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.
Historical background, costs, organizational assignments, technology development, user requirements, mission evolution, systems analyses and design, systems engineering and integration, contracting, and policies of the space station are discussed.
Aviation is a dynamic industry which is constantly changing. These changes require the continuous update of people’s knowledge and skills. A fundamental part of that knowledge and skill is procedures, because procedures form the backbone of aviation operations. On the flightdeck, on the ramp, and in the maintenance shop, procedures and checklists help support pilots, line crews, and mechanics in performing their work effectively, efficiently, and thus -- safely. To design effective and efficient procedures and checklists, one must take into account the full operational context within which these procedures are embedded. This context is defined by the requirements of the technology, the capabilities and limitations of the human operators, and the constraints and affordances of the operational environment. The complexity of this context arises from the interactions of the human, machine, and environment. Procedures are in place to govern those interactions. We present a model of that operational context, namely THE Model (Technology, Human, Environment in the context of a Mission), that lays a foundation for the analysis of each of these elements and their interactions. But procedures have their limitations, and there are risks involved in over-proceduralizing. To understand these limitations and risks, and to determine when to proceduralize and when not, we present the 4P Framework (Practice, Procedures, Policies, Philosophy) as a holistic approach to procedures. This approach brings together the understanding of human behavior, of organizational and operational factors, and of the technologies involved.
As scientists and mission planners develop planetary protection requirements for future Mars sample return missions, they must recognize the socio-political context in which decisions about the mission will be made and pay careful attention to public concerns about potential back contamination of Earth. To the extent that planetary protection questions are unresolved or unaddressed at the time of an actual mission, they offer convenient footholds for public challenges in both legal and decision making realms, over which NASA will have little direct control. In this paper, two particular non-scientific areas of special concern are discussed in detail: 1) legal issues and 2) the decision making process. Understanding these areas is critical for addressing legitimate public concerns as well as for fulfilling procedural requirements regardless whether sample return evokes public controversy. Legal issues with the potential to complicate future missions include: procedural review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); uncertainty about institutional control and authority; conflicting regulations and overlapping jurisdictions; questions about international treaty obligations and large scale impacts; uncertanities about the nature of the organism; and constitutional and regulatory concerns about quarantine, public health and safety. In light of these important legal issues, it is critical that NASA consider the role and timing of public involvement in the decision making process as a way of anticipating problem areas and preparing for legitimate public questions and challenges to sample return missions.
Program gives in-depth view of organizational performance at all levels of the management structure, and provides means by which managers can effectively and efficiently evaluate adequacy of management direction, policies, and procedures.
It is seen that if the maximum operational benefit of crew resource management (CRM) is to be achieved, the evaluator group is the principal key and specialized training that is ongoing is necessary for this group. The training must be customized to fit the needs of a particular organization, and the training must address key topical issues that influence organizational dynamics. Attention is given to the use of video and full length scripted NASA research LOFTS, behavioral markers and debriefing skills, the importance of policy and written CRM standards, and line oriented simulations debriefing performance indicators.
Recent analyses indicated that solar heating and cooling systems for residential buildings are nearly economically competitive with conventional fossil fuel or electric systems, the former having higher initial cost but a lower operating cost than the latter. The paper examines obstacles to the widespread acceptance and use of solar space conditioning systems and explores some general policies which could help to overcome them. The discussion covers such institutional barriers limiting the adoption of solar technologies as existing building codes, financing constraints, and organizational structure of the building industry. The potential impact of financial incentives is analyzed. It is noted that a tax incentive of 25% could speed the use of solar energy by 7 to 8 years and produce an 8% reduction in fossil fuel use by 1990. A preliminary incentive package which could be helpful in promoting solar energy both at federal and state levels is proposed, and the necessary incentive level is analysed.
To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.
The activities of the Social Sciences Group in solving earth resources management problems as related to social factors, are reported. Major efforts of the Group revolved around identifying potential users of ERTS data, ascertain the user's needs, and assay the organizational impacts of new and technologically advanced sources of information. Attempts were also made to develop a linear programming model to be used in decision making with respect to resources being observed by ERTS and other remote sensing vehicles. The cost effectiveness of solving these management problems is discussed.
