Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “System Engineering and Integrations”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Future Lunar Surface Network Study: Final Project Report-Unlimited Data Rights

Nokia of America Corporation (Nokia) powered by the research and innovation of Nokia Bell Labs, is honored to have been asked by NASA to conduct a Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) study to evaluate an Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)-based future lunar surface communication network for the Artemis Program. In particular, the SE&I study has focused on developing an architecture and a 3GPP-based network solution that meets the requirements of the Artemis V mission and at the same time can be evolved and expanded to meet the needs and requirements of future missions in the Moon to Mars program. Nokia strongly believes that 3GPP-based communications and networking solutions present the most effective and future-proof technological path for advanced lunar surface communications (and beyond) for the next decades. 3GPP technologies (whether 4G, 5G or 6G in the future) have revolutionized voice, video, and data transmissions on Earth in consumer, enterprise, and industrial applications, and continue to enable significant gains in productivity, efficiency, and safety. The same benefits can be harnessed for space missions and the future lunar economy including, but not limited to the Artemis program. 3GPP technologies will revolutionize lunar surface communications by increasing data-rates, reducing latency, and providing critical voice, video and data communication capabilities across large surface areas while meeting the stringent reliability requirements of human-rated space flight missions.

Nokia Bell Labs↗
DOE OSTI2025

Ensuring Safe, Effective, and Reliable Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Applications for Nuclear Electricity Generation through a Systems Approach

There is a significant potential to reduce operating and maintenance cost at nuclear power plants using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). For instance, AI/ML has the potential to significant improve work management processes, condition reporting, and plant surveillance activities. However, the nuclear industry has been slow in adopting AI/ML due to several multifaceted barriers discussed in this paper. This work presents such multidisciplinary approach intended to 1) accelerate industry adoption of AI/ML-based applications at nuclear power plants and 2) ensure their safe, reliable, and effective use. This approach is discussed further in this work and will be used to address overarching challenges associated with AI deployment at scale to provide industry guidance that support accelerated adoption of AI/ML technologies throughout the industry.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRS2015

Systems Engineering Management Plan NASA Traffic Aware Planner Integration Into P-180 Airborne Test-Bed

NASA's Traffic Aware Planner (TAP) is a cockpit decision support tool that provides aircrew with vertical and lateral flight-path optimizations with the intent of achieving significant fuel and time savings, while automatically avoiding traffic, weather, and restricted airspace conflicts. A key step towards the maturation and deployment of TAP concerned its operational evaluation in a representative flight environment. This Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) addresses the test-vehicle design, systems integration, and flight-test planning for the first TAP operational flight evaluations, which were successfully completed in November 2013. The trial outcomes are documented in the Traffic Aware Planner (TAP) flight evaluation paper presented at the 14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA. (AIAA-2014-2166, Maris, J. M., Haynes, M. A., Wing, D. J., Burke, K. A., Henderson, J., & Woods, S. E., 2014).

Maris, John↗
NASA NTRS2016

Performance of a High-Fidelity 4kW-Class Engineering Model PPU and Integration with HiVHAc System

The High Voltage Hall Accelerator (HiVHAc) propulsion system consists of a thruster, power processing unit (PPU), and propellant feed system. An engineering model PPU was developed by Colorado Power Electronics, Inc. funded by NASA's Small Business Innovative Research Program. This PPU uses an innovative 3-phase resonant converter to deliver 4 kW of discharge power over a wide range of input and output voltage conditions. The PPU includes a digital control interface unit that automatically controls the PPU and a xenon flow control module (XFCM). It interfaces with a control computer to receive highlevel commands and relay telemetry through a MIL-STD-1553B interface. The EM PPU was thoroughly tested at GRC for functionality and performance at temperature limits and demonstrated total efficiencies a high as 95 percent. Integrated testing of the unit was performed with the HiVHAc thruster and the XFCM to demonstrate closed-loop control of discharge current with anode flow. Initiation of the main discharge and power throttling were also successfully demonstrated and discharge oscillations were characterized.

