SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “formulation team”
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.
The Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM)
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing a robotic mission to visit a large near-Earth asteroid (NEA), collect a multi-ton boulder from its surface, and redirect it into a stable orbit around the Moon. Once returned to cislunar space in the mid-2020s, astronauts will explore the boulder and return to Earth with samples. This Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) is part of NASA's plan to advance the technologies, capabilities, and spaceflight experience needed for a human mission to the Martian system in the 2030s. Subsequent human and robotic missions to the asteroidal material would also be facilitated by its return to cislunar space. Although ARM is primarily a capability demonstration mission (i.e., technologies and associated operations), there exist significant opportunities to advance our knowledge of small bodies in the synergistic areas of science, planetary defense, asteroidal resources and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), and capability and technology demonstrations. In order to maximize the knowledge return from the mission, NASA is organizing an ARM Investigation Team, which is being preceded by the Formulation Assessment and Support Team. These teams will be comprised of scientists, technologists, and other qualified and interested individuals to help plan the implementation and execution of ARM. An overview of robotic and crewed segments of ARM, including the mission requirements, NEA targets, and mission operations, will be provided along with a discussion of the potential opportunities associated with the mission.
Exploring the Moon: Preserving the Legacy Through Spacesuit Knowledge Capture and Strategic Communication
NASA is returning to the Moon to stay. To establish a sustained lunar presence, astronauts will pack spacesuits, surface-mobility tools, rovers, and decades’ worth of knowledge. The U.S. Spacesuit Knowledge Capture (SKC) and Strategic Communications (Strat Comm) team is specialized in capturing, preserving, and sharing space-related knowledge with NASA scientists, technicians, engineers, vendors, and the public to support space exploration. Since the SKC Program’s 2007 inception, its focus has been to capture and share valuable spacesuit-related knowledge with the NASA community. As the program evolved, its notoriety, funding, scope, and staffing expanded from a one-person, part-time, unfunded operation to a small-team, funded entity. Currently, this team has been formulated with a diverse skillset to meet the requirements of its stakeholders. The SKC and Strat Comm team has used its skills to produce over 260 recorded knowledge captures of subject-matter experts (SMEs) and photoshoots. These knowledge captures are in the form of photographs, lectures, workshops, vignettes, videos, and interviews containing essential space-related knowledge. To help educate the space community and public, this trove of information (e.g., videos of world-class facilities, photographs, and SME lectures), produced inside NASA Johnson Space Center, can be obtained through various sources. During Fiscal Year 2024, the SKC and Strat Comm team will focus on several initiatives. Examples of initiatives include the following: 1) share lessons learned during NASA’s internal venues such as Safety & Health Day and Day of Remembrance; 2) share knowledge with the public, educators, and students through a media production titled Exploring the Moon; and 3) highlight NASA’s unique capabilities and expertise in a video series titled What’s Behind This Door? This paper discusses the team's approach, unique capture capability, initiatives, and much more.
Exploring the Moon: Preserving the Legacy Through Spacesuit Knowledge Capture and Strategic Communication
NASA is returning to the Moon to stay. To establish a sustained lunar presence, astronauts will pack spacesuits, surface-mobility tools, rovers, and decades’ worth of knowledge. The U.S. Spacesuit Knowledge Capture (SKC) and Strategic Communications (Strat Comm) team is specialized in capturing, preserving, and sharing space-related knowledge with NASA scientists, technicians, engineers, vendors, and the public to support space exploration. Since the SKC Program’s 2007 inception, its focus has been to capture and share valuable spacesuit-related knowledge with the NASA community. As the program evolved, its notoriety, funding, scope, and staffing expanded from a one-person, part-time, unfunded operation to a small-team, funded entity. Currently, this team has been formulated with a diverse skillset to meet the requirements of its stakeholders. The SKC and Strat Comm team has used its skills to produce over 260 recorded knowledge captures of subject-matter experts (SMEs) and photoshoots. These knowledge captures are in the form of photographs, lectures, workshops, vignettes, videos, and interviews containing essential space-related knowledge. To help educate the space community and public, this trove of information (e.g., videos of world-class facilities, photographs, and SME lectures), produced inside NASA Johnson Space Center, can be obtained through various sources. During Fiscal Year 2024, the SKC and Strat Comm team will focus on several initiatives. Examples of initiatives include the following: 1) share lessons learned during NASA’s internal venues such as Safety & Health Day and Day of Remembrance; 2) share knowledge with the public, educators, and students through a media production titled Exploring the Moon; and 3) highlight NASA’s unique capabilities and expertise in a video series titled What’s Behind This Door? This paper discusses the team's approach, unique capture capability, initiatives, and much more.