New Space Industries For the Next Millennium is a final report of the findings from the New Space Industries Workshop held in Washington, DC, in February 1998. The primary purpose of this workshop was to identify what must be done to develop new markets, and to generate plans, milestones and new organizational relationships designed to facilitate the goal of space development. This document provides a summary report on the results of that workshop and is not intended as a statement of NASA or government policy. Previous studies had shown great potential for the development of new markets in space (e.g., travel and entertainment, space solar power, satellite and space transfer services, research and development in space, space manufacturing, and space resources), and a great need for coordination and formation of infrastructures (e.g., space transportation, space business parks, and space utilities), to facilitate the growth of new space businesses. The New Space Industries Workshop brought together government, academia, and industry participants from several previous studies and other professionals interested in the development of space for commercial purposes. Their participation provided input into the role of government and industry in space development as well as the technology needs that will enable space development. The opening of the frontier of space, not just to government missions but to private individuals and commercial business, is a challenge of overarching importance. It is our hope that the workshop and this final report continue in earnest the process of identifying and overcoming the barriers to large-scale public access and development of space in the early years of the next century.
NASA has issued major updates to its principal orbital debris mitigation policy directive and standards. The new NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris (NPR 8715.6), with its supporting NASA Standard 8719.14, both refine earlier orbital debris mitigation documents and in some areas expand their applicability. Organizational and individual responsibilities along with general directives are set forth in NPR 8715.6. New requirements include routine conjunction assessments for all maneuverable NASA spacecraft in LEO and GEO, prompt notifications of intended or unintended debris generation, preparation and maintenance of formal end-of-mission plans, and disposal of vehicles in operation around the Moon and Mars and at the Earth-Sun Lagrangian points. NASA Standard 8719.14 replaces the 1995 NASA Safety Standard 1740.14 with no major new requirements but with several refinements and additions, some of which had already been adopted. Compliance with human casualty risk limitations from reentering debris will be calculated explicitly and not be expressed in terms of average debris casualty area. Moreover, the minimum kinetic energy threshold for potentially injurious reentering debris is set at 15 Joules. The overarching requirement for the disposal of GEO spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages is to ensure that the vehicles do not come within GEO + 200 km for at least 100 km after end of mission, rather than setting specific requirements for the disposal orbit. Spacecraft operating in or routinely transiting LEO must remain in the region for no more than 25 years after end of mission or 30 years after launch, whichever occurs sooner. A comprehensive new NASA handbook on orbital debris has also been prepared to provide background on the orbital debris environment and the related NASA mitigation requirements and standards.
This research used survey research to explore and describe the use of computer networks by aerospace engineers. The study population included 2000 randomly selected U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who subscribed to Aerospace Engineering. A total of 950 usable questionnaires were received by the cutoff date of July 1994. Study results contribute to existing knowledge about both computer network use and the nature of engineering work and communication. We found that 74 percent of mail survey respondents personally used computer networks. Electronic mail, file transfer, and remote login were the most widely used applications. Networks were used less often than face-to-face interactions in performing work tasks, but about equally with reading and telephone conversations, and more often than mail or fax. Network use was associated with a range of technical, organizational, and personal factors: lack of compatibility across systems, cost, inadequate access and training, and unwillingness to embrace new technologies and modes of work appear to discourage network use. The greatest positive impacts from networking appear to be increases in the amount of accurate and timely information available, better exchange of ideas across organizational boundaries, and enhanced work flexibility, efficiency, and quality. Involvement with classified or proprietary data and type of organizational structure did not distinguish network users from nonusers. The findings can be used by people involved in the design and implementation of networks in engineering communities to inform the development of more effective networking systems, services, and policies.
The NASA Systems Engineering Research Consortium was formed at the end of 2010 to study the approaches to producing elegant systems on a consistent basis. This has been a transformative study looking at the engineering and organizational basis of systems engineering. The consortium has engaged in a variety of research topics to determine the path to elegant systems. In the second year of the consortium, a systems engineering framework emerged which structured the approach to systems engineering and guided our research. This led in the third year to set of systems engineering postulates that the consortium is continuing to refine. The consortium has conducted several research projects that have contributed significantly to the understanding of systems engineering. The consortium has surveyed the application of the NASA 17 systems engineering processes, explored the physics and statistics of systems integration, and considered organizational aspects of systems engineering discipline integration. The systems integration methods have included system exergy analysis, Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), State Variable Analysis, Multidisciplinary Coupling Analysis (MCA), Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO), System Cost Modelling, System Robustness, and Value Modelling. Organizational studies have included the variability of processes in change evaluations, margin management within the organization, information theory of board structures, social categorization of unintended consequences, and initial looks at applying cognitive science to systems engineering. Consortium members have also studied the bidirectional influence of policy and law with systems engineering.
