Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “requirements prioritization”

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of Model-Based Systems Engineering Efforts to Evolve the Airspace Research Roadmap

NASA’s Air Traffic Management-Exploration (ATM-X) UAM Airspace Subproject is conducting research that evolves UAM airspace towards a highly automated and operationally flexible system of the future. The complexity of UAM airspace evolution requires a plan to effectively organize, integrate, and communicate NASA’s research and development. The planning tool, called the UAM airspace research roadmap, or just roadmap, is key to the execution of NASA’s UAM airspace research over the next ten years. Implemented through Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) methodology, the roadmap will help to prioritize and coordinate research efforts, and to integrate results that build towards NASA’s research goals of evolving UAM airspace for integration of UAM operations into the National Airspace System (NAS). This paper presents an overview of on-going MBSE efforts to meet these overarching goals.

Model-Based Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2009

Future System Science Mission Targets for Heliophysics

Heliophysics is a discipline that investigates the science at work from the interface of Earth and space, to the core of the Sun, and to the outer edge of our solar system. This solar-interplanetary-planetary system is vast and inherently coupled on many spatial, temporal and energy scales. The Sun's explosive energy output creates complicated field and plasma structures that when coupled without terrestrial magnetized space, generates an extraordinary complex environment that has practical implications for humanity as we are becoming increasingly dependent on space-based assets. The immense volume of our cosmic neighborhood is the domain of heliophysics. Understanding this domain and the dominant mechanisms that control the transfer of mass and energy requires a system approach that addresses all aspects and regions of the system. The 2009 NASA Heliophysics Roadmap presents a science-focused strategic approach to advance the goal of heliophysics: why does the Sun vary; how do the Earth and heliosphere respond; and what are the impacts on humanity? This talk will present the top 6 prioritized science targets to understand the coupled heliophysics system as presented in the 2009 NASA Heliophysics Roadmap. An exposition of each science target and how it addresses outstanding questions in heliophysics will be discussed.

Spann, James↗
NASA NTRS2013

RadWorks Storm Shelter Design for Solar Particle Event Shielding

In order to enable long-duration human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, the risks associated with exposure of astronaut crews to space radiation must be mitigated with practical and affordable solutions. The space radiation environment beyond the magnetosphere is primarily a combination of two types of radiation: galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar particle events (SPE). While mitigating GCR exposure remains an open issue, reducing astronaut exposure to SPEs is achievable through material shielding because they are made up primarily of medium-energy protons. In order to ensure astronaut safety for long durations beyond low-Earth orbit, SPE radiation exposure must be mitigated. However, the increasingly demanding spacecraft propulsive performance for these ambitious missions requires minimal mass and volume radiation shielding solutions which leverage available multi-functional habitat structures and logistics as much as possible. This paper describes the efforts of NASA's RadWorks Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Project to design minimal mass SPE radiation shelter concepts leveraging available resources. Discussion items include a description of the shelter trade space, the prioritization process used to identify the four primary shelter concepts chosen for maturation, a summary of each concept's design features, a description of the radiation analysis process, and an assessment of the parasitic mass of each concept.

Simon, Matthew A.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Applying Registry Services to Spaceflight Technologies to Aid in the Assignment of Assigned Numbers to Disparate Systems and Their Technologies to Further Enable Interoperability

To date very little effort has been made to provide interoperability between various space agency projects. To effectively get to the Moon and beyond systems must interoperate. To provide interoperability, standardization and registries of various technologies will be required. These registries will be created as they relate to space flight. With the new NASA Moon/Mars initiative a requirement to standardize and control the naming conventions of very disparate systems and technologies are emerging. The need to provide numbering to the many processes, schemas, vehicles, robots, space suits and technologies (e.g. versions), to name a few, in the highly complex Constellation Initiative is imperative. The number of corporations, developer personnel, system interfaces, people interfaces will require standardization and registries on a scale not currently envisioned. It would only take one exception (stove piped system development) to weaken, if not, destroy interoperability. To start, a standardized registry process must be defined that allows many differing engineers, organizations and operators the ability to easily access disparate registry information across numerous technological and scientific disciplines. Once registries are standardized the need to provide registry support in terms of setup and operations, resolution of conflicts between registries and other issues will need to be addressed. Registries should not be confused with repositories. No end user data is "stored" in a registry nor is it a configuration control system. Once a registry standard is created and approved, the technologies that should be registered must be identified and prioritized. In this paper, we will identify and define a registry process that is compatible with the Constellation Initiative and other non related space activities and organizations. We will then identify and define the various technologies that should use a registry to provide interoperability. The first set of technologies will be those that are currently in need of expansion namely the assignment of satellite designations and the process which controls assignments. Second, we will analyze the technologies currently standardized under the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) banner. Third, we will analyze the current CCSDS working group and birds of a feather activities to ascertain registry requirements. Lastly, we will identify technologies that are either currently under the auspices of another