Power Processing Unit↗
NASA NTRS2016

Performance of a High-Fidelity 4kW-Class Engineering Model PPU and Integration with HiVHAc System

The High Voltage Hall Accelerator (HiVHAc) propulsion system consists of a thruster,power processing unit (PPU), and propellant feed system. An engineering model PPU was developed by Colorado Power Electronics, Inc. funded by NASA's Small Business Innovative Research Program. This PPU uses an innovative 3-phase resonant converter to deliver 4 kW of discharge power over a wide range of input and output voltage conditions.The PPU includes a digital control interface unit that automatically controls the PPU and a xenon flow control module (XFCM). It interfaces with a control computer to receive high level commands and relay telemetry through a MIL-STD-1553B interface. The EM PPU was thoroughly tested at GRC for functionality and performance at temperature extremes and demonstrated total efficiencies a high as 95 percent. It was integrated with the HiVHAc thruster and the XFCM to demonstrate closed-loop control of discharge current with anode flow. Initiation of the main discharge and power throttling were also successfully demonstrated and discharge oscillations were characterized.

Electric Propulsion↗
NASA NTRS2009

Constellation Program (CxP) Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Project Integrated Landing System

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Chief Engineer requested a risk comparison of the Integrated Landing System design developed by NASA and the design developed by Contractor- referred to as the LM 604 baseline. Based on the results of this risk comparison, the CEV Chief engineer requested that the NESC evaluate identified risks and develop strategies for their reduction or mitigation. The assessment progressed in two phases. A brief Phase I analysis was performed by the Water versus Land-Landing Team to compare the CEV Integrated Landing System proposed by the Contractor against the NASA TS-LRS001 baseline with respect to risk. A phase II effort examined the areas of critical importance to the overall landing risk, evaluating risk to the crew and to the CEV Crew Module (CM) during a nominal land-landing. The findings of the assessment are contained in this report.

Baker, John D.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Integration of safety engineering into a cost optimized development program.

A six-segment management model is presented, each segment of which represents a major area in a new product development program. The first segment of the model covers integration of specialist engineers into 'systems requirement definition' or the system engineering documentation process. The second covers preparation of five basic types of 'development program plans.' The third segment covers integration of system requirements, scheduling, and funding of specialist engineering activities into 'work breakdown structures,' 'cost accounts,' and 'work packages.' The fourth covers 'requirement communication' by line organizations. The fifth covers 'performance measurement' based on work package data. The sixth covers 'baseline requirements achievement tracking.'

Ball, L. W.↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA System Safety Handbook: System Safety Framework and Concepts for Implementation - Volume 1