Results from an Investigation into Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) Training Related Shoulder Injuries
The number and complexity of extravehicular activities (EVAs) required for the completion and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS) is unprecedented. The training required to successfully complete this magnitude of space walks presents a real risk of overuse musculoskeletal injuries to the EVA crew population. There was mounting evidence raised by crewmembers, trainers, and physicians at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) between 1999 and 2002 that suggested a link between training in the Neutral - Buoyancy Lab (NBL) and the several reported cases of shoulder injuries. The short- and long-term health consequences of shoulder injury to astronauts in training as well as the potential mission impact associated with surgical intervention to assigned EVA crew point to this as a critical problem that must be mitigated. Thus, a multi-directorate tiger team was formed in December of 2002 led by the EVA Office and Astronaut Office at the JSC. The primary objectives of this Tiger Team were to evaluate the prevalence of these injuries and substantiate the relationship to training in the NBL with the crew person operating in the EVA Mobility Unit (EMU). Between December 2002 and June of 2003 the team collected data, surveyed crewmembers, consulted with a variety of physicians, and performed tests. The results of this effort were combined with the vast knowledge and experience of the Tiger Team members to formulate several findings and over fifty recommendations. This paper summarizes those findings and recommendations as well as the process by which these were determined. The Tiger Team concluded that training in the NBL was directly linked to several major and minor shoulder injuries that had occurred. With the assistance of JSC flight surgeons, outside consultants, and the lead crewmember/physician on the team, the mechanisms of injury were determined. These mechanisms were then linked to specific aspects of the hardware design, operational techniques, and the training environment. During the 1999 to 2003 time frame many variables converged to make it impossible to determine with any accuracy which one or two root causes were primarily involved. Therefore a broad range of recommendations was established to prevent future injury to crewmembers training in the NBL in the near term. Many of these recommendations are lessons learned that are essentially timeless and therefore should be passed on to future EVA endeavors to ensure that hardware designs and operational techniques utilized in the future consider the demands of training on the human body here on earth.
Institutionalizing Lessons Learned
The NASA Integrated Action Team (NIAT) was formed by the NASA Administrator in March 2000. The purpose of this team was to identify the actions that NASA must take to address systemic findings reported in 4 different anomaly investigations. Team membership represented senior managers from all the field centers and NASA Headquarters. NIAT report addressed 165 findings and developed 17 action plans that are described in five themes: people and teams, technology, risk, formulation rigor, and communications. The NIAT actions present a systems solution for strengthening formulation and implementation of programs and improving the environment for their support. NIAT results included: enhancing success by avoiding failures that could have been prevented through good planning and sound practice; ensuring that prudent risks do not compromise safety; and ensuring that mission risks are objectively assessed, appropriately mitigated and consciously accepted by the program team and customers. Definitions of Faster, Better, Cheaper and Success Criteria were also developed and included as part of the NIAT report. As a result of the NIAT report, program and project management process changes were incorporated into NASA's quality system documentation, including NPG 7120.513, "NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements. This paper describes the NIAT results and the resulting updates to NPG 7120.5 that keep this program and project management description a living process.
Human Exploration Framework Team: Strategy and Status
Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) was formulated to create a decision framework for human space exploration that drives out the knowledge, capabilities and infrastructure NASA needs to send people to explore multiple destinations in the Solar System in an efficient, sustainable way. The specific goal is to generate an initial architecture that can evolve into a long term, enterprise-wide architecture that is the basis for a robust human space flight enterprise. This paper will discuss the initial HEFT activity which focused on starting up the cross-agency team, getting it functioning, developing a comprehensive development and analysis process and conducting multiple iterations of the process. The outcome of this process will be discussed including initial analysis of capabilities and missions for at least two decades, keeping Mars as the ultimate destination. Details are provided on strategies that span a broad technical and programmatic trade space, are analyzed against design reference missions and evaluated against a broad set of figures of merit including affordability, operational complexity, and technical and programmatic risk.
