Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Project Management”

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 433 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development and Implementation of A Small Satellite Systems Engineering Webinar Series: A Collaboration Between the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) in collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established a webinar series on NASA systems engineering standards and practices for the purpose of sharing knowledge in this area. UNOOSA’s “Access to Space for All” initiative provides capacity-building opportunities in space science, technology, and space applications for United Nations member states. Due to the cooperation among established space actors, the United Nations, and emerging space entities, the initiative enables students from developing countries from all over the world to carry out projects using technologies and space applications. Through NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI), the four-part webinar series was designed to cover basic systems engineering and project management skills that are fundamental to planning, developing, and implementing an experiment or a space project and that serve as critical knowledge for those engaged in space activities, whether as a designer, builder, or manager of space infrastructure and services. The first series of webinars was convened over the course of November 2023 through February 2024.

Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS1975

The Langley Research Center NASA/PERT TIME III

Program provides practical system for total project management in areas of planning, scheduling, resource control, and reporting. It allows use of existing management and administrative tools and processes and is applicable to many types of projects.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1981

The evaluation of OSTA's APT and ASVT programs

The results of an evaluation of NASA's Applications Pilot Test (APT) and Applications System Verification and Transfer (AVST) Programs are presented. These programs sponsor cooperative projects between NASA and potential users of remote sensing (primarily LANDSAT) technology from federal and state government and the private sector. Fifteen specific projects, seven APT's and eight ASVT's, are examined as mechanisms for technology development, test, and transfer by comparing their results against stated objectives. Interviews with project managers from NASA field centers and user agency representatives provide the basis for project evaluation from NASA and user perspectives.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1993

Let your fingers do the walking: The projects most invaluable tool

The barrage of information pertaining to the software being developed for a project can be overwhelming. Current status information, as well as the statistics and history of software releases, should be 'at the fingertips' of project management and key technical personnel. This paper discusses the development, configuration, capabilities, and operation of a relational database, the System Engineering Database (SEDB) which was designed to assist management in monitoring of the tasks performed by the Network Control Center (NCC) Project. This database has proven to be an invaluable project tool and is utilized daily to support all project personnel.

Zirk, Deborah A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Galileo Press Conference from JPL

This two-tape Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) video production presents a Dec. 8, 1992 press conference held at JPL to discuss the final Galileo spacecraft encounter with Earth before beginning its journey to Jupiter. The main theme of the conference was centered on the significance of the 2nd and final Earth/Moon flyby as being the spacecraft's last planetary encounter in the solar system before reaching Jupiter, as well as final flight preparations prior to its final journey. Each person of the five member panel was introduced by Robert MacMillan (JPL Public Information Mgr.) before giving brief presentations including slides and viewgraphs covering their area of expertise regarding Galileo's current status and future plans. After the presentations, the media was given an opportunity to ask questions of the panel regarding the mission. Mr. Wesley Huntress (Dir. of Solar System Exploration (NASA)), William J. ONeill (Galileo Project Manager), Neal E. Ausman, Jr. (Galileo Mission Director), Dr. Torrence V. Johnson (Galileo Project Scientist) and Dr. Ronald Greeley (Member, Imaging Team, Colorado St. Univ.) made up the panel and discussed topics including: Galileo's interplanetary trajectory; project status and performance review; instrument calibration activities; mission timelines; lunar observation and imaging; and general lunar science. Also included in the last three minutes of the video are simulations and images of the 2nd Galileo/Moon encounter.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1978

