Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “programmatic requirements”

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 NTRS1992

Space Station Freedom restructure impacts on technology experiment accommodation

This is a follow up to NASA Technical Memorandum (TM) 102766; it provides an overview of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) Space Station Freedom (SSF) Technology Development Payload Program, reviews the OAST SSF resource requirements, and contrasts the requirements with the resources that are available to OAST since the restructure of SSF. A discussion of the issues as well as conclusions and recommendations, is provided. It is concluded that, even after adjustments to the OAST traffic model to reflect restructure, some resources will be inadequate even at the 20 percent allocation level. It is also concluded that bartering resources among U.S. users and international partners, and increasing the level of automation may be viable solutions to the resource constraint problem. The final conclusion is that, to facilitate the performance of technology experiments on SSF, OAST should fund SSF experiments and update its traffic model as soon as possible, and should provide technical and programmatic assistance to technology experiment developers.

Avery, Don E.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Risk Management for Human Support Technology Development

NASA requires continuous risk management for all programs and projects. The risk management process identifies risks, analyzes their impact, prioritizes them, develops and carries out plans to mitigate or accept them, tracks risks and mitigation plans, and communicates and documents risk information. Project risk management is driven by the project goal and is performed by the entire team. Risk management begins early in the formulation phase with initial risk identification and development of a risk management plan and continues throughout the project life cycle. This paper describes the risk management approach that is suggested for use in NASA's Human Support Technology Development. The first step in risk management is to identify the detailed technical and programmatic risks specific to a project. Each individual risk should be described in detail. The identified risks are summarized in a complete risk list. Risk analysis provides estimates of the likelihood and the qualitative impact of a risk. The likelihood and impact of the risk are used to define its priority location in the risk matrix. The approaches for responding to risk are either to mitigate it by eliminating or reducing the effect or likelihood of a risk, to accept it with a documented rationale and contingency plan, or to research or monitor the risk, The Human Support Technology Development program includes many projects with independently achievable goals. Each project must do independent risk management, considering all its risks together and trading them against performance, budget, and schedule. Since the program can succeed even if some projects fail, the program risk has a complex dependence on the individual project risks.

jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2005

Searching for 'Unknown Unknowns'

The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) was established to improve safety through engineering excellence within NASA programs and projects. As part of this goal, methods are being investigated to enable the NESC to become proactive in identifying areas that may be precursors to future problems. The goal is to find unknown indicators of future problems, not to duplicate the program-specific trending efforts. The data that is critical for detecting these indicators exist in a plethora of dissimilar non-conformance and other databases (without a common format or taxonomy). In fact, much of the data is unstructured text. However, one common database is not required if the right standards and electronic tools are employed. Electronic data mining is a particularly promising tool for this effort into unsupervised learning of common factors. This work in progress began with a systematic evaluation of available data mining software packages, based on documented decision techniques using weighted criteria. The four packages, which were perceived to have the most promise for NASA applications, are being benchmarked and evaluated by independent contractors. Preliminary recommendations for "best practices" in data mining and trending are provided. Final results and recommendations should be available in the Fall 2005. This critical first step in identifying "unknown unknowns" before they become problems is applicable to any set of engineering or programmatic data.

Parsons, Vickie S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology vs when a mission element is also a strong consideration in which technologies should be pursued. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) capability areas include: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. These capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of ECLSS gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Crew Health and Performance Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS2019

Space Research Project Management Can Benefit from Engineering Technology Selection Methods

Many engineering methods have been developed to help management select technology for a system design or further research. The simplest way to compare technologies is to use a checklist containing all the more or less important selection criteria, so that nothing is overlooked. The criteria usually include cost, safety, reliability and maintainability, and potential problems such as noise generation and microgravity sensitivity. The next step typically is to weight and score all the criteria. The process of weighting and scoring is helpful in bringing out different priorities and reaching a shared point of view. Group technology selection methods are designed to highlight initial disagreements and produce a shared consensus. Often a frank discussion led by management rather than decision analysts can be more effective. The final selection depends on management and engineering judgment and may include programmatic and organizational factors that are beyond the engineering checklist. The objective of engineering technology selection methods is to provide engineering information to assist management in making sound decisions. Project management and technology selection are assumed to use rational engineering analytic methods, but they often do not. The reason is that human insight, intuition, and “gut feel,” rather than logic, more frequently determine our decisions. Project selection and management are strongly influenced by nonrational psychological influences, which can produce unjustified confidence and determination. Nevertheless, there is a strong need for space projects to do rational project analysis and selection. Demonstrating a rational spirit is necessary for a scientific and technical organization. Professional ethics at its best requires an open, honest, and fair process, without damaging politics. Rational analysis can help improve good projects and avoid selecting bad ones. A sanity check using rational analysis guided by a checklist can help avoid egregious and damaging errors.

