Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “system thinking”

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

Check Out These Books

The book entitled "Fusion Leadership: Unlocking the Subtle Forces that Change People and Organizations Richard L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel (1998) Berett-Koehler Publishers, Inc." was Reviewed by Dr. Michelle Collins, NASA Headquarters. If you've already read books on leadership and organizational change by authors such as Moshe Rubinstein and Iris Firstenberg, Peter Senge, Tom Peters, and Steven Covey, and you were thinking of rereading them, you don't have to do that now. Just read this book instead. It's a fusion of many of their same concepts presented from a different view. The book does not explore any particular subject in depth. Rather the authors "skim" many subjects and concepts, interlacing them to develop the concept of "Fusion Leadership". The fundamental concept of treating people as people rather than machines is the main theme. "Fusion Leadership" is the process of fusing people together by nurturing six "subtle" forces: mindfulness, courage, vision, heart, communication, and integrity. To do so, hierarchy is diminished and responsibility both for oneself as well as for the team is emphasized. There are a number of organizations and managers that will find such a change threatening. The concepts behind such a management style are straightforward and the benefits are intuitive once you've reflected on them; however, the obvious benefits of the behavioral change proposed in Fusion Leadership can be completely lost in a fear-based system. The concept of caring about people in one's organization was the common thread in Chris Turner's book All Hat, No Cattle (see book review, ASK 5). Much is being written about the re-humanizing of the workplace, but the basis of it is so common sense that one wonders what's taking so long for the workplace to change? Whether you're in a position to change your organization or simply your project team, you'll find the concepts in fusion leadership equally applicable.

Collins, Michelle↗

Open Source Application of Fusing Aerosol Products from GEO and LEO Satellites

Retrieving aerosol optical depths (AODs) from sun-synchronous polar orbiting (aka low earth orbit, LEO) satellites, such as MODISs, and VIIRSs, OMI, TROPOMI, etc, has become well-established as a tool for extracting information on particulate matter (PM) and related processes in the atmosphere. However, with recently launched geostationary satellites (GEO), such as GOES-16/17/18, and Himawari-8/9, and Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) they provide a much higher temporal resolution (order of 10 minutes), typically an image once or more per hour during daylight compared to LEO once per day. By combining these observations, we may be able to characterize the diurnal cycle of global AOD at the local, regional and global scale. While the science community is still exploring the new data from GEO observations, we have been thinking about how to properly combine/merge/fuse those data considering differences in their spatial and temporal resolutions. However, this poses a “Big Data” challenge. The big data challenge is not just about data storage, but also about data discoverability, and accessibility, and even more, about data migration/mirroring in the cloud-computing environment. This paper is merely showing some of the efforts and approaches we have attempted in fusing six satellites’ Level 2 aerosol data (three are from GEO (GOES-16/17 and Himawari-8), and the other three are from LEO (TERRA/MODIS, AQUA/MODIS, SNPP-VIIRS) from Dark Target (DT) aerosol retrieval algorithm. Having the on-demand capability of fusing remote sensing products onto the desired temporal and spatial domain enables researchers and application practitioners to better manipulate and work with satellite and sensor data. It is our hopeWe hope that by making such an open-source package, and the accompanying functionality, the scientific community will be granted easier access to aerosol data processing resources. The MEaSUREs Program (Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments) expands our understanding of the Earth's current system through atmospheric and surface measurements. In an effort to aid the scientific research component and improve open source methods, this project developed Python code for fusing six satellite Level 2 aerosol data (three are from geostationary satellites (GEO), and the other three are from low earth orbital satellites (LEO)) from Dark Target Aerosol Retrieval Algorithm.

Jennifer Wei↗

Fostering Open Science Inclusiveness for Interdisciplinary Users of Earth Observations

The term Open Science is subject to a variety of interpretations because of a key (and useful) ambiguity in the meaning of “Open”. Open in the sense of Transparency enables more trust in science research by making the details of the scientific process visible and accessible to anyone. “Open” in the sense of Inclusiveness enables more scientists from other disciplines to participate in research in a given discipline, thus producing more interdisciplinary research. Data Systems can play a major role in enabling Open (Inclusive) Science by making it easier for users from other disciplines to work with data within a given discipline. This is challenging for Earth Observation datasets, most of which are the product of advanced instrumentation and sophisticated, specialized variable retrieval algorithms and code. Serving the “extra-disciplinary”communities begins with simple things, like accessible, readable data documentation with adequate scaffolding. But just as important is provisioning Analysis-Ready data that does not require expert pre-processing. Disciplines also often have dominant toolsets, such as R in the biomass community or GIS in many applications communities. Ensuring that EO data are easy to use in the tools favored in other communities will enable more interdisciplinary research. Ideally, interdisciplinary research also benefits from scientists with different domain expertise. Platforms and frameworks that facilitate frictionless collaboration with discipline experts, together with capacity building efforts in those external disciplines also improve the inclusiveness aspect of Open Science. In short, Open Science is at root a way of thinking about how users from diverse discipline can best access and use data and services from a particular discipline.