Easy Meal

The woman pictured below is sitting down to a nutritious, easily-prepared meal similar to those consumed by Apollo astronauts. The appetizing dishes shown were created simply by adding water to the contents of a Mountain House* Easy Meal package of freeze dried food. The Easy Meal line is produced by Oregon Freeze Dry Foods, Inc., Albany, Oreaon, a pioneer in freeze drying technology and a company long associated with NASA in developing suitable preparations for use on manned spacecraft. Designed to provide nutritionally balanced, attractive hot meals for senior adults, Easy Meal is an offshoot of a 1975-77 demonstration project managed by Johnson Space Center and called Meal System for the Elderly. The project sought ways to help the estimated 3.5 million elderly Americans who are unable to take advantage of existing meal programs. Such services are provided by federal, state and local agencies, but they are not available to many who live in rural areas, or others who are handicapped, temporarily ill or homebound for other reasons. Oregon Freeze Dry Foods was a participant in that multi-agency cooperative project. With its Easy Meal assortment of convenience foods pictured above left, the company is making commercially available meal packages similar to those distributed in the Meal System for the Elderly program. In the freeze drying process, water is extracted from freshly-cooked foods by dehydration at very low temperatures, as low as 50 I degrees below zero. Flavor is locked in by packaging the dried food in pouches which block out moisture and oxygen, the principal causes of food deterioration; thus the food can be stored for long periods without refrigeration. Meals are reconstituted by adding hot or cold water, depending on the type of food, and they are table ready in five to 10 minutes. Oregon Freeze Dry Foods offers five different meal packages and plans to expand the line.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2008

Ask Magazine

The topics covered include: The Summer of Hydrogen; Leading Your Leaders; Dawn: Cooperation, not Control; Best Buy: Planning for Disaster The Astronaut Glove Challenge: Big Innovation from a (Very) Small Team; Using the Space Glove to Teach Spatial Thinking; The Power of Story; Interview with Jay O'Callahan; Learning from Space Entrepreneurs; Featured Invention: Laser Scaling Device; Reaching for the APEX at Ames; The Project Manager Who Saved His Country; Choosing and Developing the Right Leadership Styles for Projects; and The Costs of Knowledge.

Prusak, Laurence↗
NASA NTRS2014

Lessons Learned from the Development and Implementation of the Atmosphere Resource Recovery and Environmental Monitoring Project

The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Program's Atmosphere Resource Recovery and Environmental Monitoring (ARREM) Project have been developing atmosphere revitalization and environmental monitoring subsystem architectures suitable for enabling sustained crewed exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). Using the International Space Station state-of-the-art (SOA) as the technical basis, the ARREM Project has contributed to technical advances that improve affordability, reliability, and functional efficiency while reducing dependence on a ground-based logistics resupply model. Functional demonstrations have merged new process technologies and concepts with existing ISS developmental hardware and operate them in a controlled environment simulating various crew metabolic loads. The ARREM Project's strengths include access to a full complement of existing developmental hardware that perform all the core atmosphere revitalization functions, unique testing facilities to evaluate subsystem performance, and a coordinated partnering effort among six NASA field centers and industry partners to provide the innovative expertise necessary to succeed. A project overview is provided and the project management strategies that have enabled a multidiscipinary engineering team to work efficiently across project, NASA field center, and industry boundaries to achieve the project's technical goals are discussed. Lessons learned and best practices relating to the project are presented and discussed.

Roman, Monsi C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-57 Systems Engineering Lessons Learned

The X-57 Maxwell is an electric aircraft based on a 4-passenger, twin engine Tecnam P2006T General Aviation aircraft. The X-57 project originally envisioned a straightforward integration of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware components and software into a novel configuration to demonstrate the aerodynamic and performance benefits of Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP). The project was initially started with a high-risk venture capitalist approach under NASA’s Convergent Aeronautics Solutions (CAS) project, which led to an initial philosophy of Project Management “light” (which was then interpreted as Systems Engineering (SE) “light”). As the project matured, it was forced to transition to one with increasing SE-rigor as the project scope changed, hardware and software deficiencies were found, and the team realized the magnitude of the technical and integration challenges. In hindsight, these technical challenges came in part from an overly optimistic technology readiness assessment (TRA) at the beginning of the project, which resulted in the project assuming that little to no subsystem development would be required. The project’s approach to systems engineering evolved throughout three separate informal phases of the project as it underwent two key transitions as a result of the team wrestling with the technical challenges and resultant changing project scope. This paper discusses the assumptions, approaches, and challenges encountered from a Systems Engineering standpoint in each of the three informal phases of the X-57 project. This paper also provides recommendations on how future projects can apply Systems Engineering best practices upfront along with a realistic TRA to aid projects that find themselves with similar challenges.

Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2012

Does Commercial Space Really Need MOA?

The Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) discipline actively participates as a project member to achieve their common objective of full mission success while also providing an independent risk assessment to the Project Manager. The cornerstone element of MOA is the independent assessment of the risks the project faces in executing its mission. Especially as the project approaches critical mission events, it becomes imperative to clearly identify and assess the risks the project faces. This has been the paradigm for robotic space exploration missions, but does the same apply to commercial space operations? This is the question which is the driver for this year's MOA track at the 18th Annual Improving Space Operations workshop in April at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the question we examine in this paper. Corollaries to this driving question are why shouldn't MOA apply and are there factors beyond mission success with acceptable risk which apply to commercial space operations that are not present in government scientific missions? To address these questions, areas we focus on include risk (both mission and profit) management for commercial space operations and the practical extension of robotic mission MOA to commercial space operations. Another key area to look at is command file errors which are a major concern for deep space robotic missions, but can we worry about them less with manned missions or unmanned supply mission? Further, with the growing concern about space debris, we delve into the role of MOA relative to End-of-Mission activities. This paper examines these topics and in particular the perspectives presented at the workshop to begin charting the appropriate course for MOA in the emerging sector of Commercial Space Operations.

commercial space↗
NASA NTRS2007

Full Life-Cycle Defect Management Assessment: Initial Inspection Data Collection Results and Research Questions for Further Study

It is often the case in software projects that when schedule and budget resources are limited, the Verification and Validation (V&V) activities suffer. Fewer V&V activities can be afforded and moreover, short-term challenges can result in V&V activities being scaled back or dropped altogether. As a result, too often the default solution is to save activities for improving software quality until too late in the life-cycle, relying on late-term code inspections followed by thorough testing activities to reduce defect counts to acceptable levels. As many project managers realize, however, this is a resource-intensive way of achieving the required quality for software. The Full Life-cycle Defect Management Assessment Initiative, funded by NASA s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance under the Software Assurance Research Program, aims to address these problems by: Improving the effectiveness of early life-cycle V&V activities to make their benefits more attractive to team leads. Specifically, we focus on software inspection, a proven method that can be applied to any software work product, long before executable code has been developed; Better communicating this effectiveness to software development teams, along with suggestions for parameters to improve in the future to increase effectiveness; Analyzing the impact of early life-cycle V&V on the effectiveness and cost required for late life-cycle V&V activities, such as testing, in order to make the tradeoffs more apparent. This white paper reports on an initial milestone in this work, the development of a preliminary model of inspection effectiveness across multiple NASA Centers. This model contributes toward reaching our project goals by: Allowing an examination of inspection parameters, across different types of projects and different work products, for an analysis of factors that impact defect detection effectiveness. Allowing a comparison of this NASA-specific model to existing recommendations in the literature regarding how to plan effective inspections. Forming a baseline model which can be extended to incorporate factors describing: the numbers and types of defects that are missed by inspections; how such defects flow downstream through software development phases; how effectively they can be caught by testing activities in the late stages of development. The model has been implemented in a prototype web-enabled decision-support tool which allows developers to enter their inspection data and receive feedback based on a comparison against the model. The tool also allows users to access reusable materials (such as checklists) from projects included in the baseline. Both the tool itself and the model underlying it will continue to be extended throughout the remainder of this initiative. As results of analyzing inspection effectiveness for defect containment are determined, they can be shared via the tool and also via updates to existing training courses on metrics and software inspections. Moreover, the tool will help satisfy key CMMI requirements for the NASA Centers, as it will enable NASA to take a global view across peer review results for various types of projects to identify systemic problems. This analysis can result in continuous improvements to the approach to verification.