Jones, Harry W.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Creating a foundation for a synergistic approach to program management

In order to accelerate the movement of humans into space within reasonable budgetary constraints, NASA must develop an organizational structure that will allow the agency to efficiently use all the resources it has available for the development of any program the nation decides to undertake. This work considers the entire set of tasks involved in the successful development of any program. Areas that hold the greatest promise of accelerating programmatic development and/or increasing the efficiency of the use of available resources by being dealt with in a centralized manner rather than being handled by each program individually are identified. Using this information, an agency organizational structure is developed that will allow NASA to promote interprogram synergisms. In order for NASA to efficiently manage its programs in a manner that will allow programs to benefit from one another and thereby accelerate the movement of humans into space, several steps must be taken. First, NASA must develop an organizational structure that will allow potential interprogram synergisms to be identified and promoted. Key features of the organizational structure are recommended in this paper. Second, NASA must begin to develop the requirements for a program in a manner that will promote overall space program goals rather than achieving only the goals that apply to the program for which the requirements are being developed. Finally, NASA must consider organizing the agency around the functions required to support NASA's goals and objectives rather than around geographic locations.

Knoll, Karyn T.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Lunar Surface-to-Surface Power Transfer

A human lunar outpost, under NASA study for construction in the 2020's, has potential requirements to transfer electric power up to 50-kW across the lunar surface from 0.1 to 10-km distances. This power would be used to operate surface payloads located remotely from the outpost and/or outpost primary power grid. This paper describes concept designs for state-of-the-art technology power transfer subsystems including AC or DC power via cables, beamed radio frequency power and beamed laser power. Power transfer subsystem mass and performance are calculated and compared for each option. A simplified qualitative assessment of option operations, hazards, costs and technology needs is also described. Based on these concept designs and performance analyses, a DC power cabling subsystem is recommended to minimize subsystem mass and to minimize mission and programmatic costs and risks. Avenues for additional power transfer subsystem studies are recommended.

Kerslake, Thomas W.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Having a Come-Apart: Lessons Learned from Additively Manufactured Hardware Failures

NASA has been engaged with additively manufactured (AM) process and component development since the 2000’s. AM offers various technical advantages, such as enhanced hardware design complexity, part consolidation, and processing of novel alloys in addition to programmatic advantages for reduction in processing time and cost. The focus of much of the AM development at NASA has been to mature the various processes, characterize material properties, develop standards, produce demonstrator parts, and integrate AM hardware in liquid rocket engines. These aspects have been demonstrated through process and design iterations using a methodical characterization, test-fail-fix cycles, as well as application and dissemination of lessons learned. In addition to these fundamental demonstrations of the AM process and hardware development, alloys that provide performance advantages in the high temperature and high-pressure environments have been matured for use in rocket engines. These environments are challenging for any alloy and any design, and the AM process is required to fully meet the intended design requirements. The importance of proper AM process was made evident in the failure of a Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) copper-alloy combustion chamber during a hot-fire test due to a degraded material quality resulted from an AM process issue. The hot-fire test aimed to demonstrate high duty cycle under a risk-tolerant development project, where consequences of component failure would be minimal. However, the unintentional component failure emphasized the necessity of robust material characterization and rigorous process control procedures for the safe use of AM components in critical applications. In part, such concerns motivate the AM certification approach that NASA has recently adopted in NASA-STD-6030 “Additive Manufacturing Requirements for Spaceflight Systems”. This presentation provides an overview of the previously mentioned failure, a discussion on the evaluation of the failed chamber and supplemental chambers produced at the same time, a representative material samples that included intentional build witness lines, and a summary of the key results and recommendations from the evaluations. NASA continues to approach AM processes and designs with a level of risk and acceptance of failures that is appropriate for the project objectives, with the overall goal of safe implementation of AM technology and transferring AM technology into commercial space applications. The objective of this presentation is to provide awareness to the community working critical and non-critical AM components and the lessons learned on proper implementation of AM.