Bradford, Robert N.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Applying Registry Services to Spaceflight Technologies to Aid in the Assignment of Assigned Numbers to Disparate Systems and their Technologies to Further Enable Interoperability

To date very little effort has been made to provide interoperability between various space agency projects. To effectively get to the Moon and beyond systems must interoperate. To provide interoperability, standardization and registries of various technologies will be required. These registries will be created as they relate to space flight. With the new NASA Moon/Mars initiative, a requirement to standardize and control the naming conventions of very disparate systems and technologies is emerging. The need to provide numbering to the many processes, schemas, vehicles, robots, space suits and technologies (e.g. versions), to name a few, in the highly complex Constellation initiative is imperative. The number of corporations, developer personnel, system interfaces, people interfaces will require standardization and registries on a scale not currently envisioned. It would only take one exception (stove piped system development) to weaken, if not, destroy interoperability. To start, a standardized registry process must be defined that allows many differing engineers, organizations and operators the ability to easily access disparate registry information across numerous technological and scientific disciplines. Once registries are standardized the need to provide registry support in terms of setup and operations, resolution of conflicts between registries and other issues will need to be addressed. Registries should not be confused with repositories. No end user data is "stored" in a registry nor is it a configuration control system. Once a registry standard is created and approved, the technologies that should be registered must be identified and prioritized. In this paper, we will identify and define a registry process that is compatible with the Constellation initiative and other non related space activities and organizations. We will then identify and define the various technologies that should use a registry to provide interoperability. The first set of technologies will be those that are currently in need of expansion namely the assignment of satellite designations and the process which controls assignments. Second, we will analyze the technologies currently standardized under the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) banner. Third, we will analyze the current CCSDS working group and Birds of a Feather (BoF) activities to ascertain registry requirements. Lastly, we will identify technologies that are either currently under the auspices of another standards body or technologies that are currently not standardized. For activities one through three, we will provide the analysis by either discipline or technology with rationale, identification and brief description of requirements and precedence. For activity four, we will provide a list of current standards bodies e.g. IETF and a list of potential candidates.

Bradford, Robert N.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Exploration Space Suit Architecture and Destination Environmental-Based Technology Development

This paper continues forward where EVA Space Suit Architecture: Low Earth Orbit Vs. Moon Vs. Mars [1] left off in the development of a space suit architecture that is modular in design and could be reconfigured prior to launch or during any given mission depending on the tasks or destination. This paper will address the space suit system architecture and technologies required based upon human exploration extravehicular activity (EVA) destinations, and describe how they should evolve to meet the future exploration EVA needs of the US human space flight program.1, 2, 3 In looking forward to future US space exploration to a space suit architecture with maximum reuse of technology and functionality across a range of mission profiles and destinations, a series of exercises and analyses have provided a strong indication that the Constellation Program (CxP) space suit architecture is postured to provide a viable solution for future exploration missions4. The destination environmental analysis presented in this paper demonstrates that the modular architecture approach could provide the lowest mass and mission cost for the protection of the crew given any human mission outside of low-Earth orbit (LEO). Additionally, some of the high-level trades presented here provide a review of the environmental and non-environmental design drivers that will become increasingly important the farther away from Earth humans venture. This paper demonstrates a logical clustering of destination design environments that allows a focused approach to technology prioritization, development, and design that will maximize the return on investment, independent of any particular program, and provide architecture and design solutions for space suit systems in time or ahead of need dates for any particular crewed flight program in the future. The approach to space suit design and interface definition discussion will show how the architecture is very adaptable to programmatic and funding changes with minimal redesign effort such that the modular architecture can be quickly and efficiently honed into a specific mission point solution if required. Additionally, the modular system will allow for specific technology incorporation and upgrade as required with minimal redesign of the system.