System safety assessment is defined in NPR 8715.3C, NASA General Safety Program Requirements as a disciplined, systematic approach to the analysis of risks resulting from hazards that can affect humans, the environment, and mission assets. Achievement of the highest practicable degree of system safety is one of NASA's highest priorities. Traditionally, system safety assessment at NASA and elsewhere has focused on the application of a set of safety analysis tools to identify safety risks and formulate effective controls.1 Familiar tools used for this purpose include various forms of hazard analyses, failure modes and effects analyses, and probabilistic safety assessment (commonly also referred to as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)). In the past, it has been assumed that to show that a system is safe, it is sufficient to provide assurance that the process for identifying the hazards has been as comprehensive as possible and that each identified hazard has one or more associated controls. The NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has made several statements in its annual reports supporting a more holistic approach. In 2006, it recommended that "... a comprehensive risk assessment, communication and acceptance process be implemented to ensure that overall launch risk is considered in an integrated and consistent manner." In 2009, it advocated for "... a process for using a risk-informed design approach to produce a design that is optimally and sufficiently safe." As a rationale for the latter advocacy, it stated that "... the ASAP applauds switching to a performance-based approach because it emphasizes early risk identification to guide designs, thus enabling creative design approaches that might be more efficient, safer, or both." For purposes of this preface, it is worth mentioning three areas where the handbook emphasizes a more holistic type of thinking. First, the handbook takes the position that it is important to not just focus on risk on an individual basis but to consider measures of aggregate safety risk and to ensure wherever possible that there be quantitative measures for evaluating how effective the controls are in reducing these aggregate risks. The term aggregate risk, when used in this handbook, refers to the accumulation of risks from individual scenarios that lead to a shortfall in safety performance at a high level: e.g., an excessively high probability of loss of crew, loss of mission, planetary contamination, etc. Without aggregated quantitative measures such as these, it is not reasonable to expect that safety has been optimized with respect to other technical and programmatic objectives. At the same time, it is fully recognized that not all sources of risk are amenable to precise quantitative analysis and that the use of qualitative approaches and bounding estimates may be appropriate for those risk sources. Second, the handbook stresses the necessity of developing confidence that the controls derived for the purpose of achieving system safety not only handle risks that have been identified and properly characterized but also provide a general, more holistic means for protecting against unidentified or uncharacterized risks. For example, while it is not possible to be assured that all credible causes of risk have been identified, there are defenses that can provide protection against broad categories of risks and thereby increase the chances that individual causes are contained. Third, the handbook strives at all times to treat uncertainties as an integral aspect of risk and as a part of making decisions. The term "uncertainty" here does not refer to an actuarial type of data analysis, but rather to a characterization of our state of knowledge regarding results from logical and physical models that approximate reality. Uncertainty analysis finds how the output parameters of the models are related to plausible variations in the input parameters and in the modeling assumptions. The evaluation of unrtainties represents a method of probabilistic thinking wherein the analyst and decision makers recognize possible outcomes other than the outcome perceived to be "most likely." Without this type of analysis, it is not possible to determine the worth of an analysis product as a basis for making decisions related to safety and mission success. In line with these considerations the handbook does not take a hazard-analysis-centric approach to system safety. Hazard analysis remains a useful tool to facilitate brainstorming but does not substitute for a more holistic approach geared to a comprehensive identification and understanding of individual risk issues and their contributions to aggregate safety risks. The handbook strives to emphasize the importance of identifying the most critical scenarios that contribute to the risk of not meeting the agreed-upon safety objectives and requirements using all appropriate tools (including but not limited to hazard analysis). Thereafter, emphasis shifts to identifying the risk drivers that cause these scenarios to be critical and ensuring that there are controls directed toward preventing or mitigating the risk drivers. To address these and other areas, the handbook advocates a proactive, analytic-deliberative, risk-informed approach to system safety, enabling the integration of system safety activities with systems engineering and risk management processes. It emphasizes how one can systematically provide the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim that a system is safe to within an acceptable risk tolerance, and that safety has been achieved in a cost-effective manner. The methodology discussed in this handbook is part of a systems engineering process and is intended to be integral to the system safety practices being conducted by the NASA safety and mission assurance and systems engineering organizations. The handbook posits that to conclude that a system is adequately safe, it is necessary to consider a set of safety claims that derive from the safety objectives of the organization. The safety claims are developed from a hierarchy of safety objectives and are therefore hierarchical themselves. Assurance that all the claims are true within acceptable risk tolerance limits implies that all of the safety objectives have been satisfied, and therefore that the system is safe. The acceptable risk tolerance limits are provided by the authority who must make the decision whether or not to proceed to the next step in the life cycle. These tolerances are therefore referred to as the decision maker's risk tolerances. In general, the safety claims address two fundamental facets of safety: 1) whether required safety thresholds or goals have been achieved, and 2) whether the safety risk is as low as possible within reasonable impacts on cost, schedule, and performance. The latter facet includes consideration of controls that are collective in nature (i.e., apply generically to broad categories of risks) and thereby provide protection against unidentified or uncharacterized risks.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing Concepts of Operations Using Multi-Step Tool Techniques With Large Language Models