Additive Manufacturing↗
NASA NTRS2005

X-43D Conceptual Design and Feasibility Study

NASA s Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) Program, in conjunction with the office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), developed an integrated hypersonic technology demonstration roadmap. This roadmap is an integral part of the National Aerospace Initiative (NAI), a multi-year, multi-agency cooperative effort to invest in and develop, among other things, hypersonic technologies. This roadmap contains key ground and flight demonstrations required along the path to developing a reusable hypersonic space access system. One of the key flight demonstrations required for systems that will operate in the high Mach number regime is the X-43D. As currently conceived, the X-43D is a Mach 15 flight test vehicle that incorporates a hydrogen-fueled scramjet engine. The purpose of the X-43D is to gather high Mach number flight environment and engine operability information which is difficult, if not impossible, to gather on the ground. During 2003, the NGLT Future Hypersonic Flight Demonstration Office initiated a feasibility study on the X-43D. The objective of the study was to develop a baseline conceptual design, assess its performance, and identify the key technical issues. The study also produced a baseline program plan, schedule, and cost, along with a list of key programmatic risks.

Johnson, Donald B.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Space Launch System Mobile Launcher Modal Pretest Analysis

NASA is developing an expendable heavy lift launch vehicle capability, the Space Launch System, to support lunar and deep space exploration. To support this capability, an updated ground infrastructure is required including modifying an existing Mobile Launcher system. The Mobile Launcher is a very large heavy beam/truss steel structure designed to support the Space Launch System during its buildup and integration in the Vehicle Assembly Building, transportation from the Vehicle Assembly Building out to the launch pad, and provides the launch platform at the launch pad. The previous Saturn/Apollo and Space Shuttle programs had integrated vehicle ground vibration tests of their integrated launch vehicles performed with simulated free-free boundary conditions to experimentally anchor and validate structural and flight controls analysis models. For the Space Launch System program, the Mobile Launcher will be used as the modal test fixture for the ground vibration test of the first Space Launch System flight vehicle, Artemis 1, programmatically referred to as the integrated vehicle modal test. The integrated vehicle modal test of the Artemis 1 integrated launch vehicle will have its core and second stages unfueled while mounted to the Mobile Launcher while inside the Vehicle Assembly Building, which is currently scheduled for the summer of 2020. The Space Launch System program has implemented a building block approach for dynamic model validation. The modal test of the Mobile Launcher is an important part of this building block approach in supporting the integrated vehicle modal test since the Mobile Launcher will serve as a structurally dynamic test fixture whose modes will couple with the modes of the Artemis 1 integrated vehicle. The Mobile Launcher modal test will further support understanding the structural dynamics of the Mobile Launcher and Space Launch System during rollout to the launch pad, which will play a key role in better understanding and prediction of the rollout forces acting on the launch vehicle. The Mobile Launcher modal test is currently scheduled for the summer of 2019. Due to a very tight modal testing schedule, this independent Mobile Launcher modal pretest analysis has been performed to ensure there is a high likelihood of successfully completing the modal test (i.e. identify the primary target modes) using the planned instrumentation, shakers, and excitation types. This paper will discuss this Mobile Launcher modal pretest analysis for its three test configurations and the unique challenges faced due to the Mobile Launcher’s size and weight, which are typically not faced when modal testing aerospace structures.

