Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “concurrent design space 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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1993

Using SFOC to fly the Magellan Venus mapping mission

Traditionally, spacecraft flight operations at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have been performed by teams of spacecraft experts utilizing ground software designed specifically for the current mission. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory set out to reduce the cost of spacecraft mission operations by designing ground data processing software that could be used by multiple spacecraft missions, either sequentially or concurrently. The Space Flight Operations Center (SFOC) System was developed to provide the ground data system capabilities needed to monitor several spacecraft simultaneously and provide enough flexibility to meet the specific needs of individual projects. The Magellan Spacecraft Team utilizes the SFOC hardware and software designed for engineering telemetry analysis, both real-time and non-real-time. The flexibility of the SFOC System has allowed the spacecraft team to integrate their own tools with SFOC tools to perform the tasks required to operate a spacecraft mission. This paper describes how the Magellan Spacecraft Team is utilizing the SFOC System in conjunction with their own software tools to perform the required tasks of spacecraft event monitoring as well as engineering data analysis and trending.

Bucher, Allen W.↗
NASA NTRS2018

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↗
NASA NTRS2006

Next-generation concurrent engineering: developing models to complement point designs

Concurrent Engineering Design (CED) teams have made routine the rapid development of point designs for space missions. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Team X is now evolving into a 'next-generation CED; in addition to a point design, the Team develops a model of the local trade space. The process is a balance between the power of a model developing tools and the creativity of humal experts, enabling the development of a variety of trade models for any space mission. This paper reviews the modeling method and its practical implementation in the ED environment. Example results illustrate the benefit of this approach.

concurrent engineering↗
NASA NTRS2021

The Evolution of Team-X: 25 Years of Concurrent Engineering Design Experience

Established in 1995 in response to NASA’s “Faster, Better, Cheaper” era, Team-X was born from a need to perform rapid space mission design for principal investigator-led competed proposals. The success and sustainability of Team-X over the 25 years that have followed is directly attributable to the Team-X business model and its evolution over time. While dozens of organizations and institutions have emulated the Team-X design process, there are nuances to the Team-X business model that are unique to JPL, and explain why it is different than other concurrent design teams. One of the key components of a business model is the customer segments that are served. Team-X was founded to conduct the Pre-Phase A work necessary to formulate a portfolio of multiple planetary mission concepts, but has since expanded to include the capability to conduct studies for Earth science, astrophysics, and heliophysics missions as well as Human Exploration and Operations missions and space technology development. Team-X delivers value to its clients both in terms of speed and cost. Team-X has also added value by creating teams to enable the development of Instrument and SmallSat Concepts. Value has further been enhanced through a revision of its process for reviews and the addition of pre-design architecting capabilities. Other aspects of the Team-X infrastructure, in addition to study process, have enabled it to succeed for over a quarter century. From our most important resource, the people, our tools, especially for cost estimating, as well as our increasing capable IT infrastructure have contributed to our capability to meet the demands of our clients. The Team-X business model and its evolution over time, position it well for success in the decades to come.

Murphy, Jonathan↗
NASA NTRS2018

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↗
NASA NTRS1987

Large spacecraft pointing and shape control

The overall objective of this program was the development of control algorithms that allow the concurrent operation of slewing, pointing, vibration, and shape control subsystems. This objective is important for near-term space surveillance missions that require the rapid retargeting and precise pointing of large flexible satellites. The success of these missions requires the design and concurrent operation of the various interacting control subsystems. There were two phases conducted: phase 1 was mathematical model development, and phase 2 was control development. The program is detailed and major conclusions given.