Christopher Lynnes↗

Introduction to NASA Goddard Workshop on Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a collection of advanced technologies that allows machines to think and act, both humanly and rationally, through sensing, comprehending, acting and learning. AI's foundations lie at the intersection of several traditional fields Philosophy, Mathematics, Economics, Neuroscience, Psychology and Computer Science. Although the inception of AI started in the 1950's, it has recently made a strong comeback in all aspects of society and all over the world; this is mainly due to the timely combination of increased data volumes, advanced and mature algorithms, and improvements in computing power and storage. Current AI applications include big data analytics, robotics, intelligent sensing, assisted decision making, and speech recognition just to name a few.This workshop will be investigating how AI technologies can be adapted or developed to address the following challenges: Discover events of interest and correlations in large amounts of science data; improve the outcomes of science modeling and data assimilation using improved data processing, integration, and analysis. Design advisors for mission planning and operations, including anomaly detection and spacecraft health monitoring. Develop tools for engineering support, including advanced manufacturing, orbit determination, new component design and system engineering. Customize intelligent user interfaces, including visual analytics and natural language processing.

Le Moigne, Jacqueline↗

Aerojet - Attitude Control Engines

All the engines were both qualification and acceptance tested at Marquardt s facilities. After we won the Apollo Program contract, we went off and built two vacuum test facilities, which simulated altitude continuous firing for as long as we wanted to run an engine. They would run days and days with the same capability we had on steam ejection. We did all of the testing in both for the qualification and the acceptance test. One of them was a large ball, which was an eighteen-foot diameter sphere, evacuated again with a big steam ejector system that could be used for system testing; that s where we did the Lunar Excursion Module testing. We put the whole cluster in there and tested the entire cluster at the simulated altitude conditions. The lowest altitude we tested at - typically an acceptance test - was 105,000 feet simulated altitude. The big ball - because people were interested in what they called goop formation, which is an unburned hydrazine product migrating to cold surfaces on different parts of spacecraft - was built to address those kinds of issues. We ran long-life tests in a simulated space environment with the entire inside of the test cell around the test article, liquid nitrogen cooled, so it could act as getter for any of the exhaust products. That particular facility could pull down to about 350,000 feet (atmosphere) equivalent altitude, which was pushing pretty close to the thermodynamic triple point of the MMH. It was a good test facility. Those facilities are no longer there. When the guys at Marquardt sold the company to what eventually became part of Aerojet, all those test facilities were cut off at the roots. I think they have a movie studio there at this point. That part of it is truly not recoverable, but it did some excellent high-altitude, space-equivalent testing at the time. Surprisingly, we had very few problems while testing in the San Fernando Valley. In the early 1960s, nobody had ever seen dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), so that wasn't too big a deal. We really did only make small, red clouds. In all the hundreds of thousands of tests and probably well over one million firings that I was around that place for, in all that thirty-something years, we had a total of one serious injury associated with rocket engine testing and propellants. Because we were trying to figure out what propellants would really be good, we tried all of the fun stuff like the carbon tetrafluoride, chlorine pentafluoride, and pure fluorine. The materials knowledge wasn't all that great at the time. On one test, the fluorine we had didn't react well with the copper they were using for tubing, and it managed to cause another unscheduled disassembly of the facility. It was very serious. It's like one of those Korean War stories. The technician happened to be walking past the test facility when it decided to blow itself up. A piece of copper tubing pierced one cheek and came out the other. That was the only serious accident in all of the engines handled in all those years. Now, we did have a problem with the EPA later because they figured out what the brown clouds were about. We built a whole bunch of exhaust mitigation scrubbers to take care of engine testing in the daytime. In general, we operated the big shuttle (RCS) engine, the 870- pounder at nominal conditions; they scrubbed the effluents pretty well. If you operated that same 870-pound force engine at a level where you get a lot of excess oxidizer, yeah, there s a brown cloud. But, you know, it doesn't show up well in the dark. They did do some of that. But, that s gone; it was addressed one way or another. RELEASED -

Pfeifer, Gerald R.↗

2015 Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel Evidence and Status Review For: the Risk of Impaired Control of Spacecraft/Associated Systems and Decreased Mobility Due to Vestibular/Sensorimotor Alterations Associated with Spaceflight