Implementing NASA's Capability-Driven Approach: Insight into NASA's Processes for Maturing Exploration Systems
NASA is engaged in transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities focused on low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves more than the daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. This shift also requires a change in operating processes for NASA. The Agency can no longer afford to engineer systems for specific missions and destinations and instead must focus on common capabilities that enable a range of destinations and missions. NASA has codified a capability driven approach, which provides flexible guidance for the development and maturation of common capabilities necessary for human pioneers beyond LEO. This approach has been included in NASA policy and is captured in the Agency's strategic goals. It is currently being implemented across NASA's centers and programs. Throughout 2014, NASA engaged in an Agency-wide process to define and refine exploration-related capabilities and associated gaps, focusing only on those that are critical for human exploration beyond LEO. NASA identified 12 common capabilities ranging from Environmental Control and Life Support Systems to Robotics, and established Agency-wide teams or working groups comprised of subject matter experts that are responsible for the maturation of these exploration capabilities. These teams, called the System Maturation Teams (SMTs) help formulate, guide and resolve performance gaps associated with the identified exploration capabilities. The SMTs are defining performance parameters and goals for each of the 12 capabilities, developing maturation plans and roadmaps for the identified performance gaps, specifying the interfaces between the various capabilities, and ensuring that the capabilities mature and integrate to enable future pioneering missions. By managing system development through the SMTs instead of traditional NASA programs and projects, the Agency is shifting from mission-driven development to a more flexible, capability-driven development. The process NASA uses to establish, integrate, prioritize, and manage the SMTs and associated capabilities is iterative. NASA relies on the Human Exploration and Operation Mission Directorate's SMT Integration Team within Advanced Exploration Systems to coordinate and facilitate the SMT process. The SMT Integration team conducts regular reviews and coordination meetings among the SMTs and has developed a number of tools to help the Agency implement capability driven processes. The SMT Integration team is uniquely positioned to help the Agency coordinate the SMTs and other processes that are making the capability-driven approach a reality. This paper will introduce the SMTs and the 12 key capabilities they represent. The role of the SMTs will be discussed with respect to Agency-wide processes to shift from mission-focused exploration to a capability-driven pioneering approach. Specific examples will be given to highlight systems development and testing within the SMTs. These examples will also show how NASA is using current investments in the International Space Station and future investments to develop and demonstrate capabilities. The paper will conclude by describing next steps and a process for soliciting feedback from the space exploration community to refine NASA's process for developing common exploration capabilities.
An Overview of NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) Concept
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) as a capability demonstration for future human exploration, including use of high-power solar electric propulsion, which allows for the efficient movement of large masses through deep space. The ARM will also demonstrate the capability to conduct proximity operations with natural space objects and crewed operations beyond the security of quick Earth return. The Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM), currently in formulation, will visit a large near-Earth asteroid (NEA), collect a multi-ton boulder from its surface, conduct a demonstration of a slow push planetary defense technique, and redirect the multi-ton boulder into a stable orbit around the Moon. Once returned to cislunar space in the mid-2020s, astronauts aboard an Orion spacecraft will dock with the robotic vehicle to explore the boulder and return samples to Earth. The ARM is part of NASA's plan to advance technologies, capabilities, and spaceflight experience needed for a human mission to the Martian system in the 2030s. The ARM and subsequent availability of the asteroidal material in cis-lunar space, provide significant opportunities to advance our knowledge of small bodies in the synergistic areas of science, planetary defense, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). NASA established the Formulation Assessment and Support Team (FAST), comprised of scientists, engineers, and technologists, which supported ARRM mission requirements formulation, answered specific questions concerning potential target asteroid physical properties, and produced a publically available report. The ARM Investigation Team is being organized to support ARM implementation and execution. NASA is also open to collaboration with its international partners and welcomes further discussions. An overview of the ARM robotic and crewed segments, including mission requirements, NEA targets, and mission operations, and a discussion of potential opportunities for participation with the ARM will be provided.