Hale, Arthur L.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Resource Management and Contingencies in Aerospace Concurrent Engineering

significant concern in designing complex systems implementing new technologies is that while knowledge about the system is acquired incrementally, substantial financial commitments, even make-or-break decisions, must be made upfront, essentially in the unknown. One practice that helps in dealing with this dichotomy is the smart embedding of contingencies and margins in the design to serve as buffers against surprises. This issue presents itself in full force in the aerospace industry, where unprecedented systems are formulated and committed to as a matter of routine. As more and more aerospace mission concepts are generated by concurrent design laboratories, it is imperative that such laboratories apply well thought-out contingency and margin structures to their designs. The first part of this publication provides an overview of resource management techniques and standards used in the aerospace industry. That is followed by a thought provoking treatise on margin policies. The expose presents the actual flight telemetry data recorded by the thermal discipline during several recent NASA Goddard Space Flight Center missions. The margins actually achieved in flight are compared against pre-flight predictions, and the appropriateness and the ramifications of having designed with rigid margins to bounding stacked worst case conditions are assessed. The second half of the paper examines the particular issues associated with the application of contingencies and margins in the concurrent engineering environment. In closure, a discipline-by-discipline disclosure of the contingency and margin policies in use at the Integrated Design Center at NASA s Goddard Space Flight Center is made.

Karpati, Gabe↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA’s In-Space Manufacturing Project: Update on Manufacturing Technologies and Materials to Enable More Sustainable and Safer Exploration

NASA’s In-Space Manufacturing (ISM) project seeks to develop the materials, processes, and manufacturing technologies needed to provide an on-demand manufacturing capability for deep space exploration missions. The ability to manufacture and recycle some parts on demand rather than launch them from earth has the potential to reduce logistics requirements on long duration missions and enhance crew safety. With the launch of the first 3D printer (built and operated by Made in Space through a Small Business Innovative Research – SBIR -- contract) to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2014, the ISM project demonstrated the feasibility of operating an on-demand manufacturing system in a microgravity environment. This paper will provide an update on recent advancements in ISM under three key technology areas: manufacturing, recycling, and development of a design database. ISM continues to pursue development of manufacturing technologies for space applications and use the ISS as a critical test bed to prove out these technologies before deploying them on next generation exploration systems. Activities under this focus area include: characterization of materials manufactured using the Additive Manufacturing Facility (AMF), the second generation commercial 3D-printer on ISS, also owned and operated by Made in Space; development of prototype payloads for metal manufacturing through phase II SBIR contracts with Tethers Unlimited, Made in Space, and Ultra Tech Machinery; development of a multi-material fabrication laboratory capable of processing metals and providing inspection of manufactured parts through a Broad Agency Announcement (Techshot, Interlog, and Tethers Unlimited); an in-line sensing system for ISM platforms; and development of higher strength feedstocks for 3D polymer printers. In the area of recycling, the Tethers Unlimited Refabricator payload (an integrated 3D printer and recycler for ULTEM 9085) launched to ISS in November 2018 and began operating in early 2019. This payload represents the first demonstration of on-orbit recycling; down massed specimens will assess material degradation in the polymer over multiple recycling cycles to define limits on material re-use. Other work in the recycling area includes development of common use materials intended to be reused and recycled on space missions (Tethers Unlimited and Cornerstone Research Group) and a sterilization capability for multiple-use materials (ERASMUS from Tethers Unlimited). Concurrent with manufacturing technology and materials development work is creation of a design database, a curated list of parts that can be manufactured using the suite of In-Space Manufacturing capabilities.

Tracie Prater↗
NASA NTRS2019

Trends in Human Spaceflight: Failure Tolerance, High Reliability and Correlated Failure History