Hill, Terry R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advanced Electric Propulsion System (AEPS) Enabling a Sustainable Return to the Lunar Surface through NASA Gateway

NASA continues to evolve a human exploration approach for beyond low-Earth orbit. The center of this approach is NASA’s Gateway that is envisioned to provide a maneuverable outpost in lunar orbit to extend human presence in deep space and expand on NASA exploration goals. The Gateway represents the initial step in NASA’s architecture for human cislunar operations, lunar surface access and missions to Mars. NASA announced at the May 2020 NASA Advisory Council’s Human Explorations and Operations Committee a new plan that calls for launching the first two elements of Gateway as a co-manifested mission in the late 2023 timeframe [2]. Launching the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) together reduces mission risk, utilizes the PPE high-powered Electric Propulsion (EP) system to transport both elements to the lunar orbit, and reduces overall cost. NASA and Maxar Technologies have a commercial partnership to develop and demonstration a high-powered Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) spacecraft [3, 4]. The PPE is baselined to include three 12.5-kW Advanced Electric Propulsion Systems (AEPS) and four 6-kW Hall thrusters, currently under development by Maxar, for a total beginning of life propulsion power of over 48-kW [5]. High-power solar electric propulsion is one of the key technologies that has been prioritized because of its significant exploration benefits, specifically, for missions beyond low Earth orbit. Spacecraft size and mass are currently dominated by onboard chemical propulsion systems and propellants that may constitute more than 50 percent of spacecraft mass. This impact can be substantially reduced through the utilization of SEP, due to its higher specific impulse and lower propellant load required to meet the equivalent mission delta-V. Studies performed for NASA’s HEOMD and Science Mission Directorate (SMD) have demonstrated that 40-kW-class SEP provides the necessary capabilities that would enable near term and future architectures, and science missions [6]. Accordingly, NASA has been developing a 12 kW Hall thruster electric propulsion thruster that can serve as the building block for a 40-kW-class SEP capability. The AEPS development, led by the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), began with the maturation of the high-power Hall thruster. The technology development work has transitioned to AR via a competitive procurement selection for the AEPS contract in May 2016. Management of the AEPS contract is being led by NASA GRC with funding from NASA’s Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) under the Technology Demonstration Missions (TDM) program. NASA continues to support the AEPS development leveraging in-house expertise, plasma modeling capability, and world-class test facilities.

AEPS↗
NASA NTRS2008

Coastal Marsh Monitoring for Persistent Saltwater Intrusion

This viewgraph presentation reviews NASA's work on the project that supports the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA) Governors Action Plan to monitor the coastal wetlands for saltwater intrusion. The action items that relate to the task are: (1) Obtain information on projected relative sea level rise, subsidence, and storm vulnerability to help prioritize conservation projects, including restoration, enhancement, and acquisition, and (2) Develop and apply ecosystem models to forecast the habitat structure and succession following hurricane disturbance and changes in ecological functions and services that impact vital socio-economic aspects of coastal systems. The objectives of the program are to provide resource managers with remote sensing products that support ecosystem forecasting models requiring salinity and inundation data. Specifically, the proposed work supports the habitat-switching modules in the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Assessment and Restoration (CLEAR) model, which provides scientific evaluation for restoration management.

Hall, Callie M.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Technology Development Roadmap: A Technology Development Roadmap for a Future Gravitational Wave Mission

