Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Portfolio”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

Postoptimality Analysis in the Selection of Technology Portfolios

This slide presentation reviews a process of postoptimally analysing the selection of technology portfolios. The rationale for the analysis stems from the need for consistent, transparent and auditable decision making processes and tools. The methodology is used to assure that project investments are selected through an optimization of net mission value. The main intent of the analysis is to gauge the degree of confidence in the optimal solution and to provide the decision maker with an array of viable selection alternatives which take into account input uncertainties and possibly satisfy non-technical constraints. A few examples of the analysis are reviewed. The goal of the postoptimality study is to enhance and improve the decision-making process by providing additional qualifications and substitutes to the optimal solution.

prioritization↗
NASA NTRS2016

A Portfolio Analysis Tool for Measuring NASAs Aeronautics Research Progress toward Planned Strategic Outcomes

Description of a tool for portfolio analysis of NASA's Aeronautics research progress toward planned community strategic Outcomes is presented. The strategic planning process for determining the community Outcomes is also briefly described. Stakeholder buy-in, partnership performance, progress of supporting Technical Challenges, and enablement forecast are used as the criteria for evaluating progress toward Outcomes. A few illustrative examples are also presented.

Portfolio Analysis↗
NASA NTRS2006

System Architecture Modeling for Technology Portfolio Management using ATLAS

Strategic planners and technology portfolio managers have traditionally relied on consensus-based tools, such as Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in planning the funding of technology development. While useful to a certain extent, these tools are limited in the ability to fully quantify the impact of a technology choice on system mass, system reliability, project schedule, and lifecycle cost. The Advanced Technology Lifecycle Analysis System (ATLAS) aims to provide strategic planners a decision support tool for analyzing technology selections within a Space Exploration Architecture (SEA). Using ATLAS, strategic planners can select physics-based system models from a library, configure the systems with technologies and performance parameters, and plan the deployment of a SEA. Key parameters for current and future technologies have been collected from subject-matter experts and other documented sources in the Technology Tool Box (TTB). ATLAS can be used to compare the technical feasibility and economic viability of a set of technology choices for one SEA, and compare it against another set of technology choices or another SEA. System architecture modeling in ATLAS is a multi-step process. First, the modeler defines the system level requirements. Second, the modeler identifies technologies of interest whose impact on an SEA. Third, the system modeling team creates models of architecture elements (e.g. launch vehicles, in-space transfer vehicles, crew vehicles) if they are not already in the model library. Finally, the architecture modeler develops a script for the ATLAS tool to run, and the results for comparison are generated.

Thompson, Robert W.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Risk Assessment and Integration Team (RAIT) Portfolio Risk Analysis Strategy

Impact at management level: Qualitative assessment of risk criticality in conjunction with risk consequence, likelihood, and severity enable development of an "investment policy" towards managing a portfolio of risks. Impact at research level: Quantitative risk assessments enable researchers to develop risk mitigation strategies with meaningful risk reduction results. Quantitative assessment approach provides useful risk mitigation information.

Edwards, Michelle↗
NASA NTRS2005

Portfolio Analysis Tool

Portfolio Analysis Tool (PAT) is a Web-based, client/server computer program that helps managers of multiple projects funded by different customers to make decisions regarding investments in those projects. PAT facilitates analysis on a macroscopic level, without distraction by parochial concerns or tactical details of individual projects, so that managers decisions can reflect the broad strategy of their organization. PAT is accessible via almost any Web-browser software. Experts in specific projects can contribute to a broad database that managers can use in analyzing the costs and benefits of all projects, but do not have access for modifying criteria for analyzing projects: access for modifying criteria is limited to managers according to levels of administrative privilege. PAT affords flexibility for modifying criteria for particular "focus areas" so as to enable standardization of criteria among similar projects, thereby making it possible to improve assessments without need to rewrite computer code or to rehire experts, and thereby further reducing the cost of maintaining and upgrading computer code. Information in the PAT database and results of PAT analyses can be incorporated into a variety of ready-made or customizable tabular or graphical displays.

