Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Process 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 361 records · Page 20

How Should Life Support Be Modeled and Simulated?

Why do most space life support research groups build and investigate large models for systems simulation? The need for them seems accepted, but are we asking the right questions and solving the real problems? The modeling results leave many questions unanswered. How then should space life support be modeled and simulated? Life support system research and development uses modeling and simulation to study dynamic behavior as part of systems engineering and analysis. It is used to size material flows and buffers and plan contingent operations. A DoD sponsored study used the systems engineering approach to define a set of best practices for modeling and simulation. These best practices describe a systems engineering process of developing and validating requirements, defining and analyzing the model concept, and designing and testing the model. Other general principles for modeling and simulation are presented. Some specific additional advice includes performing a static analysis before developing a dynamic simulation, applying the mass and energy conservation laws, modeling on the appropriate system level, using simplified subsystem representations, designing the model to solve a specific problem, and testing the model on several different problems. Modeling and simulation is necessary in life support design but many problems are outside its scope.

Jones, Harry W.↗

Recommendation for a Medical System Concept of Operations for Gateway Missions

NASA’s exploration missions to cis-lunar space will establish a permanent gateway to future transport missions to Mars. These missions mandate a significant paradigm change for mission planning, spacecraft design, human systems integration, and in-flight medical care due to constraints on mass, volume, power, resupply, and medical evacuation capability. These constraints require medical system development to be tightly integrated with mission and habitat design to provide a sufficient medical infrastructure and enable mission success. This concept of operations provides a vision of medical care needs that will be used to guide the development of a medical system for the cis-lunar Gateway Habitat. This medical system will serve as the precursor to what is implemented in future exploration missions to Mars. This concept of operations documents an overview of the stakeholder needs and system goals of a medical system and provides examples of the types of activities for which the system will be used during the mission. This concept of operations informs the ExMC systems engineering effort to define the Gateway Habitat Medical System by documenting the medical activities and capabilities relevant to Gateway missions, as identified by the ExMC clinician community. In addition, this concept of operations will inform the subsequent systems engineering process of developing technical requirements, system architectures, interfaces, and verification and validation approaches for the medical system. This document supports the closure of ExMC Gap Med01: We do not have a concept of operations for medical care during exploration missions, corresponding to the ExMC-managed human system risk: Risk of Adverse Health Outcomes & Decrements in Performance due to Inflight Medical Conditions.

Rubin, David↗

Exploration Medical Capability Science and Research Overview and Update

The mission of the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is to advance medical system design and risk-informed decision making for exploration beyond low Earth orbit to promote human health and performance in space. In order to accomplish this mission, the Element takes a progressively Earth-independent approach to three main areas: 1)answering key clinical and science research questions that will help to address the challenges of providing medical care in the extreme environment of space, 2)applying systems engineering processes to medical system design with the goal of developing robust requirements that can be fully integrated into future space exploration vehicle designs, and 3)developing and demonstrating novel medical technologies that will improve future medical capabilities in space. This presentation will focus on selected scientific and technical conceptual drivers for the Element, the current and future research risks and gaps, and provide an overview of the Element’s progress in 2020.

Kris Lehnhardt↗

Risk analysis simulation of rover operations for Mars surface exploration

Risk management advocates have long sought to directly influence the early stages of the systems engineering process through a more effective role in system design trade studies. The principal obstacle to this has been the lack of credible ways to represent and quantify mission risk—that is, a combination of the probability of mission success (“system safety”) and science value—for the project manager and the rest of the design team. If it were possible to quantify mission risk, then the effects of proposed mission and system design changes could be calculated, and along with life-cycle costs, could be used to explore the design space more extensively and select better designs. JPL has been working to build the capability to quantify the probability of mission success using a federation of diverse simulations and models, each of which contributes some vital piece of the puzzle. The initial institutional focus has been on Mars surface operations. This ensemble computing framework enables the diverse models and simulations to work together seamlessly. Recent work at JPL has demonstrated the capability to exercise this ensemble from end-to-end using an Oracle-based database to automatically move results from one model/simulation to the next stage in the analysis.