Akers, James C.↗
NASA NTRS2021

NASA Human Systems Integration Handbook

This handbook is intended to provide general guidance and information on Human Systems Integration (HSI) for the NASA community and the applicability of HSI to NASA programs and projects. The primary goals are to increase awareness and consistency across the Agency, advance the practice and implementation of HSI principles, and provide invaluable information and guidance to HSI practitioners in the performance of their duties. Specific aims of this handbook are to define HSI, illustrate the value of HSI in programmatic decisions, demonstrate how HSI fits into the NASA project life cycle process, describe how HSI applies across all three NASA Technical Authorities, provide guidance on HSI processes and products, and provide helpful information on HSI resources within the NASA community. Largely within the engineering community, a system is thought of as the integration or assemblance of hardware and software that together perform a function. HSI considers a system to be the integration of hardware, software, humans, data, and processes, where the human in HSI refers to all personnel involved with a given system, including system owners, users/customers, operators, maintainers, assemblers, support personnel, logistics suppliers, training personnel, test personnel, and others. This handbook should be used as a companion for implementing NPR 7123.1, Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, NASA directives, and any Center-specific handbooks and directives developed for implementing programs and projects. As of 2021, both NPR 7123.1 and NPR 7120.5 require HSI to be implemented within NASA technical efforts.

Lisa O Rippy↗
NASA NTRS2021

NASA Deep Space Network Commitments for Human Missions to the Moon and Beyond

NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN) serves as a critical element in the exploration of deep space, typically supporting 30-40 operational missions at any given time, each with unique characteristics and telecommunications requirements. In order to meet the needs of its diverse customer base, DSN relies on the Mission Support Definition and Commitments Office to interface with its customers and to develop, negotiate, and document the appropriate service commitments to meet each mission’s needs. Members of this office provide the needed support throughout each mission’s lifetime. While DSN’s primary focus in recent years has been supporting scientific missions by robotic spacecraft deployed across the solar system, the network is ramping-up to provide support for human spaceflight (HSF) endeavours to the moon and beyond, starting with the Artemis missions which aim to land humans on the lunar surface in the 2020’s. These HSF missions pose unique challenges for the DSN, including technical, operational, and programmatic concerns. Examples of challenges in each of these areas are provided, along with descriptions of how they are being addressed and open issues remaining.

Turcios, Ricky↗
NASA NTRS2007

Mission Risk Reduction Regulatory Change Management

NASA Headquarters Environmental Management Division supports NASA's mission to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research by integrating environmental considerations into programs and projects early-on, thereby proactively reducing NASA's exposure to institutional, programmatic and operational risk. As part of this effort, NASA established the Principal Center for Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication (RRAC PC) as a resource for detecting, analyzing, and communicating environmental regulatory risks to the NASA stakeholder community. The RRAC PC focuses on detecting emerging environmental regulations and other operational change drivers that may pose risks to NASA programs and facilities, and effectively communicating the potential risks. For example, regulatory change may restrict how and where certain activities or operations may be conducted. Regulatory change can also directly affect the ability to use certain materials by mandating a production phase-out or restricting usage applications of certain materials. Regulatory change can result in significant adverse impacts to NASA programs and facilities due to NASA's stringent performance requirements for materials and components related to human-rated space vehicles. Even if a regulation does not directly affect NASA operations, U.S. and international regulations can pose program risks indirectly through requirements levied on manufacturers and vendors of components and materials. For example, manufacturers can change their formulations to comply with new regulatory requirements. Such changes can require time-consuming and costly requalification certification for use in human spaceflight programs. The RRAC PC has implemented a system for proactively managing regulatory change to minimize potential adverse impacts to NASA programs and facilities. This presentation highlights the process utilized by the RRACPC to communicate regulatory change and the associated potential risks within NASA, as well as the process for communicating and cooperating with other government agencies and industry partners, both domestic and international, to ensure mission success.

Scroggins, Sharon↗
NASA NTRS1993

The Columbus logistics support at the APMC: Requirements and implementation aspects

This paper focuses on the logistics support to be provided by the APM Center (APMC). Among the Columbus ground infrastructures, this center is tasked to provide logistics, sustaining engineering and P/L integration support to the ongoing missions of the APM, i.e. the Columbus Laboratory attached to the Freedom Space Station. The following is illustrated: an analysis of the requirements that are levied on the logistics support of the APM; how such requirements are reflected in the corresponding support to be available on-ground and at APMC; the functional components of the APMC logistics support and how such components interact each other; how the logistics support function interfaces with the other functions of the ground support; and how the logistics support is being designed in terms of resources (such as hardware, data bases, etc.). Emphasis is given to the data handling aspects and to the related data bases that will constitute for the logistics activities the fundamental source of information during the APM planned lifetime. Functional and physical architectures, together with trades for possible implementation, are addressed. Commonalities with other centers are taken into account and recommendations are made for possible reuse of tools already developed in the C/D phase. Finally, programmatic considerations are discussed for the actual implementation of the center.

