Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “JPL missions”

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 37 records · Page 2

Space Missions Trade Space Generation and Assessment Using JPL Rapid Mission Architecture (RMA) Team Approach

The JPL Rapid Mission Architecture (RMA) capability is a novel collaborative team-based approach to generate new mission architectures, explore broad trade space options, and conduct architecture-level analyses. RMA studies address feasibility and identify best candidates to proceed to further detailed design studies. Development of RMA first began at JPL in 2007 and has evolved to address the need for rapid, effective early mission architectural development and trade space exploration as a precursor to traditional point design evaluations. The RMA approach integrates a small team of architecture-level experts (typically 6-10 people) to generate and explore a wide-ranging trade space of mission architectures driven by the mission science (or technology) objectives. Group brainstorming and trade space analyses are conducted at a higher level of assessment across multiple mission architectures and systems to enable rapid assessment of a set of diverse, innovative concepts. This paper describes the overall JPL RMA team, process, and high-level approach. Some illustrative results from previous JPL RMA studies are discussed.

real time systems↗

A spaceborne optical interferometer: The JPL CSI mission focus

The JPL Control Structure Interaction (CSI) program is part of the larger NASA-wide CSI program. Within this larger context, the JPL CSI program will emphasize technology for systems that demand micron or sub-micron level control, so-called Micro-Precision Controlled Structures (u-PCS). The development of such technology will make it practical to fly missions with large optical or large precision antenna systems. In keeping with the focused nature of the desired technology, the JPL approach is to identify a focus mission, develop the focus mission CSI system design to a preliminary level, and then use this design to drive out requirements for CSI technology development in the design and analysis, ground test bed, and flight experiment areas.

Laskin, R. A.↗

JPL future missions and energy storage technology implications

The mission model for JPL future programs is presented. This model identifies mission areas where JPL is expected to have a major role and/or participate in a significant manner. These missions are focused on space science and applications missions, but they also include some participation in space station activities. The mission model is described in detail followed by a discussion on the needs for energy storage technology required to support these future activities.

Pawlik, Eugene V.↗

Re-Engineering JPL's Mission Planning Ground System Architecture for Cost Efficient Operations in the 21st Century

Work carried out to re-engineer the mission analysis segment of JPL's mission planning ground system architecture is reported on. The aim is to transform the existing software tools, originally developed for specific missions on different support environments, into an integrated, general purpose, multi-mission tool set. The issues considered are: the development of a partnership between software developers and users; the definition of key mission analysis functions; the development of a consensus based architecture; the move towards evolutionary change instead of revolutionary replacement; software reusability, and the minimization of future maintenance costs. The current status and aims of new developments are discussed and specific examples of cost savings and improved productivity are presented.

Fordyce, Jess↗

Factors Contributing to Unsuccessful Re-Proposed Missions

JPL often re-proposes unselected missions after technology advancement and mission concept development. Feedback given as major and minor weaknesses and strengths in prior rounds are addressed in later versions of proposals. This feedback provides insight into the factors that affect perceptions of risk and value. My research involved an in-depth case study of an original mission, Mission-A, and the re-proposed mission, Mission-B, after a multi-year technology development effort.In 2002, Mission-A was rated as Category III, with above average science merit (top score) and High Risk. To reduce risk, NASA invested technology development funds. In 2006 the re-formulated Mission-A mission, renamed Mission-B, was rated Category IV, good to very good science, and Medium Risk. While the risk rating improved from Mission-A to Mission-B, the overall results were worse.

risk↗

New Approach to Concept Feasibility and Design Studies for Astrophysics Missions

JPL has assembled a team of multidisciplinary experts with corporate knowledge of space mission and instrument development. The advanced Concept Design Team, known as Team X, provides interactive design trades including cost as a design parameter, and advanced visualization for pre-Phase A Studies.

