.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

How Do We Work Together?

In essence, project management is about people. Virtually every successful project is defined by good relations between the people involved. In the same way, nearly every failed or troubled project is about poor relationships between the people involved. Let's consider one type of relationship: the one between the government and the contractor. It's easy to say that a contractor must earn the government's trust, but what does that mean in practice? Who needs to earn whose trust? What's the timeline for doing that? How does anyone know when he or she is trusted? What is the relationship supposed to be like before one feels like trust has really been established? So many questions it makes my head hurt. I have always found it better to begin a relationship assuming that everyone is trustworthy until, and unless, something occurs to belie trust.

Little, Terry↗
NASA NTRS2001

A 3-Dimensional Analysis of the Galactic Gamma-Ray Emission Resulting from Cosmic-Ray Interactions with the Interstellar Gas and Radiation Fields

The contractor will provide support for the analysis of data under ADP (NRA 96-ADP- 09; Proposal No . 167-96adp). The primary task objective is to construct a 3-D model for the distribution of high-energy (20 MeV - 30 GeV) gamma-ray emission in the Galactic disk. Under this task the contractor will utilize data from the EGRET instrument on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory, H I and CO surveys, radio-continuum surveys at 408 MHz, 1420 MHz, 5 GHz, and 19 GHz, the COBE Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment (DIME) all-sky maps from 1 to 240 p, and ground-based B, V, J, H, and K photometry. The respective contributions to the gamma-ray emission from cosmic ray/matter interactions, inverse Compton scattering, and extragalactic emission will be determined.

Sodroski, Thomas J.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Smart Buying

When it came time to buy the next-generation data storage system for the Mission Control Center at Johnson Space Center, we asked our contractor who provides Control Center support to come up with a solution that would consolidate three current storage systems, as well as provide additional capability and functionality - all without spending vast amounts of money. Eventually, the contractor's report arrived at my office. To my great disappointment, the proposed system came along with a multi-million dollar price tag. And, even more disappointing, the system relied on the same technology we already had in place and wouldn't deliver much additional functionality. It was clear that we needed to come up with a better solution-the best we could buy. But how do you buy the best technology, when you don't even know what technology is out there?

Gonzalez, Steven A.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Liquid Engine Test Facilities Assessment

The John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) requested The Aerospace Corporation to examine the current testing capability of all existing large liquid engine test facilities located in the United States. That information along with projected liquid rocket engine development was used to examine future liquid rocket engine testing facilities needs in the coming decade. Current domestic liquid engine test facilities capabilities, when examined against engine concepts for the coming decade, indicate there are ample facilities offering altitude simulation during test. In addition, it was observed that many contractor facilities have limited ambient test capability of larger thrust engines under current consideration. Finally, it was concluded that diminished contractor participation engine development testing will drive this activity to the government sector. Only three facilities are seen as key contributors to engine testing in the coming decade, namely John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC), Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). Past rocket engine test experience was evaluated as a possible resource for projecting future engine test needs. A database comprised of various engine models and the level of testing performed to flight qualify those systems for their first flight was constructed. For comparison purposes in this study, development and qualification efforts were totaled and treated as one test program. Based on experience with past Air Force programs, the time on the test stand accounts for typically 50% or more of the total program time. Historical data show that the time to design and develop new engines has increased over the last 40 years, most likely due to scarcer resources in today's funding environment.

Adams, Michael J.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Improving the Agency's Software Acquisition Capability

External development of software has oftc n led to unsatisfactory results and great frustration for the assurE 7ce community. Contracts frequently omit critical assuranc 4 processes or the right to oversee software development activitie: At a time when NASA depends more and more on software to in plement critical system functions, combination of three factors ex; cerbate this problem: I ) the ever-increasing trend to acquire rather than develop software in-house, 2) the trend toward performance based contracts, and 3) acquisition vehicles that only state softwar 2 requirements while leaving development standards and assur! ince methodologies up to the contractor. We propose to identify specific methods at d tools that NASA projects can use to mitigate the adverse el ects of the three problems. TWO broad classes of methoddt ~ols will be explored. The first will be those that provide NASA p ojects with insight and oversight into contractors' activities. The st cond will be those that help projects objectively assess, and thus i nprwe, their software acquisition capability. Of particular interest is the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) Software Acqt isition Capability Maturity Model (SA-CMMO).

Hankinson, Allen↗
NASA NTRS2004

Hot Shot

The NASA Messenger spacecraft is ready for launch to Mercury on a mission researchers hope will unravel why the closest planet to the Sun is so dramatically different from its siblings - Earth, Venus and Mars - all born from the same solar nebula 5 billion years ago. The NASA/Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) spacecraft is to lift off here Aug. 2 at 2:16 a.m. EDT on a Boeing Delta II Heavy booster. Development of the $426-million mission has involved 800 people from 50 contractors and organizations spread across 24 U.S. states and six countries. Canadian, Italian and German companies are among the major contractors.