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Air Mobility Pathfinders (AMP) project is developing and evaluating concepts of operations (ConOps) for safe, secure, and scalable Urban Air Mobility (UAM) operations. The AMP project’s Operational Concepts, Architecture, and Requirements Integration (OCARI) Team is using a Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) approach for integration, interoperability, and traceability of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) ecosystems centered around urban air taxi services. The team’s goal is to define structures and behaviors needed for system feasibility, readiness, and interoperability, establish a UAM knowledge base, and trace and validate assumptions and requirements relevant to AAM. NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) is spearheading an innovative digital engineering approach to integrate, communicate, and facilitate the research of multi-modal transportation systems. The Knowledge-based Digital Platform (KbDP) is a concept being developed that ties the workflows of Project Managers (PM), Principal Investigators (PI), and System Engineers together across organizational boundaries. It does so through the management of an information database defined by mathematical, data science, and system engineering principles. Machine Learning (ML) algorithms play a key role in this concept by extracting meaningful knowledge from relational and graph databases, document repositories, and system artifacts, which the human user leverages to greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their research. Recent advancements in the field of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically models trained for tool use, such as Command-R , now allow for the reliable implementation of single-step and multi-step tool-centric systems. These techniques provide the LLM with a set of tools, in our case Python functions, that can be called on to answer a much wider range of questions compared to LLMs implemented using a traditional single-source or Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) approach. Through this method, the LLM can pull information from multiple data sources, such as relational or graph databases, document repositories, application programming interfaces (APIs), and SysML artifacts depending on the user’s question. The LLM can also output the information in a variety of different formats, using output generation tools, such as CSV, UML, or SysML artifacts. Additionally, tools can be assigned roles and can work together to provide answers to queries in an “agent” like approach, similar to that implemented by Microsoft’s AutoGen framework where different agents can converse with each other to accomplish tasks. Previously, our team developed a chatbot system with “agent like” functionality in the form of different “modes” the user could select from a user interface (UI), this architecture can be seen on the left in figure 1. Three different modes were implemented, the first mode allowed the LLM to utilize the structures and algorithms within a graph database to trace UAM requirements. The second mode gave the LLM access to a vector search capable of providing relevant information from thousands of document pages related to UAM ConOps and requirements. The third mode served as a general assistant where users could enter open-ended questions and custom prompts to utilize the LLM for different use-cases. This system improved the process surrounding generating and analyzing information related to UAM requirements, however, the implementation provided a clunky user experience. Users were required to know what mode to select within the UI in advance before entering their question to the selected tool. Moreover, the different tools were isolated from each other, they lacked bidirectional links that would allow for tools to collaborate to generate better responses. Our team is working on a new architecture, seen on the right in the below figure, with the goal to address many of the UX shortcomings of our original system while improving the accuracy and depth of responses from the LLM. This new system will automatically select the appropriate tool to use based off the user’s question. Each tool will be capable of calling on any of the other tools available to the LLM, resulting in a collaborative pipeline where tools can pass data between other tools until enough data is received to generate an answer to the user’s question. Using a locally deployed, open-source, LLM, the NASA OCARI team, in collaboration with Collins Aerospace, will implement a prototype application that will bridge knowledge across multiple sources to assist System Engineers (SEs) with requirements discovery and tracing, research question and use case identification, and assumption validation. Such a system will also allow SEs to more easily, and intuitively, explore the AAM ecosystem, ultimately improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the SE's research and decision-making processes surrounding ConOps development and validation. In this session, our team will provide a video demonstration of our new prototype architecture in action. We will also present an overview of our prototype system architecture and talk about its advantages over traditional LLM deployments along with how those advantages can provide additional value to the field of System Engineering.

systems engineering↗
NASA NTRS1976

Space shuttle engineering and operations support. Avionics system engineering

The shuttle avionics integration laboratory (SAIL) requirements for supporting the Spacelab/orbiter avionics verification process are defined. The principal topics are a Spacelab avionics hardware assessment, test operations center/electronic systems test laboratory (TOC/ESL) data processing requirements definition, SAIL (Building 16) payload accommodations study, and projected funding and test scheduling. Because of the complex nature of the Spacelab/orbiter computer systems, the PCM data link, and the high rate digital data system hardware/software relationships, early avionics interface verification is required. The SAIL is a prime candidate test location to accomplish this early avionics verification.

Broome, P. A.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Intelligent Integrated System Health Management

Intelligent Integrated System Health Management (ISHM) is the management of data, information, and knowledge (DIaK) with the purposeful objective of determining the health of a system (Management: storage, distribution, sharing, maintenance, processing, reasoning, and presentation). Presentation discusses: (1) ISHM Capability Development. (1a) ISHM Knowledge Model. (1b) Standards for ISHM Implementation. (1c) ISHM Domain Models (ISHM-DM's). (1d) Intelligent Sensors and Components. (2) ISHM in Systems Design, Engineering, and Integration. (3) Intelligent Control for ISHM-Enabled Systems

Figueroa, Fernando↗
NASA NTRS1990

Hypersonic aircraft design

A hypersonic aircraft is designed which uses scramjets to accelerate from Mach 6 to Mach 10 and sustain that speed for two minutes. Different propulsion systems were considered and it was decided that the aircraft would use one full scale turbofan-ramjet. Two solid rocket boosters were added to save fuel and help the aircraft pass through the transonic region. After considering aerodynamics, aircraft design, stability and control, cooling systems, mission profile, and landing systems, a conventional aircraft configuration was chosen over that of a waverider. The conventional design was chosen due to its landing characteristics and the relative expense compared to the waverider. Fuel requirements and the integration of the engine systems and their inlets are also taken into consideration in the final design. A hypersonic aircraft was designed which uses scramjets to accelerate from Mach 6 to Mach 10 and sustain that speed for two minutes. Different propulsion systems were considered and a full scale turbofan-ramjet was chosen. Two solid rocket boosters were added to save fuel and help the aircraft pass through the transonic reqion. After the aerodynamics, aircraft design, stability and control, cooling systems, mission profile, landing systems, and their physical interactions were considered, a conventional aircraft configuration was chosen over that of a waverider. The conventional design was chosen due to its landing characteristics and the relative expense compared to the waverider. Fuel requirements and the integration of the engine systems and their inlets were also considered in the designing process.