Humankind will detect the first gravitational wave (GW) signals from the Universe in the current decade using ground-based detectors. But the richest trove of astrophysical information lies at lower frequencies in the spectrum only accessible from space. Signals are expected from merging massive black holes throughout cosmic history, from compact stellar remnants orbiting central galactic engines from thousands of close contact binary systems in the Milky Way, and possibly from exotic sources, some not yet imagined. These signals carry essential information not available from electromagnetic observations, and which can be extracted with extraordinary accuracy. For 20 years, NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and an international research community have put considerable effort into developing concepts and technologies for a GW mission. Both the 2000 and 2010 decadal surveys endorsed the science and mission concept of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). A partnership of the two agencies defined and analyzed the concept for a decade. The agencies partnered on LISA Pathfinder (LPF), and ESA-led technology demonstration mission, now preparing for a 2015 launch. Extensive technology development has been carried out on the ground. Currently, the evolved Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (eLISA) concept, a LISA-like concept with only two measurement arms, is competing for ESA's L2 opportunity. NASA's Astrophysics Division seeks to be a junior partner if eLISA is selected. If eLISA is not selected, then a LISA-like mission will be a strong contender in the 2020 decadal survey. This Technology Development Roadmap (TDR) builds on the LISA concept development, the LPF technology development, and the U.S. and European ground-based technology development. The eLISA architecture and the architecture of the Mid-sized Space-based Gravitational-wave Observatory (SGO Mid)-a competitive design with three measurement arms from the recent design study for a NASA-led mission after 2020-both use the same technologies. Further, NASA participation in an ESA-led mission would likely augment the eLISA architecture with a third arm to become the SGO Mid architecture. For these reasons, this TDR for a future GW mission applies to both designs and both programmatic paths forward. It is adaptable to the different timelines and roles for an ESA-led or a NASA-led mission, and it is adaptable to available resources. Based on a mature understanding of the interaction between technology and risk, the authors of this TDR have chosen a set of objectives that are more expansive than is usual. The objectives for this roadmap are: (1) reduce technical and development risks and costs; (2) understand and, where possible, relieve system requirements and consequences; (3) increase technical insight into critical technologies; and (4) validate the design at the subsystem level. The emphasis on these objectives, particularly the latter two, is driven by outstanding programmatic decisions, namely whether a future GW mission is ESA-led or NASA-led, and availability of resources. The relative emphasis is best understood in the context of prioritization.

Laser Interferometry Space Antenna↗
NASA NTRS2011

Telemedicine in Space Flight - Summary of a NASA Workshop

The Exploration Medical Capability Element of the Human Research Program at NASA Johnson Space Center hosted the Telemedicine Workshop in January 2011 to discuss the medical operational concept for a crewed mission to a near-Earth asteroid (NEA) and to identify areas for future work and collaboration. With the increased likelihood of a medical incident on a long duration exploration mission to a near-Earth asteroid, as well as the fact that there will likely be limited medical capabilities and resources available to diagnose and treat medical conditions, it is anticipated that a more structured use of telemedicine will become highly desirable. The workshop was convened to solicit expert opinion on current telemedicine practices and on medical care in remote environments. Workshop Objectives: The workshop brought together leaders in telemedicine and remote medicine from The University of Texas Medical Branch, Henry Ford Hospital, Ontario Telemedicine Network, U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, University of Miami, American Telemedicine Association, Doctors Without Borders, and the Pan American Health Organization. The primary objectives of the workshop were to document the medical operations concept for a crewed mission to a NEA, to determine gaps between current capabilities and the capabilities outlined in the operations concept, to identify research required to close these gaps, and to discuss potential collaborations with external-to-NASA organizations with similar challenges. Summary of Discussions and Conclusions: The discussions held during the workshop and the conclusions reached by the workshop participants were grouped into seven categories: Crew Medical Officers, Patient Area in Spacecraft, Training, Electronic Medical Records, Intelligent Care Systems, Consultation Protocols, Prophylactic Surgical Procedures, and Data Prioritization. The key points discussed under each category will be presented.

Barsten, K. N.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Selection of Next Priority IMPACT Medical Conditions Based on Available Terrestrial and Spaceflight Data

BACKGROUND: As the era of exploration class missions begins, identification of medical conditions that may occur and require management becomes essential for the modeling of medical risk. To this end, NASA has developed IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces), a suite of tools to assist in assessment of medical risk analysis. It has incorporated an initial list of the 120 conditions of highest concern, labeled the IMPACT condition list 1.0 (ICL 1.0). This abstract describes a method for prioritizing the 92 conditions included on the Proposed Future Conditions List (PFCL) for inclusion in future iterations of the ICL. OVERVIEW: To construct the Prioritized Proposed Future Conditions List (P-PFCL), each condition on the PFCL was scored as “low,” “medium,” or “high” on each of four variables: incidence, likelihood of significant task impairment, diagnostic and treatment complexity, and treatment futility. Qualitative assessment using clinical judgement was utilized to score complexity, futility, and likelihood of impairment. Incidence was assessed quantitatively using spaceflight data and/or analog populations where available then assigned a score using established cutoffs. Logarithmic numerical values were assigned to each category label. A Prioritization Score was generated for each condition by taking the product of incidence and likelihood of task impairment (risk) divided by the product of complexity and futility (difficulty of care), with higher values corresponding to higher priority for future inclusion in the ICL. DISCUSSION: The described methods allow for the generation of a ranked P-PFCL to act as a decision support tool for selection of the next generation of modeled medical conditions. Some of the conditions ranked highly on the P-PFCL include EVA-related upper and lower extremity sprain/strain, iron deficiency, delirium, and hypertension, among others. While this effort does not attempt to quantify the absolute risk associated with each condition, it does attempt to semi-quantitatively estimate the risk of each condition relative to the other possible conditions. This tool in concert with subject matter expert opinion could optimize the future use of limited resources thereby producing a more accurate medical risk model, which will be essential to the upcoming exploration class missions.

