Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “concurrent engineering”

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 NTRS1990

Space Station Freedom - Configuration management approach to supporting concurrent engineering and total quality management

Some experiences of NASA configuration management in providing concurrent engineering support to the Space Station Freedom program for the achievement of life cycle benefits and total quality are discussed. Three change decision experiences involving tracing requirements and automated information systems of the electrical power system are described. The potential benefits of concurrent engineering and total quality management include improved operational effectiveness, reduced logistics and support requirements, prevention of schedule slippages, and life cycle cost savings. It is shown how configuration management can influence the benefits attained through disciplined approaches and innovations that compel consideration of all the technical elements of engineering and quality factors that apply to the program development, transition to operations and in operations. Configuration management experiences involving the Space Station program's tiered management structure, the work package contractors, international partners, and the participating NASA centers are discussed.

Gavert, Raymond B.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Probabilistic simulation of concurrent engineering of propulsion systems

Technology readiness and the available infrastructure is assessed for timely computational simulation of concurrent engineering for propulsion systems. Results for initial coupled multidisciplinary, fabrication-process, and system simulators are presented including uncertainties inherent in various facets of engineering processes. An approach is outlined for computationally formalizing the concurrent engineering process from cradle-to-grave via discipline dedicated workstations linked with a common database.

Chamis, C. C.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Integrated System-Level Optimization for Concurrent Engineering With Parametric Subsystem Modeling

The introduction of concurrent design practices to the aerospace industry has greatly increased the productivity of engineers and teams during design sessions as demonstrated by JPL's Team X. Simultaneously, advances in computing power have given rise to a host of potent numerical optimization methods capable of solving complex multidisciplinary optimization problems containing hundreds of variables, constraints, and governing equations. Unfortunately, such methods are tedious to set up and require significant amounts of time and processor power to execute, thus making them unsuitable for rapid concurrent engineering use. This paper proposes a framework for Integration of System-Level Optimization with Concurrent Engineering (ISLOCE). It uses parametric neural-network approximations of the subsystem models. These approximations are then linked to a system-level optimizer that is capable of reaching a solution quickly due to the reduced complexity of the approximations. The integration structure is described in detail and applied to the multiobjective design of a simplified Space Shuttle external fuel tank model. Further, a comparison is made between the new framework and traditional concurrent engineering (without system optimization) through an experimental trial with two groups of engineers. Each method is evaluated in terms of optimizer accuracy, time to solution, and ease of use. The results suggest that system-level optimization, running as a background process during integrated concurrent engineering sessions, is potentially advantageous as long as it is judiciously implemented.

Schuman, Todd↗
NASA NTRS1995

Concurrent engineering research center

The projects undertaken by The Concurrent Engineering Research Center (CERC) at West Virginia University are reported and summarized. CERC's participation in the Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Project relating to technology needed to improve the product development process is described, particularly in the area of advanced weapon systems. The efforts committed to improving collaboration among the diverse and distributed health care providers are reported, along with the research activities for NASA in Independent Software Verification and Validation. CERC also takes part in the electronic respirator certification initiated by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, as well as in the efforts to find a solution to the problem of producing environment-friendly end-products for product developers worldwide. The 3M Fiber Metal Matrix Composite Model Factory Program is discussed. CERC technologies, facilities,and personnel-related issues are described, along with its library and technical services and recent publications.

Callahan, John R.↗
NASA NTRS2010

GLobal Integrated Design Environment (GLIDE): A Concurrent Engineering Application

The GLobal Integrated Design Environment (GLIDE) is a client-server software application purpose-built to mitigate issues associated with real time data sharing in concurrent engineering environments and to facilitate discipline-to-discipline interaction between multiple engineers and researchers. GLIDE is implemented in multiple programming languages utilizing standardized web protocols to enable secure parameter data sharing between engineers and researchers across the Internet in closed and/or widely distributed working environments. A well defined, HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) based Application Programming Interface (API) to the GLIDE client/server environment enables users to interact with GLIDE, and each other, within common and familiar tools. One such common tool, Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation), paired with its add-in API for GLIDE, is discussed in this paper. The top-level examples given demonstrate how this interface improves the efficiency of the design process of a concurrent engineering study while reducing potential errors associated with manually sharing information between study participants.

McGuire, Melissa L.↗
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 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 NTRSDate not supplied

Compass Concurrent Engineering Lessons Learned in Remote and Hybrid Environments

The Compass Team at NASA’s Glenn Research Center (GRC) is a concurrent engineering team which specializes in conceptual spacecraft mission designs. Detailed descriptions of the team, its history, and its operating model can be found in [1] and [2]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the team was required to move to remote (virtual) operation from their in-person model for approximately 22 months. As the restrictions began to lift and team members were able to return in-person to the Compass Lab, the team moved into a hybrid mode of operation, with some participants still tying in remotely some or all of the time. This paper discusses many of the lessons learned from these experiences, highlighting improvements, outstanding challenges and the tools and methodologies used to address both. Throughout this discussion the terms “in-person”, “hybrid”, “virtual” and “remote” will be used. For the purposes of this paper, “in-person” will be understood to mean when team members are interacting simultaneously, physically within the Compass Lab. “Remote” or “virtual” will refer to when interactions are happening between people who are not co-located using only technology to interface. “Hybrid” will refer to when two or more participants are physically located in the Compass Lab and one or more participant(s) is participating remotely. Media richness is described as “a medium’s ability to communicate effectively based of four factors. They are the capacity for immediate feedback, the number of cues and channels it utilizes, the degree of personalization it affords, and its ability to communicate using natural language” [3]. This theory will be referenced and discussed in multiple of the following sections due to its relevance when choosing how to operate in remote and hybrid modes, as well as in making tool selections. The key to selecting the best mode of communication lays in how complicated the discussion is and the level of ambiguity involved. Not all conversations or interactions require media rich mediums. For example, providing information about which there is little to no ambiguity can easily be done in less rich methods - such as email. A conversation including high levels of ambiguity and/or complex information is better suited to a richer medium, such as in-person or a video call with shared screens.