The mission system design center: a pilot of formulation-phase concurrent engineering in aerospace design
In this paper we describe pilots of a concurrent-engineering, formulation-phase design team demonstrated in spacecraft missions.
Cost-Effective Telemetry and Command Ground Systems Automation Strategy for the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Mission
Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) is an Earth-orbiting, remote-sensing NASA mission slated for launch in 2014. The ground data system (GDS) being developed for SMAP is composed of many heterogeneous subsystems, ranging from those that support planning and sequencing to those used for real-time operations, and even further to those that enable science data exchange. A full end-to-end automation of the GDS may result in cost savings during mission operations, but it would require a significant upfront investment to develop such a comprehensive automation. As demonstrated by the Jason-1 and Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) missions, a measure of "lights-out" automation for routine, orbital pass, ground operations can still reduce mission costs through smaller staffing of operators and limiting their working hours. The challenge, then, for the SMAP GDS engineering team, is to formulate an automated operations strategy--and corresponding system architecture -- to minimize operator intervention during routine operations, while balancing the development costs associated with the scope and complexity of automation. This paper discusses the automated operations approach being developed for the SMAP GDS. The focus is on automating the activities involved in routine passes, which limits the scope to real-time operations. A key subsystem of the SMAP GDS -- NASA's AMMOS Mission Data Processing and Control System (AMPCS) -- provides a set of capabilities that enable such automation. Also discussed are the lights-out pass automations of the Jason-1 and WISE missions and how they informed the automation strategy for SMAP. The paper aims to provide insights into what is necessary in automating the GDS operations for Earth satellite missions.
Cost-Effective Telemetry and Command Ground Systems Automation Strategy for the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Mission
Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) is an Earth-orbiting, remote-sensing NASA mission slated for launch in 2014.[double dagger] The ground data system (GDS) being developed for SMAP is composed of many heterogeneous subsystems, ranging from those that support planning and sequencing to those used for real-time operations, and even further to those that enable science data exchange. A full end-to-end automation of the GDS may result in cost savings during mission operations, but it would require a significant upfront investment to develop such comprehensive automation. As demonstrated by the Jason-1 and Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) missions, a measure of "lights-out" automation for routine, orbital pass ground operations can still reduce mission cost through smaller staffing of operators and limited work hours. The challenge, then, for the SMAP GDS engineering team is to formulate an automated operations strategy--and corresponding system architecture--to minimize operator intervention during operations, while balancing the development cost associated with the scope and complexity of automation. This paper discusses the automated operations approach being developed for the SMAP GDS. The focus is on automating the activities involved in routine passes, which limits the scope to real-time operations. A key subsystem of the SMAP GDS--NASA's AMMOS Mission Data Processing and Control System (AMPCS)--provides a set of capabilities that enable such automation. Also discussed are the lights-out pass automations of the Jason-1 and WISE missions and how they informed the automation strategy for SMAP. The paper aims to provide insights into what is necessary in automating the GDS operations for Earth satellite missions.
JPL Innovation Foundry
NASA supports the community of mission principal investigators by helping them ideate, mature, and propose concepts for new missions. As NASA's Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), JPL is a primary resource for providing this service. The environmental context for the formulation lifecycle evolves continuously. Contemporary trends include: more competitors; more-complex mission ideas; scarcer formulation resources; and higher standards for technical evaluation. Derived requirements for formulation support include: stable, clear, reliable methods tailored for each stage of the formulation lifecycle; on-demand access to standout technical and programmatic subject-matter experts; optimized, outfitted facilities; smart access to learning embodied in a vast oeuvre of prior formulation work; hands-on method coaching. JPL has retooled its provision of integrated formulation lifecycle support to PIs, teams, and program offices in response to this need. This mission formulation enterprise is the JPL Innovation Foundry.