The 2015 Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) participated in a WebEx/teleconference with members of the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element, representatives from the Human Research Program (HRP), NASA Headquarters, and NASA Research and Education Support Services (NRESS) on December 17, 2015 (list of participants is in Section VI of this report). The SRP reviewed the new Evidence Report for the Risk of Impaired Control of Spacecraft/Associated Systems and Decreased Mobility Due to Vestibular/Sensorimotor Alterations Associated with Spaceflight (from here on referred to as the 2015 Sensorimotor Evidence Report), and also received a status review of the Risk. The opening section of the 2015 Sensorimotor Evidence Report provides written descriptions of various incidents that have occurred during space missions. In most of these incidents, the main underlying contributing factors are not easy to identify unambiguously. For example, in section 1.9, a number of falls occurred while astronauts were walking on the moon. It is not clear to the SRP, however, why they fell. It is only possible to extrapolate from likely specific psychophysical or physiological abnormalities, but how these abnormalities were determined, and how they were directly responsible for the falls is unclear to the SRP. Section 2.1.2 on proprioception is very interesting, but the functional significance of the abnormalities detected is not clear. The SRP sees this as a problem throughout the report: a mapping between the component abnormalities identified and the holistic behaviors that are most relevant, for example, controlling the vehicle, and locomotion during egress, is generally lacking. The SRP thinks the cognitive section is too strongly focused on vestibular functioning. The SRP questions the notion that the main cognitive effects are mainly attributable to reversible vestibular changes induced by spaceflight. The SRP thinks that there can also be independent cognitive effects. The Functional Task Test (FTT) protocols and the Field Test are particularly valuable. The conclusion is that the unloading of major postural muscles experienced during spaceflight plays a central role in the alteration of functional task performance and balance control. This conclusion stands in contrast with the statements in other parts of the document that emphasize the role of vestibular changes on these functions. It would help to more fully integrate these two views on the predominant effects of spaceflight. Although the SRP thinks the countermeasures section is interesting, the proposed countermeasures are not well integrated with the abnormalities described in previous sections. The SRP thinks it would help enormously to have explicit links among each abnormality, its 2015 Sensorimotor Risk SRP Evidence Review Final Report 2 overall importance/impact on function, and the appropriate countermeasure that can be implemented to maintain adequate functioning.

Steinberg, Susan↗

TRW - Lunar Descent Engine

As we went through the program, what we determined, and what we all agreed on, was that the thrust coefficient (Cf) of the nozzle, after you get past a certain point, is really an engineering parameter. It s not a fundamental parameter that is going to be highly variable. Once we knew what the contour of the nozzle was, and once we knew what its characteristic was out to 2:1, we could calculate what the 48:1 thrust coefficient was going to be. In every case that we made a test, the calculation was precise. We weren't looking for a problem out at 48:1. Once we crushed the nozzle and said, "Yeah, we can land on the boulder," and once we had the thermal profile of that columbium nozzle, we did not require a lot of effort there. The real characterization was done in throttling over the 10:1 with the injector and controlling the mixture ratio on that - the whole head-end assembly - out to 2:1. I think everybody at NASA and Grumman agreed that flying like you test is great, particularly if you are using an aircraft engine. But, in this case, the thrust coefficient of the nozzle was not an issue. We had the tandem configuration of the service module, the command module, and the LEM sitting out there, and we were to fire the LEM. On Apollo 5, we were firing the LEM to show how it would work. There was a problem. I can t remember where the problem was, but something caused a problem before that engine had finished its burn. It was not in the engine, but there was some other problem, and NASA made a controlled shutdown. Then, they came to us and asked, "Hey, we re up there. We want to finish this test program. Is it okay if we restart that engine again in space with this tandem configuration?" We said, "As long as it has been more than forty minutes since you shut down, our analysis says that you will be okay in terms of the thermal characteristics of the inside of that chamber." They restarted it and pushed that system around in orbit on Apollo 5. It turned out, that when it came to Apollo 13, we went back into the record, and said, "Hey, we have pushed this system around up there on Apollo 5, and we have also restarted this tandem configuration." The requirements on Apollo 13 were to put it back into play. The spacecraft was out of free return to the earth at the time of the accident. It would not have come back. NASA said, "Okay, we ll use the descent engine to put the spacecraft in a free trajectory; it will go around the moon and be on free trajectory back to Earth." Then, as it came around the far side of the moon, the guys found out that they had an oxygen problem. As you remember, things were getting pretty bad in there. They said, "We ve got to get it back as fast as we can. Is it okay if we re-fire the engine? Now, we re in a free trajectory, so we want to put as much delta-v (or change in velocity) in as we can. Can we re-fire right now?" We said, "Yes, the data says it has been this period of time." We could re-fire the engine, run the rest of the duty cycle up as far as we needed while preserving enough fluids to make the final correction as the spacecraft got near Earth, and restart the engine. It was pretty fortuitous that we could give them those answers.