In a half century of human spaceflight, NASA has continuously refined agency safety and reliability requirements in response to mission demands, critical failures, and technology development. Early spacecraft, including Mercury, Gemini and Apollo vehicles, were highly reliant on dissimilar redundancy and demonstrated test margins. Later programs, such as the reusable Space Transportation System (STS) and International Space Station (ISS), introduced probabilistic studies and isolated two-failure tolerance to improve robustness at the expense of added complexity. More recently, the Orion Multi-Program Crew Vehicle (MPCV) program adopted universal single-failure tolerance with two categorical exceptions; Zero-Failure Tolerant (0FT) and Design for Minimum Risk (DFMR) hardware. Failure tolerance variances are defined and managed in accordance with agency human-rating requirements, and require concurrence from program Technical Authorities (TA) as well as the MPCV Safety and Mission Assurance Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP). To understand and reaffirm standards applied to Apollo, Space Shuttle and Orion vehicles, Orion and Deep Space Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) representatives conducted accelerated research to compare unique safety and reliability criteria against ground and flight anomalies, based on information contained in post-mission reports and the Problem Reporting and Corrective Action (PRACA) database. In some cases, high-profile failures and narrow escapes have reinforced decisions to maintain or adapt safety requirements. In others, empirical trends have highlighted the need for vigilance and innovative safety guidelines. Given the inability to achieve absolute compliance with evolving safety and reliability requirements, the team conducted a targeted review of DFMR and 0FT propulsion elements within the framework of changing system design, inspection, materials and process developments to formulate conclusions on technological maturity, failure density, and net changes in safety risk. Based on the aggregate performance of high-reliability and failure-tolerant systems, the authors have attempted to establish best practices and guidelines to inform future program decisions. On a somewhat cautionary note, this study is not intended to direct a universal set of requirements for future missions based on prior lessons learned. Spacecraft safety is a multi-variable problem, and attempts to mitigate past failures will not guarantee future success. However, this assessment offers a retrospective review of policy changes, implementation and effectiveness. In the future, NASA, European Space Agency (ESA) and industry partners may benefit from a more robust correlation between requirements and performance, as space-faring nations work toward more challenging, complex and long-duration commercial and deep-space ventures.

Green, Carrie↗
NASA NTRS2013

Estimation Model of Spacecraft Parameters and Cost Based on a Statistical Analysis of COMPASS Designs

The Collaborative Modeling for Parametric Assessment of Space Systems (COMPASS) team at Glenn Research Center has performed integrated system analysis of conceptual spacecraft mission designs since 2006 using a multidisciplinary concurrent engineering process. The set of completed designs was archived in a database, to allow for the study of relationships between design parameters. Although COMPASS uses a parametric spacecraft costing model, this research investigated the possibility of using a top-down approach to rapidly estimate the overall vehicle costs. This paper presents the relationships between significant design variables, including breakdowns of dry mass, wet mass, and cost. It also develops a model for a broad estimate of these parameters through basic mission characteristics, including the target location distance, the payload mass, the duration, the delta-v requirement, and the type of mission, propulsion, and electrical power. Finally, this paper examines the accuracy of this model in regards to past COMPASS designs, with an assessment of outlying spacecraft, and compares the results to historical data of completed NASA missions.

cost modeling↗
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 NTRS1994

Implementing Software Safety in the NASA Environment

Until recently, NASA did not consider allowing computers total control of flight systems. Human operators, via hardware, have constituted the ultimate safety control. In an attempt to reduce costs, NASA has come to rely more and more heavily on computers and software to control space missions. (For example. software is now planned to control most of the operational functions of the International Space Station.) Thus the need for systematic software safety programs has become crucial for mission success. Concurrent engineering principles dictate that safety should be designed into software up front, not tested into the software after the fact. 'Cost of Quality' studies have statistics and metrics to prove the value of building quality and safety into the development cycle. Unfortunately, most software engineers are not familiar with designing for safety, and most safety engineers are not software experts. Software written to specifications which have not been safety analyzed is a major source of computer related accidents. Safer software is achieved step by step throughout the system and software life cycle. It is a process that includes requirements definition, hazard analyses, formal software inspections, safety analyses, testing, and maintenance. The greatest emphasis is placed on clearly and completely defining system and software requirements, including safety and reliability requirements. Unfortunately, development and review of requirements are the weakest link in the process. While some of the more academic methods, e.g. mathematical models, may help bring about safer software, this paper proposes the use of currently approved software methodologies, and sound software and assurance practices to show how, to a large degree, safety can be designed into software from the start. NASA's approach today is to first conduct a preliminary system hazard analysis (PHA) during the concept and planning phase of a project. This determines the overall hazard potential of the system to be built. Shortly thereafter, as the system requirements are being defined, the second iteration of hazard analyses takes place, the systems hazard analysis (SHA). During the systems requirements phase, decisions are made as to what functions of the system will be the responsibility of software. This is the most critical time to affect the safety of the software. From this point, software safety analyses as well as software engineering practices are the main focus for assuring safe software. While many of the steps proposed in this paper seem like just sound engineering practices, they are the best technical and most cost effective means to assure safe software within a safe system.