Shishko, Robert↗

An Exploration of Mission Concepts That Could Utilize Small RPS

The NASA Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Program Mission Analysis Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) requested a JPL Innovation Foundry Architecture Team (A-Team) study to assess mission pull for small RPS (1 mWe - 40 We) in order to inform the RPS Program Office on what future power system developments should be focused on. The A-Team is JPL’s concurrent engineering design team for science definition and early mission concept development, targeting concept maturation levels of 1 through 3. The requested small RPS study was tasked to identify the architecture space of potential small RPS missions, and suggest power levels that could enable or enhance potential future small spacecraft missions. This paper describes the collaborative engineering processes that the A-Team and Mission Analysis Team used to reach results quickly and the findings to inform the RPS Program about mission concept power requirements on RPS for small missions.

Bairstow, Brian K.↗

Exploration Medical Capability Science and Research Overview and Update

The mission of the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is to advance medical system design and risk-informed decision making for exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit to promote human health and performance in space. To accomplish this mission, ExMC focuses on several key areas: • Investigating specific risks that are relevant for human exploration spaceflight, including in-flight medical conditions, degraded or toxic medications, and renal stones • Developing medical probabilistic risk analysis tools that are integrated with systems engineering processes to inform the medical system trade space and support the development of robust requirements • Demonstrating and defining requirements for a prototype clinical decision support system • Developing and demonstrating novel medical technologies that will improve future medical capabilities in space This presentation will focus on selected scientific and technical conceptual drivers for the Element and its current and future research risks and gaps while providing an overview of the Element’s progress in 2021 and areas of focus for 2022.

Benjamin Easter↗

Functional Hazard Assessment for the eVTOL Aircraft Supporting Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Applications: Exploratory Demonstrations

The active development community surrounding electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft has demonstrated potential to bring new technological capabilities to market, encouraging visions of widespread and diverse Urban Air Mobility (UAM) applications. New capabilities always come with safety considerations, some familiar and others less so. OEMs who intend to obtain FAA type certification for their eVTOL designs must plan for and execute sufficient safety engineering processes to demonstrate that credible hazards associated with these eVTOL designs are adequately mitigated. This work provides an orientation for eVTOL stakeholders, especially new entrants and those in hybrid roles, to the safety and regulatory context for assuring eVTOL aircraft for UAM applications. We further present selections of functional hazard assessment (FHA) performed on a reference eVTOL concept, with process and decision narration. The exercise allows exploration of several safety considerations specific to eVTOL systems and demonstrates the FHA process together with negotiation of some of its options and variations.

Hazard Analysis↗

Exploration Medical Capability Science and Research Overview and Update

The mission of the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is to advance medical system design and risk-informed decision making for exploration beyond low Earth orbit to promote human health and performance in space. In order to accomplish this mission, the Element takes a progressively Earth-independent approach to three main areas: - Answering key clinical and science research questions that will help to address the challenges of providing medical care in the extreme environment of space - Applying systems engineering processes to medical system design with the goal of developing robust requirements that can be fully integrated into future space exploration vehicle designs - Developing and demonstrating novel medical technologies that will improve future medical capabilities in space This presentation will focus on selected scientific and technical conceptual drivers for the Element, the current and future research risks and gaps, and provide an overview of the Element’s progress in 2022. In particular, it will address the ongoing effort for the IMPACT trade space analysis tool suite, the closeout work on a clinical decision support prototype, potential requirements for a long-duration lunar orbit and lunar surface medical system, and an International Space Station technology demonstration of a point-of-care laboratory analysis capability.