Barth, Tim↗
NASA NTRS2012

Decision Gate Process for Assessment of a Technology Development Portfolio

The NASA Dust Management Project (DMP) was established to provide technologies (to TRL 6 development level) required to address adverse effects of lunar dust to humans and to exploration systems and equipment, which will reduce life cycle cost and risk, and will increase the probability of sustainable and successful lunar missions. The technology portfolio of DMP consisted of different categories of technologies whose final product is either a technology solution in itself, or one that contributes toward a dust mitigation strategy for a particular application. A Decision Gate Process (DGP) was developed to assess and validate the achievement and priority of the dust mitigation technologies as the technologies progress through the development cycle. The DGP was part of continuous technology assessment and was a critical element of DMP risk management. At the core of the process were technology-specific criteria developed to measure the success of each DMP technology in attaining the technology readiness levels assigned to each decision gate. The DGP accounts for both categories of technologies and qualifies the technology progression from technology development tasks to application areas. The process provided opportunities to validate performance, as well as to identify non-performance in time to adjust resources and direction. This paper describes the overall philosophy of the DGP and the methodology for implementation for DMP, and describes the method for defining the technology evaluation criteria. The process is illustrated by example of an application to a specific DMP technology.

Kohli, Rajiv↗
NASA NTRS2012

Decision Gate Process for Assessment of a NASA Technology Development Portfolio

The NASA Dust Management Project (DMP) was established to provide technologies (to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6) required to address adverse effects of lunar dust to humans and to exploration systems and equipment, to reduce life cycle cost and risk, and to increase the probability of sustainable and successful lunar missions. The technology portfolio of DMP consisted of different categories of technologies whose final product was either a technology solution in itself, or one that contributes toward a dust mitigation strategy for a particular application. A Decision Gate Process (DGP) was developed to assess and validate the achievement and priority of the dust mitigation technologies as the technologies progress through the development cycle. The DGP was part of continuous technology assessment and was a critical element of DMP risk management. At the core of the process were technology-specific criteria developed to measure the success of each DMP technology in attaining the technology readiness levels assigned to each decision gate. The DGP accounts for both categories of technologies and qualifies the technology progression from technology development tasks to application areas. The process provided opportunities to validate performance, as well as to identify non-performance in time to adjust resources and direction. This paper describes the overall philosophy of the DGP and the methodology for implementation for DMP, and describes the method for defining the technology evaluation criteria. The process is illustrated by example of an application to a specific DMP technology.

Kohli, Rajiv↗
NASA NTRS2012

Overview of the NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project's Propulsion Technology Portfolio

The NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project is focused on developing and demonstrating integrated systems technologies to TRL 4-6 by 2020 that enable reduced fuel burn, emissions, and noise for futuristic air vehicles. The specific goals aim to simultaneously reduce fuel burn by 50%, reduce Landing and Take-off Nitrous Oxides emissions by 75% relative to the CAEP 6 guidelines, and reduce cumulative noise by 42 Decibels relative to the Stage 4 guidelines. These goals apply to the integrated vehicle and propulsion system and are based on a reference mission of 3000nm flight of a Boeing 777-200 with GE90 engines. This paper will focus primarily on the ERA propulsion technology portfolio, which consists of advanced combustion, propulsor, and core technologies to enable these integrated air vehicle systems goals. An overview of the ERA propulsion technologies will be described and the status and results to date will be presented.

aircraft engines↗
NASA NTRS2015

Technology Alignment and Portfolio Prioritization (TAPP)

Technology Alignment and Portfolio Prioritization (TAPP) is a method being developed by the Advanced Concepts Office, at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The TAPP method expands on current technology assessment methods by incorporating the technological structure underlying technology development, e.g., organizational structures and resources, institutional policy and strategy, and the factors that motivate technological change. This paper discusses the methods ACO is currently developing to better perform technology assessments while taking into consideration Strategic Alignment, Technology Forecasting, and Long Term Planning.