Concept Feasibility Design Studies Team X Astrophy↗

2nd GSFC-JPL Quality Mission Workshop Report

The 2nd GSFC-JPL QMSW workshop brought together 56 participants mostly from GSFC and JPL to focus on critical challenges for mission software.

software infrastructure technology meterics practi↗

Re-Engineering JPL's Mission Planning Ground System Architecture for Cost Efficient Operations in the 21st Century

Over the last several decades, engineers at JPL have developed a vast array of analytical tools to design missions to Earth orbit, the Moon, Sun, planets, and various bodies and beyond. In recent years, advances in computer hardware, modern programming languages, and the need for faster and more efficient operations for small missions have highlighted the need to streamline, consolidate, and generalize JPL's mission planning software. This paper summerizes ongoing efforts at JPL to re-engineer the mission analysis segment of the mission planning ground system architecture.The status and goals of new developments are discussed and specific examples of cost savings and improved productivity are provided.

software↗

Advanced thermal control technologies for space science missions at JPL

A wide range of deep space science missions are planned by NASA for the future. Many of these missions are being planned under strict cost caps and advanced technologies are needed in order to enable these challenging mssions. Because of the wide range of thermal environments the spacecraft experience during the mission, advanced thermal control technologies are the key to enabling many of these missions.

spacecraft thermal control advanced thermal contro↗

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

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

Ziemer, John↗

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

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

Ziemer, John↗

A new multi-mission data system for space flight support through the 1990's

The Space Flight Operations Center (SFOC) is described with attention given to historical and technical aspects. The SFOC is designed to support each new JPL mission with all of its mission-unique processing as a ready adaptation of some set of baseline capabilities. Another goal of the SFOC is to allow the migration of current older JPL missions from their current systems that use aging and costly hardware and software to newer systems with similar functionality. Upon its completion, the planned support includes both downlink and uplink processing for a projected six mission set.

Gainsborough, A. J.↗

Broadening JPL’s Mission Formulation Paradigm with Human Centered Design

Within NASA’s highly competitive environment for funding, Human Centered Design (HCD) and cybernetics could provide advantages to proposers during the mission formulation phase. Opportunities are limited when it comes to funding new science missions. Proposers are challenged to make a compelling case about the scientific desirability, technical feasibility, and resource viability of their concepts. Organizations follow established processes for proposal development using teams that typically include scientists, engineers, and managers. These team members are highly experienced subject matter experts (SME) in their own disciplines, and can respond to requirements from the solicitation. However, they are typically not trained as designers and communicators. Their approach is rooted within NASA’s science and technology paradigm. How can we improve the proposal development process, refine workflow between team members, and deliver clear and appealing offerings to the stakeholders and evaluators? These questions have been addressed by today’s most innovative companies (e.g., Apple, Google, 3M, Dyson), where the design process is not limited simply to engineering and management, but involves an all-encompassing approach drawing from fields such as social sciences, design, and the arts. Like these commercial enterprises, NASA currently employs systems thinking and integrated design, but can benefit further by moving beyond its current practices, which are mostly driven by rigid engineering, technology, science, and project management considerations. At JPL’s Innovation Foundry and through the Solar System Mission Formulation Office, we broadened this paradigm by including HCD in the mission formulation workflow. Our goal was to create a proposal with improved clarity and appeal, thus helping our team to communicate its message and aid evaluators with their work. In this paper we provide examples and lessons learned from our recent proposal development effort using HCD. We discuss touch points where we infused non-linear designerly approaches and cybernetic circularity into the workflow. Implemented design topics include operational design for team building; process design throughout distinct phases of the proposal development and writing process; communication design for streamlined exchange of information within the team and to stakeholders; interaction design; graphic design; and creating boundary objects. While these approaches may feel new or foreign to SMEs and managers in the aerospace community, they produced significant benefits in this mission formulation effort. We will describe how such approaches can be used to broaden NASA’s technology-driven paradigm through design, thus creating an environment which fosters innovation, improved communication, and strategic advantage for proposers and their organizations.

Turner, Neal↗