Kris Lehnhardt↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

The Design, Verification and Performance of the James Webb Space Telescope

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is NASA’s flagship mission successor to the highly successful Hubble Space Telescope. It is an infrared observatory featuring a cryogenic 6.6 m aperture, deployable Optical Telescope Element (OTE) with a payload of four science instruments (SIs) assembled into an Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM) that provide imagery and spectroscopy in the near-infrared band between 0.6 and 5 μm and in the mid-infrared band between 5 and 28.1 μm. JWST was successfully launched on 2021 December 25 aboard an Ariane 5 launch vehicle. All 50 major deployments were successfully completed on 2022 January 8. The observatory performed all midcourse correction maneuvers and achieved its operational mission orbit around the Sun–Earth second Lagrange point (L2). All commissioning and calibration activities have been completed, and JWST has begun its science mission. This paper will provide a description of the driving requirements and their technical challenges, the engineering processes involved in the design formulation, the resulting observatory design, the verification programs that proved it to be flightworthy, and the measured on-orbit performance of the observatory. Since companion papers will describe the details of the OTE and SIs, this paper will concentrate on describing the key features of the observatory architecture that accommodates these elements, particularly those features and capabilities associated with accommodating the radiometric and image-quality performance.

Galaxy evolution↗

Design for Reliability (DfR) in Space Life Support

The engineering process of Design for Reliability (DfR) is well established in the automotive and aerospace industries. DfR should be useful in the future development of space life support systems. DfR is a sequence of tasks that develop system requirements and plan reliability analysis and testing. First and fundamentally, the reliability requirement is defined. Next the system reliability model is developed, often using a reliability block diagram. The overall system reliability requirement is allocated to the subsystems and an estimate of the attainable reliability is made. This expected reliability can be improved by simplifying the design by removing components or by replacing less reliable components. Improving reliability can require difficult compromises, such as reducing performance requirements, increasing budget, or extending testing. The actual system reliability can be determined only by testing, which should continue long enough to provide the required confidence in the measured value. New systems often have unexpected design errors that cause failures in early testing. The usual reliability improvement process of testing, finding the failure modes, and redesigning to remove them reduces the failure rate and is referred to as “reliability growth.” After redesign has been completed, the system should be further tested to determine the actual achieved reliability more accurately. If the final system failure rate is too high, redundant systems can be used to improve overall operational reliability. Adding redundancy simply to increase the one- or two-fault tolerance metric may sometimes reduce reliability. Reliability can be improved in three ways: redesigning the system to include more reliable subsystems and components, reliability growth testing and failure mode removal, and by using parallel redundant systems. DfR should combine these approaches to achieve the required reliability while managing performance, cost, and schedule.

Reliability↗

Design for Reliability (DfR) in Space Life Support

The engineering process of Design for Reliability (DfR) is well established in the automotive and aerospace industries. DfR should be useful in the future development of space life support systems. DfR is a sequence of tasks that develop system requirements and plan reliability analysis and testing. First and fundamentally, the reliability requirement is defined. Next the system reliability model is developed, often using a reliability block diagram. The overall system reliability requirement is allocated to the subsystems and an estimate of the attainable reliability is made. This expected reliability can be improved by simplifying the design by removing components or by replacing less reliable components. Improving reliability can require difficult compromises, such as reducing performance requirements, increasing budget, or extending testing. The actual system reliability can be determined only by testing, which should continue long enough to provide the required confidence in the measured value. New systems often have unexpected design errors that cause failures in early testing. The usual reliability improvement process of testing, finding the failure modes, and redesigning to remove them reduces the failure rate and is referred to as “reliability growth.” After redesign has been completed, the system should be further tested to determine the actual achieved reliability more accurately. If the final system failure rate is too high, redundant systems can be used to improve overall operational reliability. Adding redundancy simply to increase the one- or two-fault tolerance metric may sometimes reduce reliability. Reliability can be improved in three ways: redesigning the system to include more reliable subsystems and components, reliability growth testing and failure mode removal, and by using parallel redundant systems. DfR should combine these approaches to achieve the required reliability while managing performance, cost, and schedule.