Elverum, Gerard W.↗

Oceans, Ice Shells, and Life on Europa

The four large satellites of Jupiter are famous for their planet-like diversity and complexity, but none more so than ice-covered Europa. Since the provocative Voyager images of Europa in 1979, evidence has been mounting that a vast liquid water ocean may lurk beneath the moon's icy surface. Europa has since been the target of increasing and sometimes reckless speculation regarding the possibility that giant squid and other creatures may be swimming its purported cold, dark ocean. No wonder Europa tops everyone's list for future exploration in the outer solar system (after the very first reconnaissance of Pluto and the Kuiper belt, of course). Europa may be the smallest of the Galilean moons (so-called because they were discovered by Galileo Galilei in the early 17th century) but more than makes up for its diminutive size with a crazed, alien landscape. The surface is covered with ridges hundreds of meters high, domes tens of kilometers across, and large areas of broken and disrupted crust called chaos. Some of the geologic features seen on Europa resemble ice rafts floating in polar seas here on Earth-reinforcing the idea that an ice shell is floating over an ocean on this Moon-size satellite. However, such features do not prove that an ocean exists or ever did. Warm ice is unusually soft and will flow under its own weight. If the ice shell is thick enough, the warm bottom of the shell will flow, as do terrestrial glaciers. This could produce all the observed surface features on Europa through a variety of processes, the most important of which is convection. (Convection is the vertical overturn of a layer due to heating or density differences-think of porridge or sauce boiling on the stove.) Rising blobs from the base of the crust would then create the oval domes dotting Europa's surface. The strongest evidence for a hidden ocean beneath Europa's surface comes from the Galileo spacecraft's onboard magnetometer, which detected fluctuations in Jupiter's magnetic field consistent with a conductor inside Europa. The most likely conductor: a somewhat salty ocean.

Schenk, Paul↗

RESOLVE Project

The RESOLVE project is a lunar prospecting mission whose primary goal is to characterize water and other volatiles in lunar regolith. The Lunar Advanced Volatiles Analysis (LAVA) subsystem is comprised of a fluid subsystem that transports flow to the gas chromatograph- mass spectrometer (GC-MS) instruments that characterize volatiles and the Water Droplet Demonstration (WDD) that will capture and display water condensation in the gas stream. The LAVA Engineering Test Unit (ETU) is undergoing risk reduction testing this summer and fall within a vacuum chamber to understand and characterize C!Jmponent and integrated system performance. Ray will be assisting with component testing of line heaters, printed circuit heaters, pressure transducers, temperature sensors, regulators, and valves in atmospheric and vacuum environments. He will be developing procedures to guide these tests and test reports to analyze and draw conclusions from the data. In addition, he will gain experience with preparing a vacuum chamber with fluid and electrical connections. Further testing will include integrated testing of the fluid subsystem with the gas supply system, near-infrared spectrometer, WDD, Sample Delivery System, and GC-MS in the vacuum chamber. This testing will provide hands-on exposure to a flight forward spaceflight subsystem, the processes associated with testing equipment in a vacuum chamber, and experience working in a laboratory setting. Examples of specific analysis Ray will conduct include: pneumatic analysis to calculate the WOO's efficiency at extracting water vapor from the gas stream to form condensation; thermal analysis of the conduction and radiation along a line connecting two thermal masses; and proportional-integral-derivative (PID) heater control analysis. In this Research and Technology environment, Ray will be asked to problem solve real-time as issues arise. Since LAVA is a scientific subsystem, Ray will be utilizing his chemical engineering background to operate the near-infrared spectrometer and GC-MS instruments during ETU testing. Ray will be working with Modified Commercial off the Shelf (MCOTS) instruments and characterizing their analytical behavior for optimization. Ray will be offered the opportunity to suggest testing modifications or configuration changes at any time to improve the experimental effectiveness. He will gain many skills needed for working in a technical team setting requiring flexibility and critical thinking.

Parker, Ray O.↗

The transition regions of Capella

We have used the Goddard High Resolution Spectrometer (GHRS) to observe the spectoscopic binary system Capella (G8 III + G1 III). Exposures with the G140L, G140M, G160M, G200M, and echelle gratings provide emission line profiles with unprecedented signal-to-noise and spectral resolving power (lambda/Delta-lambda) up to 92,000. Multi-Gaussin fits to the line profiles show that the hotter star contributes 60%-70% of the total flux in the chromospheric O I and Mg II resonance lines, but about 90% of the flux in the Si III, Si IV, and C IV lines formed in the transition region at T less than or = 10(exp 5) K. We find clear evidence that the emission lines from the hotter star are systemtically redshifted relative to the photosphere with Doppler shifts of 5 +/- 1 km/s for the +9 +/- 3 km/s in the chromospheric Mg II and O I lines, respectively, increasing to +24 +/- 5 km/s for the transition region Si IV 1393.8A line. The multi-Gaussian fits to permitted transition region lines of SI III, Si IV, C IV, and N V indicate the presence of three components: moderately broad lines formed in the transition region of the hotter star (component H), narrow lines formed in the transition region of the cooler star (component C), and very broad lines that we think are formed in microflares on the hotter star (component B). The He II 1640.4 A feature has an broad profile, which indicates that it is formed by collisional excitation primarily from the hotter star, and a weak narrow component that we interpret as due to radiative recombination on the cooler star. We observed spin-forbidden emission lines of C III), O III), Si III), O IV), O V), and S IV) that are sensitive to electron density. Fainter members of the O IV) multiplet and all of the S IV) lines have never before been seen in any star than the Sun. We determine electron densities in the transition regions of the Capella stars using lines ratios of O IV) lines and emission measure analysis. The emission measures are self-consistent only when the fluxes from each emitting component are considered separately. In particular, the transition region abundance distributions appear to be different on the two stars, and the spin-forbidden lines were not detected in the B component. The emission measures for component H (the G1 star) are consistent with a constant electron pressure (or hydrostatic equilibrium) transition region with P(sub e) = 10(exp 15 + 0.1)/cu cm K and possibly solar 'coronal' abundances.