Canu, C.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Space Launch System Mobile Launcher Modal Pretest Analysis

NASA is developing an expendable heavy lift launch vehicle capability, the Space Launch System, to support lunar and deep space exploration. To support this capability, an updated ground infrastructure is required including modifying an existing Mobile Launcher system. The Mobile Launcher is a very large heavy beam/truss steel structure designed to support the Space Launch System during its buildup and integration in the Vehicle Assembly Building, transportation from the Vehicle Assembly Building out to the launch pad, and provides the launch platform at the launch pad. The previous Saturn/Apollo and Space Shuttle programs had integrated vehicle ground vibration tests of their integrated launch vehicles performed with simulated free-free boundary conditions to experimentally anchor and validate structural and flight controls analysis models. For the Space Launch System program, the Mobile Launcher will be used as the modal test fixture for the ground vibration test of the first Space Launch System flight vehicle, Exploration Mission ? 1( now referred to as Artemis 1), programmatically referred to as the Integrated vehicle modal test. The Integrated vehicle modal test of the Exploration Mission - 1 integrated launch vehicle will have its core and second stages unfueled while mounted to the ML while inside the Vehicle Assembly Building, which is currently scheduled for the late spring or early summer of 2020. The Space Launch System program has implemented a building block approach for dynamic model validation. The modal test of the Mobile Launcher is an important part of this building block approach in supporting the integrated vehicle modal test since the Mobile Launcher will serve as a structurally dynamic test fixture whose modes will couple with the modes of the Exploration Mission ? 1 test vehicle. The Mobile Launcher modal test will further support understanding the structural dynamics of the Mobile Launcher and SLS during rollout to the launch pad, which will play a key role in better understanding and prediction of the rollout forces acting on the launch vehicle. The Mobile Launcher modal test is currently scheduled for the summer of 2019. Due to a very tight modal testing schedule, this Mobile Launcher modal pretest analysis has been performed to ensure there is a high likelihood of being able to successfully complete the modal test (i.e. identify the primary target modes) using the planned instrumentation, shakers, and excitation types. This paper will discuss this Mobile Launcher modal pretest analysis and the unique challenges faced due to the Mobile Launcher's size and weight, which are typically not faced when modal testing aerospace structures.

Akers, James C.↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Need for Analogue Missions in Scientific Human and Robotic Planetary Exploration

With the increasing challenges of planetary missions, and especially with the prospect of human exploration of the moon and Mars, the need for earth-based mission simulations has never been greater. The current focus on science as a major driver for planetary exploration introduces new constraints in mission design, planning, operations, and technology development. Analogue missions can be designed to address critical new integration issues arising from the new science-driven exploration paradigm. This next step builds on existing field studies and technology development at analogue sites, providing engineering, programmatic, and scientific lessons-learned in relatively low-cost and low-risk environments. One of the most important outstanding questions in planetary exploration is how to optimize the human and robotic interaction to achieve maximum science return with minimum cost and risk. To answer this question, researchers are faced with the task of defining scientific return and devising ways of measuring the benefit of scientific planetary exploration to humanity. Earth-based and spacebased analogue missions are uniquely suited to answer this question. Moreover, they represent the only means for integrating science operations, mission operations, crew training, technology development, psychology and human factors, and all other mission elements prior to final mission design and launch. Eventually, success in future planetary exploration will depend on our ability to prepare adequately for missions, requiring improved quality and quantity of analogue activities. This effort demands more than simply developing new technologies needed for future missions and increasing our scientific understanding of our destinations. It requires a systematic approach to the identification and evaluation of the categories of analogue activities. This paper presents one possible approach to the classification and design of analogue missions based on their degree of fidelity in ten key areas. Various case studies are discussed to illustrate the approach.

Snook, K. J.↗