SEARCH · Search NASA
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 goal of the General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) Program Turbine Engine System Elements is to conduct a shared resource project to develop an affordable gas turbine engine for use on 4 to 6 place, light aircraft that will lead to revitalization of the general aviation industry in the United States, creating many new, high-quality jobs.
Over the past three years the CloutSat Project, a NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder mission to provide from space the first global survey of cloud profiles and cloud physical properties, has implemented a successful project system engineering approach. Techniques learned through heuristic reasoning of past project events and professional experience were applied along with select methods recently touted to increase effectiveness without compromising effiency.
The essential elements of the design process consist of the mission definition phase that provides the system requirements, the conceptual design, the preliminary design and finally the detailed design. Mission definition is performed largely by operations analysts in conjunction with the customer. The result of their study is handed off to the systems engineers for documentation as the systems requirements. The document that provides these requirements is the basis for the further design work of the design engineers at the Lockheed-Georgia Company. The design phase actually begins with conceptual design, which is generally conducted by a small group of engineers using multidisciplinary design programs. Because of the complexity of the design problem, the analyses are relatively simple and generally dependent on parametric analyses of the configuration. The result of this phase is a baseline configuration from which preliminary design may be initiated.
In a unique partnership between three minority-serving institutions and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a new course sequence, including a multidisciplinary capstone design experience, is to be developed and implemented at each of the schools with the ambitious goal of designing, constructing and launching a low-orbit Earth-resources satellite. The three universities involved are North Carolina A&T State University (NCA&T), University of Texas, El Paso (UTEP), and California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA). The schools form a consortium collectively known as MUSES - Minority Universities System Engineering and Satellite. Four aspects of this project make it unique: (1) Including all engineering disciplines in the capstone design course, (2) designing, building and launching an Earth-resources satellite, (3) sustaining the partnership between the three schools to achieve this goal, and (4) implementing systems engineering pedagogy at each of the three schools. This paper will describe the partnership and its goals, the first design of the satellite, the courses developed at NCA&T, and the implementation plan for the course sequence.
Conventional system architectures, development processes, and tool environments often produce systems which exceed cost expectations and are obsolete before they are fielded. This paper explores some of the reasons for this and provides recommendations for how we can do better. These recommendations are based on DoD and NASA system developments and on our exploration and development of system/software engineering tools.
This viewgraph presentation reviews various methods of decision making and the impact that they have on space economics and systems engineering. Some of the methods discussed are: Present Value and Internal Rate of Return (IRR); Cost-Benefit Analysis; Real Options; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Cost-Utility Analysis; Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT); and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
Systems engineering and requirements analyses of Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory /MORL/, discussing typical laboratory size, volume and crew requirements
Systems engineering decision algorithm related to Apollo Applications Program integration problems
Architecture development is conducted prior to system concept design when there is a need to determine the best-value mix of systems that works collectively in specific scenarios and time frames to accomplish a set of mission area objectives. While multiple architecture frameworks exist, they often require use of unique taxonomies and data structures. In contrast, this presentation characterizes architecture development using terminology widely understood within the systems engineering community. Using a notional civil space architecture example, it employs a multi-tier framework to describe the enterprise level architecture and illustrates how results of lower tier, mission area architectures integrate into the enterprise architecture. It also presents practices for conducting effective mission area architecture studies, including establishing the trade space, developing functions and metrics, evaluating the ability of potential design solutions to meet the required functions, and expediting study execution through the use of iterative design cycles.
A Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) systems engineering study is underway to define the driving requirements, system architecture, major risks, and required technology developments to support the launch of a rock core sample to a specified delivery orbit for later retrieval and return to Earth. The proposed MAV would essentially be a small-scale launch vehicle, the first of its kind to be launched autonomously from another planet. The MAV would be a flight element of the proposed Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign architecture, which currently assumes a 2018 launch of the sample caching mission and a 2024 (Earth) launch date of the MAV and lander, with arrival on Mars in 2025. After 9 months on the surface the MAV would be erected and launched to a specified delivery orbit. In the delivery orbit it would release its payload, a 5 kg sphere containing the rock core sample. An orbiter would rendezvous and capture the payload, returning it to Earth a year later.
This presentation addresses project management and systems engineering and integration challenges for return to flight, focusing on the Thermal Protection System Tile Repair Project (TRP). The program documentation philosophy, communication with program requirements flow and philosophy and planned deliverables and documentation are outlined. The development of TRP 'use-as-is' analytical tools is also highlighted and emphasis is placed on the use flight history to assess pre-flight and real-time risk. Additionally, an overview is provided of the repair procedure, including an outline of the logistics deployment chart.
The Computer Aided System Engineering and Analysis (CASE/A) Version 5.0 Programmer's Manual provides the programmer and user with information regarding the internal structure of the CASE/A 5.0 software system. CASE/A 5.0 is a trade study tool that provides modeling/simulation capabilities for analyzing environmental control and life support systems and active thermal control systems. CASE/A has been successfully used in studies such as the evaluation of carbon dioxide removal in the space station. CASE/A modeling provides a graphical and command-driven interface for the user. This interface allows the user to construct a model by placing equipment components in a graphical layout of the system hardware, then connect the components via flow streams and define their operating parameters. Once the equipment is placed, the simulation time and other control parameters can be set to run the simulation based on the model constructed. After completion of the simulation, graphical plots or text files can be obtained for evaluation of the simulation results over time. Additionally, users have the capability to control the simulation and extract information at various times in the simulation (e.g., control equipment operating parameters over the simulation time or extract plot data) by using "User Operations (OPS) Code." This OPS code is written in FORTRAN with a canned set of utility subroutines for performing common tasks. CASE/A version 5.0 software runs under the VAX VMS(Trademark) environment. It utilizes the Tektronics 4014(Trademark) graphics display system and the VTIOO(Trademark) text manipulation/display system.