Pre-Mission Input Requirements to Enable Successful Sample Collection by a Remote Field/EVA Team
This paper is intended to evaluate the sample collection process with respect to sample characterization and decision making. In some cases, it may be sufficient to know whether a given outcrop or hand sample is the same as or different from previous sampling localities or samples. In other cases, it may be important to have more in-depth characterization of the sample, such as basic composition, mineralogy, and petrology, in order to effectively identify the best sample. Contextual field observations, in situ/handheld analysis, and backroom evaluation may all play a role in understanding field lithologies and their importance for return. For example, whether a rock is a breccia or a clast-laden impact melt may be difficult based on a single sample, but becomes clear as exploration of a field site puts it into context. The FINESSE (Field Investigations to Enable Solar System Science and Exploration) team is a new activity focused on a science and exploration field based research program aimed at generating strategic knowledge in preparation for the human and robotic exploration of the Moon, near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) and Phobos and Deimos. We used the FINESSE field excursion to the West Clearwater Lake Impact structure (WCIS) as an opportunity to test factors related to sampling decisions. In contract to other technology-driven NASA analog studies, The FINESSE WCIS activity is science-focused, and moreover, is sampling-focused, with the explicit intent to return the best samples for geochronology studies in the laboratory. This specific objective effectively reduces the number of variables in the goals of the field test and enables a more controlled investigation of the role of the crewmember in selecting samples. We formulated one hypothesis to test: that providing details regarding the analytical fate of the samples (e.g. geochronology, XRF/XRD, etc.) to the crew prior to their traverse will result in samples that are more likely to meet specific analytical objectives than samples collected in the absence of this premission information. We conducted three tests of this hypothesis. Our investigation was designed to document processes, tools and procedures for crew sampling of planetary targets. This is not meant to be a blind, controlled test of crew efficacy, but rather an effort to recognize the relevant variables that enter into sampling protocol and to develop recommendations for crew and backroom training in future endeavors. Methods: One of the primary FINESSE field deployment objectives was to collect impact melt rocks and impact melt-bearing breccias from a number of locations around the WCIS structure to enable high precision geochronology of the crater to be performed [1]. We conducted three tests at WCIS after two full days of team participation in field site activities, including using remote sensing data and geologic maps, hiking overland to become familiar with the terrain, and examining previously-collected samples from other islands. In addition, the team members shared their projects and techniques with the entire team. We chose our "crew members" as volunteers from the team, all of whom had had moderate training in geologic fieldwork and became familiar with the general field setting. The first two tests were short, focused tests of our hypothesis. Test A was to obtain hydrothermal vugs; Test B was to obtain impact melt and intrusive rock as well as the contact between the two to check for contact metamorphism and age differences. In both cases, the test director had prior knowledge of the site geology and had developed a study-specific objective for sampling prior to deployment. Prior to the field deployment, the crewmember was briefed on the sampling objective and the laboratory techniques that would be used on the samples. At the field sites (Fig. 2), the crewmember was given 30 minutes to survey a small section of outcrop (10-15 m) and acquire a suite of three samples. The crewmember talked through his process and the test director kept track of the timeline in verbal cues to the crewmember. At the conclusion, the team member conducting the scientific study appraised the samples and train of thought. Test C was a 90-minute EVA simulation using two crewmembers working out of line-of-sight in communication with a science backroom. The science objectives were determined by the science backroom team in advance using a Gigapan image of the outcrop (Fig. 1). The science team formulated hypotheses for the outcrop units and created sampling objectives for impact-melt lithologies; the science team turned these into a science plan, which they communicated to the crew in camp prior to crew deployment. As part of the science plan, the science team also discussed their sample needs in depth with the crewmembers, including laboratory methods, objectives, and samples sizes needed. During the deployment, the two crewmembers relayed real-time information to the science backroom by radio with no time delay. Both the crew and science team re-evaluated their hypotheses and science plans in real-time. Discussion: Upon evaluation, we found that the focused tests (Tests A and B) were successful in meeting their scientific objectives. The crewmember used their knowledge of how the samples were to be used in further study (technique, sample size, and scientific need) to focus on the sampling task. The crewmember was comfortable spending minimal time describing and mapping the outcrop. The crewmember used all available time to get a good sample. The larger test was unsuccessful in meeting the sampling objectives. When the crewmembers began describing the lithologies, it was quickly apparent that the lithologies were not as the backroom expected and had