Covault, Craig↗
NASA NTRS2004

Hot Shot

The NASA Messenger spacecraft is ready for launch to Mercury on a mission researchers hope will unravel why the closest planet to the Sun is so dramatically different from its siblings-Earth, Venus and Mars-all born from the same solar nebula 5 billion years ago. The NASA/Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) spacecraft is to lift off here Aug. 2 at 216 a.m. EDT on a Boeing Delta I1 Heavy booster. Development of the $426- million mission has involved 800 people from 50 contractors and organizations spread across 24 U.S. states and six countries. Canadian, Italian and German companies are among the major contractors.

Covault, Craig↗
NASA NTRS2004

Proposed Development of NASA Glenn Research Center's Aeronautical Network Research Simulator

Accurate knowledge and understanding of data link traffic loads that will have an impact on the underlying communications infrastructure within the National Airspace System (NAS) is of paramount importance for planning, development and fielding of future airborne and ground-based communications systems. Attempting to better understand this impact, NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), through its contractor Computer Networks & Software, Inc. (CNS, Inc.), has developed an emulation and test facility known as the Virtual Aircraft and Controller (VAC) to study data link interactions and the capacity of the NAS to support Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) traffic. The drawback of the current VAC test bed is that it does not allow the test personnel and researchers to present a real world RF environment to a complex airborne or ground system. Fortunately, the United States Air Force and Navy Avionics Test Commands, through its contractor ViaSat, Inc., have developed the Joint Communications Simulator (JCS) to provide communications band test and simulation capability for the RF spectrum through 18 GHz including Communications, Navigation, and Identification and Surveillance functions. In this paper, we are proposing the development of a new and robust test bed that will leverage on the existing NASA GRC's VAC and the Air Force and Navy Commands JCS systems capabilities and functionalities. The proposed NASA Glenn Research Center's Aeronautical Networks Research Simulator (ANRS) will combine current Air Traffic Control applications and physical RF stimulation into an integrated system capable of emulating data transmission behaviors including propagation delay, physical protocol delay, transmission failure and channel interference. The ANRS will provide a simulation/stimulation tool and test bed environment that allow the researcher to predict the performance of various aeronautical network protocol standards and their associated waveforms under varying density conditions. The system allows the user to define human-interactive and scripted aircraft and controller models of various standards, such as (but not limited to) Very High Frequency Digital Link (VDL) of various modes.

Nguyen, Thanh C.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Teaming for Exploration

A multibillion-dollar NASA contracting effort, the largest since the Apollo, shuttle, and space station developments, is formally underway with the release of the draft request for proposals for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to replace the shuttle and eventually return astronauts to the Moon as a stepping-stone to Mars. With guidance from the draft request for proposals (RFP) now in hand, contractors are beginning a flurry of activity to posture for formal bids and to align their earlier in-house concepts with major new exploration program specifics, including strong guidelines on managing cost and risk. And Lockheed Martin will announce this week that it is teaming with EADS Space Transportation for the CEV contract. Should this team win, Europe's largest aerospace contractor would be in line for a key role in developing a replacement for the shuttle and renewed human operations on the lunar surface.

Covault, Craig↗
NASA NTRS2005

Overview of NASA MSFC IEC Federated Engineering Collaboration Capability

The MSFC IEC federated engineering framework is currently developing a single collaborative engineering framework across independent NASA centers. The federated approach allows NASA centers the ability to maintain diversity and uniqueness, while providing interoperability. These systems are integrated together in a federated framework without compromising individual center capabilities. MSFC IEC's Federation Framework will have a direct affect on how engineering data is managed across the Agency. The approach is directly attributed in response to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAB) finding F7.4-11 which states the Space Shuttle Program has a wealth of data sucked away in multiple databases without a convenient way to integrate and use the data for management, engineering, or safety decisions. IEC s federated capability is further supported by OneNASA recommendation 6 that identifies the need to enhance cross-Agency collaboration by putting in place common engineering and collaborative tools and databases, processes, and knowledge-sharing structures. MSFC's IEC Federated Framework is loosely connected to other engineering applications that can provide users with the integration needed to achieve an Agency view of the entire product definition and development process, while allowing work to be distributed across NASA Centers and contractors. The IEC DDMS federation framework eliminates the need to develop a single, enterprise-wide data model, where the goal of having a common data model shared between NASA centers and contractors is very difficult to achieve.