Reliability↗

Probabilistic Approach to Assessing Capture System Performance Margin in Mars Sample Return's Capture, Containment, and Return System

In the aerospace industry, there are standard design principles and/or rule-of-thumb targets that define healthy levels of margins required at each developmental milestone for traditional metrics, such as mass, thermal, and power margins. When the technical resource is “non-traditional,” in the sense that guiding margin principles are non-existent, systems engineering processes are required to internally generate performance targets and methodologies to assess the system against the derived targets. This paper presents a probabilistic approach for assessing complex time-critical operations which applies global sensitivity analyses to identify input parameters that should drive the design. This approach is used to design a critical payload required for the Mars Sample Return campaign aiming at bringing back rock and atmospheric samples from Mars.

Performance Margins↗

System-Theoretic Analysis of Unsafe Collaborative Control in Teaming Systems

The interactions that occur in human-teaming are inspiring novel aerospace designs aimed at improving how humans and machines, or multiple machines, work together. Unfortunately, current Systems Engineering processes are ill-equipped to handle these complex relationships and are unable to design and assure the safety for these systems. To close part of this gap, this paper introduces a novel system-theoretic analytical process to identify unsafe collaborative control actions. It is part of a broader set of techniques that extend the state-of-the-art in hazard analysis, System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA), to systematically address collaboration. The method rigorously expresses the different ways multiple commands may be unsafe together. Using Systems Theory, it employs abstraction to manage the combinatorial complexity in enumerating control contributions from multiple collaborating components. An algorithm integrates these concepts into an end-to-end process and is supported by automation to enumerate, refine, prune, and prioritize unsafe combinations of control actions. The output of the method feeds the specification of system requirements to implement safety-guided design starting early in concept development. The process is demonstrated on a manned-unmanned aircraft teaming case study and finds new causal factors that were not previously found in a past hazard analysis of the same system.

System Safety↗

Undue Conservatisim in Structural Designs

Assuming that dynamic (transient/vibratory) loads are static in the design of structures is a long-standing engineering practice. The assumption is conservative for hardware that will have limited exposure to the specified dynamic environment and fatigue is not a concern. This is the case for most space flight hardware. Once out of the Earth’s atmosphere, significant vibrations are non-existent for most hardware and vibration cycles are limited. Mass is, and has always been, a concern with respect to flight hardware design. How much unnecessary mass due to the subject assumption may be in structural designs was questioned and numerous tests have been performed to qualitatively address that. Tests have been performed on simple aluminum beams, beams with bolted joints and beams with welded joints. Results of those tests are reported in this paper. The objective of these efforts was to demonstrate the order of magnitude of conservatism associated with this engineering process via comparing static to dynamic tests and the longer term endgame is to develop a new or modified quick turnaround structural design process that circumvents assuming dynamic loads are static and results in lighter structural designs. Test results qualitatively demonstrate notable conservatism. Activities to devise the new method are underway.

conservative loads↗

A preliminary evaluation of an F100 engine parameter estimation process using flight data

The parameter estimation algorithm developed for the F100 engine is described. The algorithm is a two-step process. The first step consists of a Kalman filter estimation of five deterioration parameters, which model the off-nominal behavior of the engine during flight. The second step is based on a simplified steady-state model of the 'compact engine model' (CEM). In this step the control vector in the CEM is augmented by the deterioration parameters estimated in the first step. The results of an evaluation made using flight data from the F-15 aircraft are presented, indicating that the algorithm can provide reasonable estimates of engine variables for an advanced propulsion-control-law development.

Maine, Trindel A.↗

A preliminary evaluation of an F100 engine parameter estimation process using flight data

The parameter estimation algorithm developed for the F100 engine is described. The algorithm is a two-step process. The first step consists of a Kalman filter estimation of five deterioration parameters, which model the off-nominal behavior of the engine during flight. The second step is based on a simplified steady-state model of the compact engine model (CEM). In this step, the control vector in the CEM is augmented by the deterioration parameters estimated in the first step. The results of an evaluation made using flight data from the F-15 aircraft are presented, indicating that the algorithm can provide reasonable estimates of engine variables for an advanced propulsion control law development.

Maine, Trindel A.↗