communicated to the crew. When the outcrop wasn't as expected, the crew members instinctively switched to field characterization mode, taking significant time to characterize and map the outcrop. One crew member admitted that he "kind of lost track" of the sampling strategy as he focused on the basic outcrop characterization. This is the logical first step in a field geology campaign, that a significant amount of time must be spent by the crew and backroom to understand the outcrop and its significance. Basic field characterization of an outcrop is a focused activity that takes significant time and training [2, 3]. Sampling of representational lithologies can be added to this activity for little cost [4]. However, we have shown that identification of unusual or specific samples for laboratory study also takes significant time and knowledge. We suggest that sampling of this type be considered a separate activity from field characterization, and that crewmembers be trained in sampling needs for different kinds of studies (representative lithologies vs. specialized samples) to acquire a mindset for sampling similar to field mapping. Sampling activities should be given a significant amount of specifically allocated time in scheduling EVA activities; and in the better case, that sampling be done as a second activity to a previously studied outcrop where both crew and backroom are comfortable with its context and characteristics. Our hypothesis posited that crewmember knowledge of how the samples would be used upon return would aid them in choosing relevant samples. Our testing bore this hypothesis out to some extent. We therefore recommend that crewmember training should include exposure to the laboratory techniques and analyses that will be used on the samples to foster this knowledge. There is also the potential for increasing crewmember contextual knowledge real-time in the field through the introduction of in situ geochemical technologies such as field portable XRF. The presence of field portable geochemical technology could enable the astronauts to interrogate the samples for K abundance real-time, ensuring they could collect valuable and dateable samples [5]. Though simulations such as these can teach us a fair bit about decision making processes and timeline building, one EVA participant noted that when he wasn't collecting "real" samples, he wasn't at his best. This effect suggests that higher-fidelity studies involving truly remote participants conducting actual scientific studies merit further attention to capture lessons for application to future crew situations.
Fission Surface Power System Initial Concept Definition
Under the NASA Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) and in partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE), NASA has embarked on a project to develop Fission Surface Power (FSP) technology. The primary goals of the project are to 1) develop FSP concepts that meet expected surface power requirements at reasonable cost with added benefits over other options, 2) establish a hardwarebased technical foundation for FSP design concepts and reduce overall development risk, 3) reduce the cost uncertainties for FSP and establish greater credibility for flight system cost estimates, and 4) generate the key products to allow NASA decision-makers to consider FSP as a preferred option for flight development. The FSP project was initiated in 2006 as the Prometheus Program and the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) mission were phased-out. As a first step, NASA Headquarters commissioned the Affordable Fission Surface Power System Study to evaluate the potential for an affordable FSP development approach. With a cost-effective FSP strategy identified, the FSP team evaluated design options and selected a Preliminary Reference Concept to guide technology development. Since then, the FSP Preliminary Reference Concept has served as a point-of-departure for several NASA mission architecture studies examining the use of nuclear power and has provided the foundation for a series of "Pathfinder" hardware tests. The long-term technology goal is a Technology Demonstration Unit (TDU) integrated system test using full-scale components and a non-nuclear reactor simulator. The FSP team consists of Glenn Research Center (GRC), Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and the DOE National Laboratories at Los Alamos (LANL), Idaho (INL), Oak Ridge (ORNL), and Sandia (SNL). The project is organized into two main elements: Concept Definition and Risk Reduction. Under Concept Definition, the team performs trade studies, develops analytical tools, and formulates system concepts. Under Risk Reduction the team develops hardware prototypes and conducts laboratory-based testing.
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.
Activities of the NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center pump stage technology team
In order to advance rocket propulsion technology, the Consortium for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Application in Propulsion Technology has been formed at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). The Consortium consists of three Teams: the turbine stage team, the pump stage team (PST), and the combustion devices team. The PST has formulated and is implementing a plan for pump technology development whose end product will be validated CFD codes suitable for application to pump components, test data suitable for validating CFD codes, and advanced pump components optimized using CFD codes. The PST's work during the fall of 1991 and the winter and spring of 1992 is discussed in this paper. This work is highlighted by CFD analyses of an advanced impeller design and collection of laser two-focus velocimeter data for the Space Shuttle Main Engine High Pressure Fuel Pump impeller.