Linsky, Jeffrey L.↗

Rocketdyne - Lunar Ascent Engine

The ascent engine was the last one from the moon, and I want to focus on the idea of redundancy and teams in regard to the engine. By teams, I mean teamwork - not just within Rocketdyne. It was teamwork within Rocketdyne; it was teamwork within Grumman; it was teamwork within NASA. These were all important elements leading to the successful development of the lunar excursion module (LEM) engine. Communication, rapid response, and cooperation were all important. Another aspect that went into the development of the ascent engine was the integration of technology and of lessons learned. We pushed all the above, plus technology and lessons learned, into a program, and that led to a successful result. One of the things that I like to think about - again in retrospect - is how it is very "in" now to have integrated product and process teams. These are buzzwords for teamwork in all program phases. That s where you combine a lot of groups into a single organization to get a job done. The ascent engine program epitomized that kind of integration and focus, and because this was the mid- to late-1960s; this was new ground for Rocketdyne, Grumman, and NASA. Redundancy was really a major hallmark of the Apollo Program. Everything was redundant. Once you got the rocket going, you could even lose one of the big F-1 engines, and it would still make it to orbit. And once the first stage separated from the rest of the vehicle, the second stage could do without an engine and still make a mission. This redundancy was demonstrated when an early Apollo launch shut down a J-2 second-stage engine. Actually, they shut down two J-2 engines on that flight. Even the third stage, with its single J-2 engine, was backed up because the first two stages could toss it into a recoverable orbit. If the third stage didn't work, you were circling the earth, and you had time to recover the command module and crew. Remember how on the Apollo 13 flight, there was sufficient system redundancy even when we lost the service module. That was a magnificent effort. TRW Inc. really ought to be proud of their engine for that. (See Slide 2, Appendix I) We had planned for redundancy; we had landed on the moon. However, weight restrictions in the architecture said, "You can t have redundancy for ascent from the moon. You've got one engine. It s got to work. There is no second chance. If that ascent engine doesn't work, you re stuck there." It would not have looked good for NASA. It wouldn't have looked good for the country. There was a letter written that President Richard Nixon would read if the astronauts got stuck on the moon, expressing how sorry we were and so forth. It was a scary letter, really. The ascent engine was an engine that had to work. (See Slide 3, Appendix I).

Harmon, Tim↗

AI's Philosophical Underpinnings: A Thinking Person's Walk through the Twists and Turns of Artificial Intelligence's Meandering Path

Few human endeavors can be viewed both as extremely successful and unsuccessful at the same time. This is typically the case when goals have not been well defined or have been shifting in time. This has certainly been true of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The nature of intelligence has been the object of much thought and speculation throughout the history of philosophy. It is in the nature of philosophy that real headway is sometimes made only when appropriate tools become available. Similarly the computer, coupled with the ability to program (at least in principle) any function, appeared to be the tool that could tackle the notion of intelligence. To suit the tool, the problem of the nature of intelligence was soon sidestepped in favor of this notion: If a probing conversation with a computer could not be distinguished from a conversation with a human, then AI had been achieved. This notion became known as the Turing test, after the mathematician Alan Turing who proposed it in 1950. Conceptually rich and interesting, these early efforts gave rise to a large portion of the field's framework. Key to AI, rather than the 'number crunching' typical of computers until then, was viewed as the ability to manipulate symbols and make logical inferences. To facilitate these tasks, AI languages such as LISP and Prolog were invented and used widely in the field. One idea that emerged and enabled some success with real world problems was the notion that 'most intelligence' really resided in knowledge. A phrase attributed to Feigenbaum, one of the pioneers, was 'knowledge is the power.' With this premise, the problem is shifted from 'how do we solve problems' to 'how do we represent knowledge.' A good knowledge representation scheme could allow one to draw conclusions from given premises. Such schemes took forms such as rules,frames and scripts. It allowed the building of what became known as expert systems or knowledge based systems (KBS).