Alkamhawi, Hani↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Nation's Vision for Exploration: An Update

I.Current key activities: a) Constellation Level2-System Engineering. b) Lunar Architecture Team (LAT)2-technology assessment and architectural option for the lander. c) Mars Architecture Team-system engineering support, Science integration, precursor program planning. d) Lunar Lander Project Core Team-GN&C and Flight system engineering. e) Technology program-supporting multiple projects in robotics, power systems, aero entry technology. f) Mission Operation Project-Mission operations system engineering. g) Advanced Environmental Monitoring Instruments. H. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter instrument (Diviner). II. Mission Proposals a) Lunar Sample return. b) Lunar Gravity field mapper.

space exploration↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing Trust in NASA’s Artemis Campaign Computer-Human Interface (CHI) Implementation

The NASA Artemis program will return humans to the Moon. This time, with the help of commercial and international partners, the program's objective is a permanent moon base. The moon base infrastructure, including an orbiting moon station and moon surface assets, will be developed for astronauts to stay for the long haul to learn to live and work on another planet in preparation for an eventual Humans-to-Mars mission. As the roundtrip communication delays increase in deep space exploration, the crew will need more onboard systems autonomy and functionality to maintain and control the vehicle or habitat. These mission constraints will change the current Earth-based spacecraft to ground control support approach that will demand more safe, efficient, and effective Computer-Human Interface (CHI) control. For Artemis, CHI is defined as the elements that the crew interfaces with: audio, video, lighting, and crew controls subsystems. Understanding how CHI will need to evolve to support deep space missions will be critical for the Artemis program--especially crew controls, which is the focus of this paper. How does NASA ensure crew controls are reliable enough to control complex systems and prevent a catastrophic event due to human error--especially when the astronauts could be physiologically and/or psychologically impaired? NASA's approach to mitigating catastrophic hazards in human spaceflight system development such as crew controls, is through a holistic system engineering and Human System Integration methodology that focuses on incorporating NASA's Human-Rating Requirements-that ensures human performance characteristics to control/safely recover the crew from hazardous situations within the human interface design are considered. This paper discusses, at a high level, CHI for the Artemis program. Next, a discussion of what it means to human-rate a space system crew controls and how trust in the human-computer interface begins with the NASA human rating requirements. Finally, a discussion on how systems engineering and the human system integration process ensures that crew control implementation incorporates the NASA human-rating requirements.

artemis↗
NASA NTRS2021

Systems Engineering and Assurance Modeling (SEAM): A Web-Based Solution for Integrated Mission Assurance

We present an overview of the Systems Engineering and Assurance Modeling (SEAM) platform, a web-browser-based tool which is designed to help engineers evaluate the radiation vulnerabilities and develop an assurance approach for electronic parts in space systems. The SEAM framework consists of three interconnected modeling tools, a SysML compatible system description tool, a Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) visual argument tool, and Bayesian Net and Fault Tree extraction and export tools. The SysML and GSN sections also have a coverage check application that ensures that every radiation fault identified on the SysML side is also addressed in the assurance case in GSN. The SEAM platform works on space systems of any degree of radiation hardness but is especially helpful for assessing radiation performance in systems with commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronic components.

SEAM↗
NASA NTRS2012

Mission Benefits Analysis of Logistics Reduction Technologies

Future space exploration missions will need to use less logistical supplies if humans are to live for longer periods away from our home planet. Anything that can be done to reduce initial mass and volume of supplies or reuse or recycle items that have been launched will be very valuable. Reuse and recycling also reduce the trash burden and associated nuisances, such as smell, but require good systems engineering and operations integration to reap the greatest benefits. A systems analysis was conducted to quantify the mass and volume savings of four different technologies currently under development by NASA fs Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Logistics Reduction and Repurposing project. Advanced clothing systems lead to savings by direct mass reduction and increased wear duration. Reuse of logistical items, such as packaging, for a second purpose allows fewer items to be launched. A device known as a heat melt compactor drastically reduces the volume of trash, recovers water and produces a stable tile that can be used instead of launching additional radiation protection. The fourth technology, called trash ]to ]supply ]gas, can benefit a mission by supplying fuel such as methane to the propulsion system. This systems engineering work will help improve logistics planning and overall mission architectures by determining the most effective use, and reuse, of all resources.

Ewert, Michael K.↗