Shull, Forrest↗
NASA NTRS2016

Systems Engineering and Management Applications of ISO 9001:2015 for Government

The manufacturing segment of the business world is busy assessing the impact of ISO 9001:2015, and updating their management systems to meet the required compliance date. What does the new revision mean for government agencies that deliver large engineering projects rather than mass production? In fact, the standard, especially the new revision, can be used quite readily for government agencies, or applied to specific projects, once it is understood in terms of the similarities with systems engineering and project management. From there it can be extrapolated to "mission realization" systems, and a Quality Management System (QMS) is a logical result that can bring order to processes and systems that likely already exist in some fashion. ISO 9001:2015 is less product-oriented than previous versions. It can be more broadly applied to public organizations as well as private; and to services (missions) as well as products. The emphasis on risk management in the revised standard provides the needed balance for weighing decisions with respect to cost, schedule, technical, safety, and regulatory compliance; so if this is not part of agency governance already, this is a good place to start, especially for large engineering projects. The Systems Engineering standard used for this analysis is from NASA's NPR 7123.1 NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements; however, those who are more familiar with ISO/IEC 26702 Systems Engineering-application and management of the systems engineering process, or SAE/EIA 632 Processes for Engineering a System will also recognize the similarities. In reality, the QMS outlined by ISO 9001 reinforces the systems engineering processes, and serves to ensure that they are adequately implemented, although most of the ISO 9001 literature emphasizes the production and process aspects of the standard. Rather than beginning with ISO 9001and getting lost in the vocabulary, it is useful to begin with the systems engineering lifecycle. Identification of stakeholder expectations, identifying solutions, creating specific product or service designs, production of the product or service, delivery to the public, and the associated management, planning, and control processes, are a familiar place to begin thinking of the overall system of identifying, designing, and competing a project or mission. Lining up this lifecycle with the ISO requirements (see Figure 1) illustrates how a quality management system is concerned with the same processes, and provides a governance and assurance function. If implemented properly, there are cost savings resulting from less rework, repair, reprocessing, failures, misplaced documents, and similar types of deficiencies1. Starting with an organization's systems engineering processes allows the organization to use their own terminology for a QMS plan, and tailor the plan to their own project or organization, so that it is more easily developed, understood, and implemented.

Shepherd, Christena C.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Materials Science

The Materials Science Program is structured so that NASA s headquarters is responsible for the program content and selection, through the Enterprise Scientist, and MSFC provides for implementation of ground and flight programs with a Discipline Scientist and Discipline Manager. The Discipline Working Group of eminent scientists from outside of NASA acts in an advisory capacity and writes the Discipline Document from which the NRA content is derived. The program is reviewed approximately every three years by groups such as the Committee on Microgravity Research, the National Materials Advisory Board, and the OBPR Maximization and Prioritization (ReMaP) Task Force. The flight program has had as many as twenty-six principal investigators (PIs) in flight or flight definition stage, with the numbers of PIs in the future dependent on the results of the ReMaP Task Force and internal reviews. Each project has a NASA-appointed Project Scientist, considered a half-time job, who assists the PI in understanding and preparing for internal reviews such as the Science Concept Review and Requirements Definition Review. The Project Scientist also insures that the PI gets the maximum science support from MSFC, represents the PI to the MSFC community, and collaborates with the Project Manager to insure the project is well-supported and remains vital. Currently available flight equipment includes the Materials Science Research Rack (MSRR-1) and Microgravity Science Glovebox. Ground based projects fall into one or more of several categories. Intellectual Underpinning of Flight Program projects include theoretical studies backed by modeling and computer simulations; bring to maturity new research, often by young researchers, and may include preliminary short duration low gravity experiments in the KC-135 aircraft or drop tube; enable characterization of data sets from previous flights; and provide thermophysical property determinations to aid PIs. Radiation Shielding and preliminary In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies work towards future long duration missions. Biomaterials support materials issues affecting crew health. Nanostructured Materials are currently considered to be maturing new research, and Advanced Materials for Space Transportation has as yet no PIs. PIs are assigned a NASA Technical Monitor to maintain contact, a position considered to be a 5 percent per PI effort. Currently 33 PIs are supported on the 1996 NRA, which is about to expire, and 59 on the 1998 NRA. Two new NRAs, one for Radiation Shielding and one for Materials Science for Advanced Space Propulsion are due to be announced by the 2003 fiscal year. MSFC has a number of facilities supporting materials science. These include the Microgravity Development Laboratory/SD43; Electrostatic Levitator Facility; SCN Purification Facility; Electron Microscope/Microprobe Facility; Static and Rotating Magnetic Field Facility; X-Ray Diffraction Facility; and the Furnace Development Laboratory.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1973

Space shuttle sortie payload crew safety and systems compatibility criteria. Volume 1: Executive summary