An outline of a syllabus for the education of real-time-systems engineers is given. This comprises the treatment of basic concepts, real-time software engineering, and programming in high-level real-time languages, real-time operating systems with special emphasis on such topics as task scheduling, hardware architectures, and especially distributed automation structures, process interfacing, system reliability and fault-tolerance, and integrated project development support systems. Accompanying course material and laboratory work are outlined, and suggestions for establishing a laboratory with advanced, but low-cost, hardware and software are provided. How the curriculum can be extended into a second semester is discussed, and areas for possible graduate research are listed. The suitable selection of a high-level real-time language and supporting operating system for teaching purposes is considered.
Ceramic thermal and environmental barrier coatings (TEBCs) are used in gas turbine engines to protect engine hot-section components in the harsh combustion environments, and extend component lifetimes. Advanced TEBCs that have significantly lower thermal conductivity, better thermal stability and higher toughness than current coatings will be beneficial for future low emission and high performance propulsion engine systems. In this paper, ceramic coating design and testing considerations will be described for turbine engine high temperature and high-heat-flux applications. Thermal barrier coatings for metallic turbine airfoils and thermal/environmental barrier coatings for SiC/SiC ceramic matrix composite (CMC) components for future supersonic aircraft propulsion engines will be emphasized. Further coating capability and durability improvements for the engine hot-section component applications can be expected by utilizing advanced modeling and design tools.
Systems Engineering and Risk Management processes can work synergistically to defend against the causes of many mission ending failures. Defending against mission ending failures is facilitated by fostering a team that has a healthy respect for Murphy's Law and a team with a of curiosity for how things work, how they can fail, and what they need to know. This curiosity is channeled into making the unknowns known or what is uncertain more certain. Efforts to assure mission success require the expenditure of energy in the following areas: 1. Understanding what defines Mission Success as guided by the customer's needs, objectives and constraints. 2. Understanding how the system is supposed to work and how the system is to be produced, fueled by the curiosity of how the system should work and how it should be produced. 3. Understanding how the system can fail and how the system might not be produced on time and within cost, fueled by the curiosity of how the system might fail and how production might be difficult. 4. Understanding what we need to know and what we need learn for proper completion of the above three items, fueled by the curiosity of what we might not know in order to make the best decisions.
Historically, some NASA missions have exceeded schedule and cost commitments. Studies suggest technical performance is a contributor. The 1980 NASA Project Management Study concluded, "one of the most significant contributors to cost and schedule growth is inadequate definition of technical and management aspects of a program..." (as cited in GAO/NSIAD-93-97, p. 11). The 1991 NASA Roles and Missions Report identified a "need for increased emphasis on technological readiness and requirements on the front end of a program" (as cited in GAO/NSIAD-93-97, p. 11). The 1992 NASA Program Costs Report stated that NASA officials identified, among other things, "insufficient definition studies... [and] program redesigns and technical complexities" as reasons for cost and schedule overruns (GAO/NSAID-93-97, p. 11). The 2002 Task Force on Acquisition of National Security Space Programs found "requirements definition and control issues, unhealthy cost bias in proposal evaluation, widespread lack of budget reserves required to implement high risk programs on schedule, and an overall underappreciation of the importance of appropriately staffed and trained system engineering staff to manage the technologically demanding and unique aspects of space programs" (DoD, 2003, p.i.) In 2007, The NASA Office of the Chief Engineer chartered the NASA Instrument Capability Study (NICS) “to determine whether NASA instrument developers are facing challenges that impact the capability to design and build quality instruments or whether there are flaws in the acquisition strategy evidenced by schedule delays, cost overruns, and increased technical risk via design deficiencies. The... team was also chartered to determine if occurrences [are]... isolated cases or if there are generic issues... If the issues [are] found to be generic, the team [is] to offer solutions to recover such capability" (NICS Report, 2008, p. vi). The 2008 NICS Report, led by Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), identified challenges to instrument technical performance consistent with findings from previous reports. In 2017, the Instrument Project Division (IPD) Implementation Study was initiated to determine if there was a change in meeting schedule and cost commitments after implementing certain NICS recommendations. In 2018, the Instrument Technical Performance Study was initiated to determine the current state of Instrument Technical Performance in the GSFC Payload & Instrument Systems Engineering Branch. The purpose of the combined studies is to answer the question, "Is there a relationship between meeting NASA scientific instrument technical success and meeting schedule and cost commitments? If yes, what is the relationship?" References Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. (2003). The report of the defense science board/ air force scientific advisory board joint task force on acquisition of national security space programs. Washington DC. Government Accounting Office. (1992). NASA program costs: Space missions require substantially more funding than initially estimated. GAO/NSIAD-93-97. Washington DC. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, Department of Defense. (2008). The NASA instrument capability study final report. NP-2008-11-058-GSFC. Washington DC.
Design, fabrication, and life test of ion engine system using oxide cathode mercury electron bombardment thrustor
This document is the transcription of the Spacelab Design and Systems Engineering Panel's discussion of the Spacelab program. It includes information on Spacelab's origin and development. The panel includes Klaus Berge, Bob Benson, Allan Thirkettle, and Harry Craft.