Michael Pohlen↗
NASA NTRS1992

Science, engineering and enabling technologies for exploration of the universe

This report by NASA's Office of Aeronautics, Exploration, and Technology identifies a list of critical technologies needed to support the exploration of the universe. The concept of the Integrated Technology Plan (ITP) is introduced with specific attention given to the strategic planning framework for NASA and other participants involved in the development of space technologies. The required technologies are identified for the Mission to Planet Earth, the Space Exploration Initiative, information systems, spacecraft advancement, and critical astrophysics issues. The ITP presents the basis for strategically planning the development of such technologies as observation systems, on-board processing, EVA systems, aerobraking, nuclear propulsion, scientific information acquisition, and high-energy sensors. The ITP is a significant step towards the planned and prioritized advancement of critical technologies related to the exploration of the universe.

Reck, Gregory M.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Enabling Space Exploration Medical System Development Using a Tool Ecosystem

The NASA Human Research Program’s (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is utilizing a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to enhance the development of systems engineering products that will be used to advance medical system designs for exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit. In support of future missions, the team is capturing content such as system behaviors, functional decompositions, architecture, system requirements and interfaces, and recommendations for clinical capabilities and resources in Systems Modeling Language (SysML) models. As these products mature, SysML models provide a way for ExMC to capture relationships among the various products, which includes supporting more integrated and multi-faceted views of future medical systems. In addition to using SysML models, HRP and ExMC are developing supplementary tools to support two key functions: 1) prioritizing current and future research activities for exploration missions in an objective manner; and 2) enabling risk-informed and evidence-based trade space analysis for future space vehicles, missions, and systems. This paper will discuss the long-term HRP and ExMC vision for the larger ecosystem of tools, which include dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) capabilities, additional SysML models, a database of system component options, and data visualizations. It also includes a review of an initial Pilot Project focused on enabling medical system trade studies utilizing data that is coordinated across tools for consistent outputs (e.g., mission risk metrics that are associated with medical system mass values and medical conditions addressed). This first Pilot Project demonstrated successful operating procedures and integration across tools. Finally, the paper will also cover a second Pilot Project that utilizes tool enhancements such as medical system optimization capabilities, post-processing, and visualization of generated data for subject matter expert review, and increased integration amongst the tools themselves.

Amador, Jennifer R.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Enabling Space Exploration Medical System Development Using a Tool Ecosystem

The NASA Human Research Program's (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is utilizing a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to enhance the development of systems engineering products that will be used to advance medical system designs for exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit. In support of future missions, the team is capturing content such as system behaviors, functional decompositions, architecture, system requirements and interfaces, and recommendations for clinical capabilities and resources in Systems Modeling Language (SysML) models. As these products mature, SysML models provide a way for ExMC to capture relationships among the various products, which includes supporting more integrated and multi-faceted views of future medical systems. In addition to using SysML models, HRP and ExMC are developing supplementary tools to support two key functions: 1) prioritizing current and future research activities for exploration missions in an objective manner; and 2) enabling risk-informed and evidence-based trade space analysis for future space vehicles, missions, and systems. This paper will discuss the long-term HRP and ExMC vision for the larger ecosystem of tools, which include dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) capabilities, additional SysML models, a database of system component options, and data visualizations. It also includes a review of an initial Pilot Project focused on enabling medical system trade studies utilizing data that is coordinated across tools for consistent outputs (e.g., mission risk metrics that are associated with medical system mass values and medical conditions addressed). This first Pilot Project demonstrated successful operating procedures and integration across tools. Finally, the paper will also cover a second Pilot Project that utilizes tool enhancements such as medical system optimization capabilities, post-processing, and visualization of generated data for subject matter expert review, and increased integration amongst the tools themselves.