Wetherholt, Martha S.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Program Management for Concurrent University Satellite Programs, Including Propellant Feed System Design Elements

Propulsion options for CubeSats are limited but are necessary for the CubeSat industry to continue future growth. Challenges to CubeSat propulsion include volume/mass constraints, availability of sufficiently small and certified hardware, secondary payload status, safe storage of high energy, and power requirements. A multi-mode (chemical and electric) thruster was developed by at the Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T) to enable CubeSat propulsion missions. Two satellite buses, a 3U and 6U, are being developed by the M-SAT satellite research team at Missouri S&T to demonstrate the multi-mode thruster's capabilities. Two key challenges related to these missions are the development of the feed system to support the thruster and management of the two programs' personnel, resources, timelines, and budgets. The feed system was designed to support the unique needs of the thruster including material compatibility with the custom ionic liquid, variable flow rate, high pressurization, and high voltage within the constraints and budget of a student-designed propulsion system. The feed system was also designed to minimize risk as a secondary payload. This resulted in the development of a unique method to pressurize propellant stored in the feed system tubing. Within the expected operating pressure range, the method was experimentally shown to provide sufficient pressure and propellant volume to the thruster to meet mission success criteria. The 3U and 6U CubeSat buses were designed concurrently with complimentary payloads, hardware, objectives, and team structures. Resources such as personnel, lab space, and time had to be carefully balanced between the two teams. With proper management, the two programs have been able to support one another, providing valuable insight and collaboration between the two teams. Lessons learned include experience with design, testing, and assembly of hardware, team training/mentoring and motivation, improved documentation practices, and risk management.

Withrow, Shannah Nichole↗
NASA NTRS2014

AztechSat-1, a First Collaborative CubeSat Between NASA and Mexico

An international collaboration program for capacity building in space technology is being established between NASA and the Mexican Space Agency (AEM). Its objective is to develop a series of CubeSats collaboratively in a way that benefits both agencies. For AEM, this experience will support the development of human capital required for its space program. This project provides an opportunity for NASA future missions to benefit from commercially available technologies demonstrated in space. AEM was recently created by the Mexican Government to use and develop space technology in Mexico. Current AEM plans call for having the capability of developing its own communication satellites by 2030, so the need for having a Mexican cadre of space experts is mandatory. The program will start with the development and launching of AztechSat-1, the first AEM CubeSat project to be deployed from the International Space Station (ISS). Several public Mexican universities will participate in this project to demonstrate GlobalStar, a satellite communications provider using a constellation of LEO satellites, as an option for small satellite missions. AztechSat-1 mission objectives are:(1) Develop a flight ready CubeSat for deployment from the ISS; (2) Demonstrate GlobalStar´s Network as a method to advance communications in CubeSat missions. AztechSat-1 is envisioned as a 1U CubeSat and will be designed and constructed by Mexican graduate students from two major universities in Mexico: UNAM and IPN. The students will be mentored and supervised by researchers from NASA Ames Research Center (NARC). Flight acceptance tests are going to be done both at Mexican university labs as well as at NARC. Funding for the project will be provided concurrently by AEM, the Mexican participating universities, and other Mexican entities. The development of AztechSat-1 will emphasize the transfer of knowledge in space mission analysis and design, flight acceptance testing and other areas of space technology which are not well developed in Mexico yet. Mexican students will benefit from their mentoring from NASA researchers and will provide a multiplier effect in the development of the next generation of Mexican aerospace engineers. AztechSat-1 will be developed in a period of twelve months and will be launched by late 2015. AztechSat´s success will define the future of collaboration between NASA and AEM in capacity building. A plan for developing a series of AztechSat’s in a one per year basis, with increasing capabilities and complexity is currently being negotiated between NASA an AEM.