Colombano, Silvano↗

The Application of Lean Thinking Principles and Kaizen Practices for the Successful Development and Implementation of the Ares I-X Flight Test Rocket and Mission

On October 28, 2009 the Ares I-X flight test rocket launched from Kennedy Space Center and flew its suborbital trajectory as designed. The mission was successfully completed as data from the test, and associated development activities were analyzed, transferred to stakeholders, and well documented. A positive lesson learned from Ares I-X was that the application of lean thinking principles and kaizen practices was very effective in streamlining development activities. Ares I-X, like other historical rocket development projects, was hampered by technical, cost, and schedule challenges and if not addressed boldly could have resulted in cancellation of the test. The mission management team conducted nine major meetings, referred to as lean events, across its elements to assess plans, procedures, processes, requirements, controls, culture, organization, use of resources, and anything that could be changed to optimize schedule or reduce risk. The preeminent aspect of the lean events was the focus on value added activities and the removal or at least reduction in non-value added activities. Trained Lean Six Sigma facilitators assisted the Ares I-X developers in conducting the lean events. They indirectly helped formulate the mission s own unique methodology for assessing schedule. A core team was selected to lead the events and report to the mission manager. Each activity leveraged specialized participants to analyze the subject matter and its related processes and then recommended alternatives and solutions. Stakeholders were the event champions. They empowered and encouraged the team to succeed. The keys to success were thorough preparation, honest dialog, small groups, adherence to the Ares I-X ground rules, and accountability through disciplined reporting and tracking of actions. This lean event formula was game-changing as demonstrated by Ares I-X. It is highly recommended as a management tool to help develop other complex systems efficiently. The key benefits for Ares I-X were obtaining unambiguous schedule margin, defining enabling options for risk reduction, and most importantly a stronger more unified team.

Askins, B. R.↗

The Application of Lean Thinking Principles and Kaizen Practices for the Successful Development and Implementation of the Ares I-X Flight Test Rocket and Mission

On October 28, 2009 the Ares I-X flight test rocket launched from Kennedy Space Center and flew its suborbital trajectory as designed. The mission was successfully completed as data from the test, and associated development activities were analyzed, transferred to stakeholders, and well documented. Positive lessons learned from Ares I-X were that the application of lean thinking principles and kaizen practices are effective in streamlining development activities. Ares I-X, like other historical rocket development projects, was hampered by technical, cost, and schedule challenges and if not addressed boldly could have resulted in cancellation of the test. The mission management team conducted nine major meetings, referred to as lean events, across its elements to assess plans, procedures, processes, requirements, controls, culture, organization, use of resources, and anything that could be changed to optimize schedule or reduce risk. The preeminent aspect of the lean events was the focus on value added activities and the removal or at least reduction in non-value activities. Trained Lean Six Sigma facilitators assisted the Ares I-X developers in conducting the lean events. They indirectly helped formulate the mission s own unique methodology for assessing schedule. A core team was selected to lead the events and report to the mission manager. Each activity leveraged specialized participants to analyze the subject matter and its related processes and then recommended alternatives and solutions. Stakeholders were the event champions. They empowered and encouraged the team to succeed. The keys to success were thorough preparation, honest dialog, small groups, adherence to the Ares I-X ground rules, and accountability through disciplined reporting and tracking of actions. This lean event formula was game-changing as demonstrated by the success of Ares I-X. It is highly recommended as a management tool to help develop other complex systems efficiently. The key benefits for Ares I-X were obtaining unambiguous schedule margin, defining enabling options for risk reduction, and most importantly a stronger more unified team.

Askins, B. R.↗

Evidence Report: Risk of Performance Errors Due to Training Deficiencies

Substantial evidence supports the claim that inadequate training leads to performance errors. Barshi and Loukopoulos (2012) demonstrate that even a task as carefully developed and refined over many years as operating an aircraft can be significantly improved by a systematic analysis, followed by improved procedures and improved training (see also Loukopoulos, Dismukes, & Barshi, 2009a). Unfortunately, such a systematic analysis of training needs rarely occurs during the preliminary design phase, when modifications are most feasible. Training is often seen as a way to compensate for deficiencies in task and system design, which in turn increases the training load. As a result, task performance often suffers, and with it, the operators suffer and so does the mission. On the other hand, effective training can indeed compensate for such design deficiencies, and can even go beyond to compensate for failures of our imagination to anticipate all that might be needed when we send our crew members to go where no one else has gone before. Much of the research literature on training is motivated by current training practices aimed at current training needs. Although there is some experience with operations in extreme environments on Earth, there is no experience with long-duration space missions where crews must practice semi-autonomous operations, where ground support must accommodate significant communication delays, and where so little is known about the environment. Thus, we must develop robust methodologies and tools to prepare our crews for the unknown. The research necessary to support such an endeavor does not currently exist, but existing research does reveal general challenges that are relevant to long-duration, high-autonomy missions. The evidence presented here describes issues related to the risk of performance errors due to training deficiencies. Contributing factors regarding training deficiencies may pertain to organizational process and training programs for spaceflight, such as when training programs are inadequate or unavailable. Furthermore, failure to match between tasks on the one hand, and learning and memory abilities on the other hand is a contributing factor, especially when individuals' relative efficiency with which new information is acquired, and adjustments made in behavior or thinking, are inconsistent with mission demands. Thus, if training deficiencies are present, the likelihood of errors or of the inability to successfully complete a task increases. What's more, the overall risk to the crew, the vehicle, and the mission increases.