Amador, Jennifer R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Ensuring Safe Decision-Making on the Moon and Mars: Cognitive Performance Assessment for Exploration Class Mission EVA

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is one of the most dangerous and cognitively demanding actions that astronauts can execute, and the cognitive demands associated with future partial gravity EVAs on the Moon and Mars are expected to be higher compared to microgravity EVAs currently conducted from the International Space Station. Decrements in cognitive performance present an important risk to crew safety during exploration mission class EVA. Yet there is currently insufficient data to characterize cognitive performance prior to, during, and following EVA. Furthermore, it is still unclear which cognitive domains are most important for conducting mission critical decisions with crew safety implications. To address this gap, we conducted a cognitive task analysis (CTA) of EVA to characterize the procedures, the cognitive demands required, and the critical safety decisions associated with decrements in cognitive performance. We conducted a cognitive task analysis with 15 astronauts and subject matter experts in EVA operations and research. Interviews focused on surface exploration EVA and elicited feedback from experts on the cognitive skills required for specific EVA tasks, including cognitive strategies, critical cues, and decision-making strategies. A cognitive demands table was assembled to consolidate and synthesize the information from all interviews. The information from this cognitive task analysis informs ongoing exploration EVA for Moon to Mars. This work identifies the specific cognitive challenges that astronauts are likely to encounter during surface exploration EVA, and provides the foundation for: (1) prioritized and targeted cognitive performance measurement and functional performance tests, (2) EVA simulation design at varying levels of cognitive workload, and (3) the development of training and other technologies that can improve safe decision-making and inform EVA planning on future spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars.

Steven R Anderson↗
NASA NTRS2016

Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team (A-Team). The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an ATeam study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels (CML) are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram (SRD). In the process of developing the SRD, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid towards developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions and reveal the mission concept’s most compelling science. This paper will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.In June of 2011 a new collaborative engineering approach forearly concept formulation began in the JPL InnovationFoundry [1], six months later becoming the “A-Team” [2].Responding to a need for exploring mission architecturelevel trades [3], the A-Team precedes Team X [4,5] in asequence of concurrent engineering teams at JPL that can beused to mature a concept from a “cocktail napkin” level ideato a complete mission point design. The A-Team efficientlyexplores the science, implementation, and programmatictrade space in early concept formulation. Small, facilitatedgroups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitativelyassess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the tradespace through collaborative analysis and use of advancedmethods and tools. The A-Team process builds off theexperience within JPL and other recent approaches to earlyconcept formulation [6] including best practices of the JPLInnovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering &Formulation Section, Team Eureka and the Rapid MissionArchitecture Team[7].The A-Team is a focal point for innovative formulationapproaches and people within JPL. It relies on a largebackground of study resources, creative thinkers and “greybeard” scrutinizers, advanced tools, and subject matterexperts with both breadth and depth in experience andexpertise that are all available at JPL. The A-Team isdesigned to be a rapid and efficient process takingapproximately 6 weeks (the entire process can be as short asjust a few days or as long as up to three months) and costingthe equivalent of a work-month of a full-time employee orless. Studies begin with detailed planning and client reviewfollowed by study sessions, analysis work, and reporting.The staffing on each study is customized to the study goalsand objectives, and it is addressed early in the A-Teamprocess. Sessions are generally half-day or whole-day eventsand conducted over a series of days with focused agendas thatare moderated by a trained facilitator. Preliminary results andknowledge capture are available within hours of each session,and a final report is generally available two weeks later.One of the biggest challenges facing early conceptdevelopment is understanding the gradient in science returnversus various available mission scenarios and payload options. Often times, major areas of scientific inquiry havealready been prioritized by science groups, including throughthe National Research Council’s Decadal Studies inAstronomy, Planetary, and Earth Science. Yet science teamscontinue to struggle, especially in competitive missionsolicitations, to capture the right amount of scope that’sachievable within the cost constraints of the opportunity.Often the desire to completely and comprehensively study ascience area in just one mission (after all, true missionopportunities are rare) drives teams to take on too much,providing requirements that are unachievable within theresources of the opportunity without inducing unacceptableimplementation risk. Alternatively, science teams can seekto reduce risk by using an established instrument, but havenot thought through the traceability and key aspects of thescience question to justify its use. Both scenarios lead to badassumptions at the beginning of the concept development thatcan then ripple through implementation option choices,potentially preventing what would have been a good scienceinvestigation from being selected.The purpose of this paper is first to provide some additionalbackground and summary of the A-Team process, tools,people, and facilities. We then focus on the A-Teammethodology for overcoming the barriers of defining thescience scope well at the early concept development stage.This includes understanding the science story andtraceability, and then examining the gradient in science returnversus key characteristics of observables, developing theright payload and mission requirement specification throughexamining the science and implementation trade space.