Funaro, Gregory V.↗
NASA NTRS2018

In-Space Manufacturing at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center: A Portfolio of Fabrication and Recycling Technology Development for the International Space Station

The in-space manufacturing project at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center seeks to mature the manufacturing capabilities which will be needed on long duration, long endurance human spaceflight missions. The ability to manufacture materials and parts in space rather than launching them from earth has the potential to reduce logistics requirements and enhance crew safety. The International Space Station serves as a unique orbiting test bed for in-space manufacturing technology development for NASA and its commercial partners. This paper provides an overview of the projects currently in the in-space manufacturing technology portfolio and key technology development efforts in the past year.

Prater, Tracie↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Habitat Outfitting Portfolio: Technology Development to Support Future Habitation Systems

Habitat outfitting generally refers to the supplies and equipment (and installation thereof) which provide crew with a livable, safe environment during a mission and enable the performance of mission tasks. Outfitting will be needed on future missions for habitation to provide the crew with a livable and safe environment. Both softgoods inflatable habitats, which are packaged and deployed/inflated at the point of use, and constructed habitats, which may be manufactured using in situ resource-derived materials on a planetary surface, will require more outfitting than traditional habitation approaches using rigid metallic structures (such as the International Space Station), where many elements can launch pre-integrated. For softgoods inflatable habitats, it is anticipated that much of the outfitting would be performed by crew, while in constructed habitation scenarios outfitting may be done by robotic systems as part of precursor missions. This paper provides an overview of future planned habitats and outfitting needs, technology gaps related to outfitting, and current work under NASA’s habitat systems development, in-space manufacturing, and habitat construction portfolios related to this topic.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of a Probabilistic Continuity Assessment Method for Earth Observation Portfolios

With the increased reliance on spaceborne Earth observation data among the Earth science community and other end users, it is important that efforts are made to promote data continuity for a range of parameters of interest. Continuity gaps may occur between missions measuring like parameters due to mission development delays or early termination and introduce the potential of increased uncertainty for retrieved parameters. To inform portfolio-level decisions for Earth observing missions, Ivanco et al. developed a method that enables the assessment of the probability of continuity gaps for multi-mission architectures and provides a framework to assess this probability in the context of multiple scenarios that represent possible future states of the architecture [Ivanco et al., “A Scenario-Based Approach to Assess Continuity Gaps in Earth Observations,” IEEE Aerospace Conf., 2024]. While this method was previously applied to assess continuity gaps for a specific multi-mission architecture, it had not yet been validated with historical data. This paper outlines the process of validating the probabilistic gap assessment method by utilizing data obtained from past NASA Earth Science mission formulation documents and provides a discussion of the results and takeaways from the validation. Future areas of improvement pertaining to both the modeling and simulation methodologies and underlying assumptions are identified and discussed.

Katharine Burn↗
NASA NTRS2003

Reaching Mars: multi-criteria R&D portfolio selection for Mars exploration technology planning

The exploration of Mars has been the focus of increasing scientific interest about the planet and its relationship to Earth. A multi-criteria decision-making approach was developed to address the question, Given a Mars program composed of mission concepts dependent on a variety of alternative technology development programs, which combination of technologies would enable missions to maximize science return under a constrained budget?.

R&D technology planning mathematical programming↗
NASA NTRS2006

Analysis of System-Wide Investment in the National Airspace System: A Portfolio Analytical Framework and an Example

In this paper, the authors review the FAA s current program investments and lay out a preliminary analytical framework to undertake projects that may address some of the noted deficiencies. By drawing upon the well developed theories from corporate finance, an analytical framework is offered that can be used for choosing FAA s investments taking into account risk, expected returns and inherent dependencies across NAS programs. The framework can be expanded into taking multiple assets and realistic values for parameters in drawing an efficient risk-return frontier for the entire FAA investment programs.

Bhadra, Dipasis↗