Barshi, Immanuel↗

Development of a Comprehensive Physics-Based Model for Study of NASA Gateway Lunar Dust Contamination

NASA is committed to landing the first woman and first person of color on the Moon by 2025 to begin a sustaining presence. A major component of this mission is NASA’s orbiting lunar outpost, Gateway, that will be subjected to the harsh environment of space during its 7-day orbit around the Moon. One aspect of this environment that is not well quantified is microscopic lunar regolith particles, or simply, lunar dust. As Apollo 17 Mission Commander Eugene Cernan said, “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the moon. I think we can overcome other physiological or physical or mechanical problems except dust” [1]. These dust particles, most of which are smaller than the width of two human hairs and of highly irregular shape, are composed mainly of dielectric materials. Such characteristics can allow the dust particles to collect electric charge from the surrounding environment, resulting in electrostatic interactions between the dust, electromagnetic fields, and electrically charged surfaces [2-3]. Due to the nature of these fields, dust can collect on and contaminate charged surfaces. Lunar dust introduced into the Gateway environment by a lunar ascent vehicle element returning from the surface of the Moon presents risks to Gateway hardware such as radiators, solar arrays, antennae, and docking mechanisms. To quantify this risk and inform NASA, International Partner, and Commercial Provider stakeholders, Booz Allen, in partnership with NASA, is developing a toolset to model the interaction of charged lunar dust particles with the cis-lunar and deep-space environments. This includes a comprehensive physics model of the space plasma and solar radiation environment and electromagnetic interaction of spacecraft and lunar dust. Spacecraft charging and plasma environment are solved using the open-source code from The French Aerospace Lab (ONERA) and the European Space Agency (ESA), known as Spacecraft Plasma Interaction Software (SPIS) [4]. The physics of particle charging and motion is handled by a time-dependent implementation of Orbital-Motion-Limited (OML) theory which accounts for plasma flows and positive potential grains [5-7], using Siemens STAR-CCM+ as the framework. Model validation includes lab experiments by NASA experts and academia, as well as future on-orbit dust detecting payloads on the exterior of Gateway and Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) missions to the lunar surface [7-9]. The results and analyses will inform Gateway Program system owners at risk for lunar dust contamination.