Moushon, Brian↗
NASA NTRS1999

Pyroshock Environments Characterized for Spacecraft Missions

Pyrotechnic shock, or pyroshock, is the transient response of a structure to loading induced by the ignition of pyrotechnic (explosive or propellant activated) devices. These devices are typically used to separate structural systems (e.g., separate a spacecraft from a launch vehicle) and deploy appendages (e.g., solar panels). Pyroshocks are characterized by high peak acceleration, high-frequency content, and short duration. Because of their high acceleration and high-frequency, pyroshocks can cause spaceflight hardware to fail. Verifying by test that spaceflight hardware can withstand the anticipated shock environment is considered essential to mission success. The Earth Observing System (EOS) AM-1 spacecraft for NASA's Mission to Planet Earth is scheduled to be launched on an Atlas IIAS vehicle in 1999, and the NASA Lewis Research Center is the launch vehicle integrator for this NASA Goddard Space Flight Center spacecraft. The EOS spacecraft was subjected to numerous ground shock tests to verify that its scientific instruments and avionics components will withstand the shock-induced vibration produced when the spacecraft separates from the launch vehicle. Shock test data from these tests represent the third largest available pyroshock database in the United States. Future spacecraft missions will directly benefit from the knowledge gained from these tests. The payload separation system used for EOS is a new system that operates by firing six separation nuts. This system was tested to verify its functional operation and to characterize the resulting shock levels. The launch vehicle contractor (Lockheed Martin Astronautics) and spacecraft contractor (Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space) completed 16 separation test firings. This resulted in an unusually large amount of pyroshock data. Typically, only one or two pyroshock test firings are performed for a spacecraft mission. Because of the size of this separation system shock database, engineers were able to perform unique statistical analyses to characterize the distribution of the test data. For example, it was proven that the shock data follow a lognormal distribution, a concept often assumed but rarely proven. The test-to-test repeatability of the shock source level was analyzed, and the effects of various test configurations and separation nut production lots were examined and quantified. Engineers investigated the change in shock level as the shock traveled from the spacecraft separation interface to the avionics components of the upper stage and analyzed the effects of the structural fidelity (simulator versus real) of the components and their weight on vibrational response. In addition, the shock attenuation with distance and across joints was quantified and compared with concepts originally generated in 1970, and the effects of separation nut preload and firing sequences effects were examined. Because of this EOS shock testing and the analyses performed at NASA Lewis, a significant amount of new information on pyroshock and its characteristics is now available to the aerospace industry. We hope that this information will help future spacecraft test planners to perform better and cheaper spacecraft separation shock tests and to better understand their test data.

Hughes, William O.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory-New Class 100 Cleanroom Completed and Certified

A new Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory (MFL), a Class 100 cleanroom fabrication facility, was completed and certified in 2002 at the NASA Glenn Research Center. This facility, to be used by Glenn's Instrumentation and Controls Division, was designed and built as part of the NASA Construction of Facilities Program. The design, construction, and certification phases were managed by personnel from Glenn s Facilities and Test Engineering Division. Because of time constraints and the need for specialized cleanroom expertise, this 1000 ft2 laboratory was completed using a design-build procurement. Facility Planning & Resources (Pittsburgh, PA) was selected as the prime contractor and provided the architectural design and project management. A major subcontractor, AdvanceTEC, LLC (Richmond, VA), provided the mechanical and electrical design and performed the construction services. Throughout this fast-track project, Facilities and Test Engineering Division personnel provided overall project management and worked closely with the contractors to ensure that the customers needs were addressed and that the impact of the project implementation was minimized.

Borato, Frances M.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Lessons Learned Implementing DOORS in a Citrix Environment

NASA's James Web Space Telescope (JWST) Project is a large multi-national project with geographically dispersed contractors that all need access to the Projects requirement database. Initially, the project utilized multiple DOORS databases with the built-in partitions feature to exchange modules amongst the various contractor sites. As the requirements databases matured the use of partitions became extremely difficult. There have been many issues such as incompatible versions of DOORS, inefficient mechanism for sharing modules, security concerns, performance issues, and inconsistent document import and export formats. Deployment of the client software with limited IT resources available was also an issue. The solution chosen by JWST was to integrate the use of a Citrix environment with the DOORS database to address most of the project concerns. The use of the Citrix solution allowed a single Requirements database in a secure environment via a web interface. The Citrix environment allows JWST to upgrade to the most current version of DOORS without having to coordinate multiple sites and user upgrades. The single requirements database eliminates a multitude of Configuration Management concerns and facilitated the standardization of documentation formats. This paper discusses the obstacles and the lessons learned throughout the installation, implementation, usage and deployment process of a centralized DOORS database solution.

Bussman, Marie↗