As part of the effort to reduce the costs of shuttle payloads, this study was performed to determine the minimum, mandatory design and verification criteria necessary to insure that sortie payloads are compatible with the space shuttle system; distinguishing them from those criteria related primarily to mission success, configuration choices, management prerogatives, or other cost-benefit variables which are, therefore, discretionary to payload project management. It was concluded that utilization of the mandatory design criteria, presented in this report, as the basis for sortie payload specifications will produce basic systems compatibility between the orbiter and its sortie payloads at reduced costs. Also, when additional criteria are generated due to changes in subsystems, designs, or guidelines, the categorization methodology developed can aid managerial decision-making concerning these criteria. To a limited degree, the compatibility criteria as defined in this study reflect a portion of the total system safety effort involved in a manned space program.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1981

Technology transfer - LSA project to industry

Program goals, procedural steps, and examples of different situations encountered in the Low-cost Solar Array (LSA) project managed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in conjunction with industrial contractors are outlined. The project is intended to result in the production-ready status of photovoltaic panels which produce power at $.70/peak W by 1986. The first phase of the program identified materials and processes which were promising for further development. Phase II served to correct steps and materials which did not work and were important to the array processing. The third phase will bring the processes to technical readiness by demonstration of successful fabrication of modules at a scale which can be increased to commercial production. An information exchange is ongoing between manufacturers and the JPL to alter specific steps which yield results which vary from those found in the laboratory when transferred to the factory.

Gallagher, B. D.↗
NASA NTRS2004

A Method for Calculating the Probability of Successfully Completing a Rocket Propulsion Ground Test

Propulsion ground test facilities face the daily challenges of scheduling multiple customers into limited facility space and successfully completing their propulsion test projects. Due to budgetary and schedule constraints, NASA and industry customers are pushing to test more components, for less money, in a shorter period of time. As these new rocket engine component test programs are undertaken, the lack of technology maturity in the test articles, combined with pushing the test facilities capabilities to their limits, tends to lead to an increase in facility breakdowns and unsuccessful tests. Over the last five years Stennis Space Center's propulsion test facilities have performed hundreds of tests, collected thousands of seconds of test data, and broken numerous test facility and test article parts. While various initiatives have been implemented to provide better propulsion test techniques and improve the quality, reliability, and maintainability of goods and parts used in the propulsion test facilities, unexpected failures during testing still occur quite regularly due to the harsh environment in which the propulsion test facilities operate. Previous attempts at modeling the lifecycle of a propulsion component test project have met with little success. Each of the attempts suffered form incomplete or inconsistent data on which to base the models. By focusing on the actual test phase of the tests project rather than the formulation, design or construction phases of the test project, the quality and quantity of available data increases dramatically. A logistic regression model has been developed form the data collected over the last five years, allowing the probability of successfully completing a rocket propulsion component test to be calculated. A logistic regression model is a mathematical modeling approach that can be used to describe the relationship of several independent predictor variables X(sub 1), X(sub 2),..,X(sub k) to a binary or dichotomous dependent variable Y, where Y can only be one of two possible outcomes, in this case Success or Failure. Logistic regression has primarily been used in the fields of epidemiology and biomedical research, but lends itself to many other applications. As indicated the use of logistic regression is not new, however, modeling propulsion ground test facilities using logistic regression is both a new and unique application of the statistical technique. Results from the models provide project managers with insight and confidence into the affectivity of rocket engine component ground test projects. The initial success in modeling rocket propulsion ground test projects clears the way for more complex models to be developed in this area.

Messer, Bradley P.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Software Program: Software Management Guidebook

The purpose of this NASA Software Management Guidebook is twofold. First, this document defines the core products and activities required of NASA software projects. It defines life-cycle models and activity-related methods but acknowledges that no single life-cycle model is appropriate for all NASA software projects. It also acknowledges that the appropriate method for accomplishing a required activity depends on characteristics of the software project. Second, this guidebook provides specific guidance to software project managers and team leaders in selecting appropriate life cycles and methods to develop a tailored plan for a software engineering project.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1989

STS-30: Flight Summary

Live footage shows Flight Director Milt Heflin, and the Magellan Project Manager, John Gerpheide, participating in a panel discussion. They discuss the objectives of the Magellan Project, the way in which Magellan will gather images, the Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar, and STS-30. Gerpheide presents an animation of Venus and discussed its variation to that of the Earth. Both Heflin and Gerpheide took turns answering the questions from the audience as well as those from NASA Headquarters, and Kennedy Space Center.

Source record↗