Martinez, Andres↗
NASA NTRS2010

Lessons Learned in Launching Ares I-X

The Ares I-X flight test, scheduled for 2009, is the first opportunity for the Constellation Program and Ares Projects to obtain important data on the in-flight loads, first stage recovery, and ground-handling characteristics of the Ares I crew launch vehicle. The flight test vehicle will incorporate a mix of flight and mockup hardware, reflecting an acceptable representation of the mass and outer mold line characteristics of the operational Ares I vehicle. It will be powered by a four-segment solid rocket motor from the Space Shuttle inventory and will include a fifth, inert spacer segment and new forward structures to make it the same shape as the Ares I first stage. The vehicle also includes mass simulators for the upper stage, Orion crew module, and launch abort system to match the outer mold line of Ares I; an active roll control system; and avionics derived from Shuttle and Atlas hardware. This suborbital mission will take the flight test vehicle from stacking in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) through liftoff, maximum dynamic pressure, first stage separation, and recovery. Ares I-X presented NASA with unique project management challenges. This presentation will address those unique challenges, including managing a virtual nationwide team under a constrained timeline; designing and building the launch vehicle and ground systems; working concurrently with Space Shuttle activities; and integrating technical and management functions. It also will identify key data collected and lessons learned from the flight that will be applied to future exploration missions.

Davis, Stephan R.↗
NASA NTRS2016

JPL's Foundry Furnace: Web-Based Concurrent Engineering for Formulation

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Innovation Foundry is an enterprise tasked with shepherding space mission concepts through the formulation lifecycle. It oversees a number of “virtual teams” for the various stages of formulation. Among these is Team X, which has had considerable success over its more than 20-year history. In a Team X study, domain experts (including engineers devoted to the various spacecraft subsystems) work concurrently and collaboratively over several days to arrive at a feasible point design with a reasonable cost estimate. They use a set of linked Excel workbooks, each developed and approved by a responsible “line organization” within JPL. This toolset has served Team X well over the years, and has evolved since its inception. At the same time, the Innovation Foundry’s portfolio of formulation teams has expanded, and so has the scope of the design challenges they face. The A-Team runs workshop-like architecture studies to focus science investigations, generate mission concepts, assess feasibility, and explore trade spaces. Team Xc performs rapid point design in the style of Team X, but for CubeSats and small spacecraft, using a different toolset. Proposal teams further mature concepts to the point where they can be proposed. Recognizing the importance of trade space modeling combined with new IT services for providing and integrating data, JPL is developing the Foundry Furnace web-based software infrastructure. It will support A-Team, Team Xc, and Team X, providing study management, a catalog of hardware components, a library of re-usable analyses, and a design environment. It is a modernization of JPL’s concurrent engineering infrastructure, embracing the core concepts of Model-Based Systems Engineering, and built with modern software design philosophies.

Murphy, Jonathan↗
NASA NTRS1987

Rationale for an integrated moon/Mars exploration program

Although it is possible to design manned missions to Mars that do not involve prior lunar missions, a strategy that includes development of a lunar base before or concurrent with the Mars program offers potential benefits from space infrastructure development, space operations experience, and utilization of lunar materials for propulsion. Common utilization of infrastructure elements (e.g., Orbital Transfer Vehicles, Space Operation Center modules) is emphasized in this approach. Mass flows through a low Earth orbit Space Station change in quantity and in proportion of propellant to hardware as the infrastructure develops.

Duke, Michael B.↗