Concurrent Engineering↗
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 NTRS2018

A SysML Model Template for NASA Concurrent Engineering Studies

Systems Engineers at NASA Langley’s Engineering Design Studio (EDS) have been developing a SysML** template that models both the EDS concurrent engineering study process and the system of interest for the study. Specifically, the model template is used to develop end-to-end space-based mission concepts. The model template evolved through targeted use and technical feedback during several EDS studies in 2016-17. This year, a model template version was completed that is being tested for use throughout EDS studies. It features ease of navigation through the documented study process to create the logistical articles (e.g. session agenda) and technical articles (e.g. system requirements) connected in the study SysML model, resulting in demonstrable and trackable relationships between the system design and the study goals and objectives. The model template allows easy release of the system of interest portion at the end of the EDS study. The customers may use this as a starter model as their project moves forward. The model template design details and the motivation for them will be explained in this paper. This will be followed by the results of the first trials of the model template in an EDS study, and discussion of the integration of this template into the NASA MBSE Community of Practice.

Infeld, Samantha I.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Concurrent engineering: Spacecraft and mission operations system design

Despite our awareness of the mission design process, spacecraft historically have been designed and developed by one team and then turned over as a system to the Mission Operations organization to operate on-orbit. By applying concurrent engineering techniques and envisioning operability as an essential characteristic of spacecraft design, tradeoffs can be made in the overall mission design to minimize mission lifetime cost. Lessons learned from previous spacecraft missions will be described, as well as the implementation of concurrent mission operations and spacecraft engineering for the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) program.

Landshof, J. A.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Concurrent Engineering for the Management of Research and Development

The Management of Research and Development (R&D) is facing the challenges of reducing time from R&D to customer, reducing the cost of R&D, having higher accountability for results (improved quality), and increasing focus on customers. Concurrent engineering (CE) has shown great success in the automotive and technology industries resulting in significant decreases in cycle time, reduction of total cost, and increases in quality and reliability. This philosophy of concurrency can have similar implications or benefits for the management of R&D organizations. Since most studies on the application of CE have been performed in manufacturing environments, research into the benefits of CE into other environments is needed. This paper presents research conducted at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) investigating the application of CE in the management of an R&D organization. In particular the paper emphasizes possible barriers and enhancers that this environment presents to the successful implementation of CE. Preliminary results and recommendations are based on a series of interviews and subsequent surveys, from which data has been gathered and analyzed as part of the GRC's Continuous Improvement Process.

DelRosario, Ruben↗
NASA NTRS2013

Domain-Specific Languages and Diagram Customization for a Concurrent Engineering Environment

A major open question for advocates of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is the question of how system and subsystem engineers will work together. The Systems Modeling Language (SysML), like any language intended for a large audience, is in tension between the desires for simplicity and for expressiveness. In order to be more expressive, many specialized language elements may be introduced, which will unfortunately make a complete understanding of the language a more daunting task. While this may be acceptable for systems modelers, it will increase the challenge of including subsystem engineers in the modeling effort. One possible answer to this situation is the use of Domain-Specific Languages (DSL), which are fully supported by the Unified Modeling Language (UML). SysML is in fact a DSL for systems engineering. The expressive power of a DSL can be enhanced through the use of diagram customization. Various domains have already developed their own schematic vocabularies. Within the space engineering community, two excellent examples are the propulsion and telecommunication subsystems. A return to simple box-and-line diagrams (e.g., the SysML Internal Block Diagram) are in many ways a step backward. In order allow subsystem engineers to contribute directly to the model, it is necessary to make a system modeling tool at least approximate in accessibility to drawing tools like Microsoft PowerPoint and Visio. The challenge is made more extreme in a concurrent engineering environment, where designs must often be drafted in an hour or two. In the case of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Team X concurrent design team, a subsystem is specified using a combination of PowerPoint for drawing and Excel for calculation. A pilot has been undertaken in order to meld the drawing portion and the production of master equipment lists (MELs) via a SysML authoring tool, MagicDraw. Team X currently interacts with its customers in a process of sharing presentations. There are several inefficiencies that arise from this situation. The first is that a customer team must wait two weeks to a month (which is 2-4 times the duration of most Team X studies themselves) for a finalized, detailed design description. Another is that this information must be re-entered by hand into the set of engineering artifacts and design tools that the mission concept team uses after a study is complete. Further, there is no persistent connection to Team X or institutionally shared formulation design tools and data after a given study, again reducing the direct reuse of designs created in a Team X study. This paper presents the underpinnings of subsystem DSLs as they were developed for this pilot. This includes specialized semantics for different domains as well as the process by which major categories of objects were derived in support of defining the DSLs. The feedback given to us by the domain experts on usability, along with a pilot study with the partial inclusion of these tools is also discussed.

Cole, Bjorn↗
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↗