Complex Plasma↗

Dividing the Concentrator Target From the Genesis Mission

The Genesis spacecraft, launched in 2001, traveled to a Lagrangian point between the Earth and Sun to collect particles from the solar wind and return them to Earth. However, during the return of the spacecraft in 2004, the parachute failed to open during descent, and the Genesis spacecraft crashed into the Utah desert. Many of the solar wind collectors were broken into smaller pieces, and the field team rapidly collected the capsule and collector pieces for later assessment. On each of the next few days, the team discovered that various collectors had survived intact, including three of four concentrator targets. Within a month, the team had imaged more than 10,000 fragments and packed them for transport to the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office within the ARES Directorate at JSC. Currently, the Genesis samples are curated along with the other extraterrestrial sample collections within ARES. Although they were broken and dirty, the Genesis solar wind collectors still offered the science community the opportunity to better understand our Sun and the solar system as a whole. One of the more highly prized concentrator collectors survived the crash almost completely intact. The Genesis Concentrator was designed to concentrate the solar wind by a factor of at least 20 so that solar oxygen and nitrogen isotopes could be measured. One of these materials was the Diamond-on-Silicon (DoS) concentrator target. Unfortunately, the DoS concentrator broke on impact. Nevertheless, the scientific value of the DoS concentrator target was high. The Genesis Allocation Committee received a request for approximately 1 cm(sup 2) of the DoS specimen taken near the focal point of the concentrator for the analysis of solar wind nitrogen isotopes. The largest fragment, Genesis sample 60000, was designated for this allocation and needed to be precisely cut. The requirement was to subdivide the designated sample in a manner that prevented contamination of the sample and minimized the risk of losing or breaking the precious requested sample fragment. The Genesis curator determined that the use of laser scribing techniques to "cut" a precise line and subsequently cleave the sample (in a controlled break of the sample along that line) was the best method for accomplishing the sample subdivision. However, there were risks, including excess heating of the sample, that could cause some of the implanted solar wind to be lost via thermal diffusion. Accidentally breaking the sample during the handling and cleaving process was an additional risk. Early in fiscal year 2013, to address this delicate, complicated task, the ARES Directorate assembled its top scientists to develop a cutting plan that would ensure success when applied to the actual concentrator target wafer; i.e., to produce an approximately 1 cm(sup 2) piece from the requested area of the wafer. The team, subsequently referred to as the JSC Genesis Tiger Team, spent months researching and testing parameters and techniques related to scribing, cleaving, transporting, handling, and holding (i.e., mounting) the specimen. The investigation required considerable "thinking outside the box," and many, many trials using nonflight wafer analogs. After all preliminary testing, the following method was adopted as the final cutting plan. It was used in two final end-to-end practice runs before being used on the actual flight target wafer. The wafer was oriented on the laser cutting stage with the 100 and 010 directions of the wafer parallel to the corresponding X and Y directions of the cutting stage. The laser was programed to scribe 31 lines of the appropriate length along the Y stage direction. The programed scribe lines were separated by 5 micron in the X direction. The laser parameters were set as follows: (1) The laser power was 0.5 watts; (2) each line consisted of 50 passes, with the Z position being advanced 5 micron per pass; and (3) 30 s would elapse before the next line was scribed to allow for wafer cool down from any possible heating via the laser. The ablated material that "stuck" in the "scribe-cut" was removed from the "cut" using an ultrasonic micro-tool. After all the ablated silicon was removed from the wafer, the wafer was repositioned in exactly the same orientation on the laser stage. The laser was focused using the bottom of the wafer channel, and the 31-line scribing pattern described above was reprogrammed using the Z position of the groove bottom as the starting Z value instead of the top wafer surface, which was used previously. Upon completion of the second set of scribes, the ultrasonic micro-tool was again used to clean out the cut. The wafer was remounted on the stage in exactly the same orientation as before. The laser was again focused on the bottom of the groove. This time, however, the laser was.programed to scribe only one line down the exact center of the channel. The final scribe line consisted of 100 passes with a Z advance of 5 micron per pass and with the laser power set at 0.5 watts. As mentioned above, the final cutting plan was practiced in two end-to-end trials using non-flight, triangular-shaped silicon wafers similar in size and orientation to the actual DOS 60000 target sample. The actual scribing of the triangular-shaped wafers required scribing two lines and cleaving (i.e. scribe-cleave, then scribe-cleave) to obtain the piece requested for allocation. Early in December 2012, after many months of experiments and practicing and perfecting the techniques and procedures, the team successfully subdivided the Genesis DoS 60000 target sample, one of the most scientifically important samples from the Genesis mission (figure 2). On December 17, 2012, the allocated piece of concentrator target sample was delivered to the requesting principal investigator.The cutting plan developed for the subdivision of this sample will be used as the model for subdividing future requested Genesis flight wafers (appropriately modified for different wafer types).

Lauer, H. V., Jr.↗

Assessing the cumulative effects of nearshore habitat restoration actions for multiple populations of juvenile salmon in Whidbey Basin, Washington: foundation and approach for synthesis and evaluation

Ecosystem restoration is a common tool for re-establishing ecosystem processes, structures, and functions to improve biodiversity and services in coastal and estuarine ecosystems. In the Salish Sea, salmon habitats have been fragmented, reduced in size, and diminished in quality, and the ecosystem processes that form and sustain these habitats have been degraded and disrupted as well. This loss is especially prevalent in estuaries, where up to 90% of former salmon habitat has been lost or compromised. Salmon species are integral to the identities and cultures of people in the Pacific Northwest, yet salmon abundances remain at historic lows, especially in urbanized areas. Recent investments in restoration are creating rearing habitat and repairing lost ecosystem function. However, restoration efforts in this region have largely proceeded at the site scale, with less attention to big-picture thinking regarding how restoration will effectively recover degraded or lost habitats for target species. As a result, no landscape-scale evaluation program exists, and the cumulative benefits of multiple interventions are unknown. We describe innovative methods for science synthesis related to the evaluation of cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration for Pacific salmon, using years of existing, but disparate data. Building from previous work on cumulative effects evaluation and incorporating a hierarchy of hypotheses approach, we propose using causal inference across numerous hypotheses in a framework to assess the cumulative benefits to Pacific salmon from multiple estuarine restoration projects. We present the framework as a method that can be used to address many complex questions and provide examples from the Salish Sea where the approach is being implemented. The framework draws on science synthesis from numerous fields and uses a hierarchy of hypotheses, causal analysis at multiple scales, and a new hierarchy of synthesis for assessing multiple lines of evidence documenting restoration effects on Pacific salmon. We propose causal inference to synthesize dissimilar data streams, in our case, to identify various manifestations of cumulative effects of restoration and benefits to salmon, and to further inform restoration and recovery planning. A unifying framework would allow for the detection of thresholds at which restoration provides measurable improvement and would greatly advance understanding of the effects of restoration on ecosystems.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