Ziemer, John K.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project: Project Management Methods

To leap past the limitations of existing propulsion, the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project seeks further advancements in physics from which new propulsion methods can eventually be derived. Three visionary breakthroughs are sought: (1) propulsion that requires no propellant, (2) propulsion that circumvents existing speed limits, and (3) breakthrough methods of energy production to power such devices. Because these propulsion goals are presumably far from fruition, a special emphasis is to identify credible research that will make measurable progress toward these goals in the near-term. The management techniques to address this challenge are presented, with a special emphasis on the process used to review, prioritize, and select research tasks. This selection process includes these key features: (a) research tasks are constrained to only address the immediate unknowns, curious effects or critical issues, (b) reliability of assertions is more important than the implications of the assertions, which includes the practice where the reviewers judge credibility rather than feasibility, and (c) total scores are obtained by multiplying the criteria scores rather than by adding. Lessons learned and revisions planned are discussed.

Millis, Marc G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems: Development and Demonstration of Technologies Enabling Swarms and New Spacecraft Platforms with AI and Edge Computing

NASA’s Small Spacecraft & Distributed Systems (SSDS) within the Research and Technology Mission Directorate (RTMD) expands U.S. capability to execute unique missions through targeted investment, rapid development, and flight demonstration of small spacecraft technologies applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. SSDS strategically invests in technology development and on-orbit demonstrations executed across NASA, other government agencies, industry, and academia. The program’s University SmallSat Technology Partnerships initiative awards academic researchers with the opportunity to collaborate with NASA to mature innovative technology. Capabilities aligned with RTMD’s technology shortfalls and interests - power, processing, propulsion, sensors, communications, autonomous navigation, architectures, and advanced applications like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and edge computing - are prioritized in SSDS investments. These investments enable distributed, autonomous, and cooperative small spacecraft systems that support swarm missions extending beyond low Earth orbit into cislunar and deep space. This paper highlights representative SSDS flight demonstrations that mature these capabilities to enable a future operational infrastructure needed to support sustained exploration of the Moon and beyond. SSDS’s investment strategy emphasizes rapid development and on-orbit demonstration to validate spacecraft technologies required for swarms and distributed mission architectures. The Starling swarm technology demonstration mission exemplifies this approach by advancing distributed spacecraft autonomy, cooperative operations, and space situational awareness. Extended flight testing and ongoing studies of next generation swarm configurations and on-orbit space traffic monitoring and management continue to inform future swarm designs. DiskSat’s four-spacecraft demonstration mission represents SSDS’s strategic vision to expand the design space for future small spacecraft through its commitment to advance novel platform concepts that can impact how science is performed on orbit. Continuing to invest in future platforms, the notional PY12 concept is a 12-spacecraft swarm hosting neuromorphic processors and is envisioned as an on-orbit testbed for AI, edge computing, and positioning, navigation and timing technologies. SSDS also invests in single-spacecraft technology demonstrations that underpin the success of future swarm missions and accelerate the availability of validated technologies across the small spacecraft ecosystem. Examples of such demonstrations include Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator-3 (PTD-3), which performed high-rate optical communications; PTD-R, which demonstrated a camera capable of simultaneous ultraviolet and short-wave infrared optical sensing; and CAPSTONE, the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology and Operations Navigation Experiment, which validated autonomous navigation in cislunar space. Collectively, SSDS-funded demonstrations advance capabilities across swarms and illustrate a coordinated investment strategy to mature high-impact technologies required for autonomous, distributed, and cooperative small spacecraft systems for low Earth orbit, cislunar, and deep space applications. Technology demonstrations strengthen SSDS partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies, and promote small spacecraft community adoption of capabilities required to close technical gaps for swarm missions.

Jan Stupl↗