The NASA Systems Engineering Research Consortium was formed at the end of 2010 to study the approaches to producing elegant systems on a consistent basis. This has been a transformative study looking at the engineering and organizational basis of systems engineering. The consortium has engaged in a variety of research topics to determine the path to elegant systems. In the second year of the consortium, a systems engineering framework emerged which structured the approach to systems engineering and guided our research. This led in the third year to set of systems engineering postulates that the consortium is continuing to refine. The consortium has conducted several research projects that have contributed significantly to the understanding of systems engineering. The consortium has surveyed the application of the NASA 17 systems engineering processes, explored the physics and statistics of systems integration, and considered organizational aspects of systems engineering discipline integration. The systems integration methods have included system energy analysis, Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), State Variable Analysis, Multidisciplinary Coupling Analysis (MCA), Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO), System Cost Modeling, System Robustness, and Value Modeling. Organizational studies have included the variability of processes in change evaluations, margin management within the organization, information theory of board structures, social categorization of unintended consequences, and initial looks at applying cognitive science to systems engineering. Consortium members have also studied the bidirectional influence of policy and law with systems engineering.
This report describes the collaborative program model chosen to implement an aeronautics research and technology program from 1994 through 2001: the Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments (AGATE) Program. The Program had one primary objective: to improve the ability of the General Aviation industry to adopt technology as a solution to fulfill public benefit objectives. The primary objective of this report is to assess the program s ability to meet a combination of "effectiveness measures" from multiple stakeholders. The "effectiveness" of any model forms the foundation of legitimate questions for policy makers and professional federal managers. The participants rated AGATE as achieving its primary objectives and rating well on effectiveness in most areas, with high measures for relevance, cost, speed and public benefit, but lower measures for institutional fit and flexibility at dealing with the larger NASA organizational structure. This pattern mirrors private sector surveys and represents a tradeoff between the benefits of tailoring a program using partnering, versus the changes necessary within the institutional structure to support such tailoring.
Potential organizational options for a solar power satellite system (SPS) were investigated. Selection and evaluation criteria were determined to include timeliness, reliability, and adequacy to contribute meaningfully to the U.S. supply; political feasibility (both national and international); and cost effectiveness (including environmental and other external costs). Based on these criteria, four organizational alternatives appeared to offer reasonable promise as potential options for SPS. A large number of key issues emerged as being factors which would influence the final selection process. Among these issues were a variety having to do with international law, international institutions, environmental controls, economics, operational flexibility, congressional policies, commercial-vs-governmental ownership, national dedication, and national and operational stategic issues.
"Similarly to artificial intelligence, which is now revolutionizing many aspects of our daily lives, Earth system digital twin technologies have the potential to revolutionize the way Earth Science research will be conducted in the future, and how results and knowledge from this research will provide information to support decision making and yield impactful societal benefits. An Earth System Digital Twin or ESDT is a dynamic and interactive information system that first provides a digital replica of the past and current states of the Earth or Earth system as accurately and timely as possible; second, allows for computing forecasts of future states under nominal assumptions and based on the current replica; and third, offers the capability to investigate many hypothetical scenarios under varying impact assumptions. In other words, an ESDT provides the integrated What-Now, What-Next, and What-If pictures of the Earth or Earth system, by continuously ingesting newly observed data and by leveraging multiple interconnected models, machine learning as well advanced computing and visualization capabilities. Digital twins have been developed in engineering since 2002, but the interest in digital twins for the Earth domain is more recent and stems from the convergence of several developments: - The huge amount of diverse data that has now been collected continuously for more than 50 years, and that is becoming more and more difficult to access, understand, and utilize. - At the same time, because of climate change and its impacts the information produced by all of this data is becoming of interest to many new non-traditional users for analyzing and predicting various phenomena. - Because of advances in computational and visualization capabilities and the parallel unprecedented development of machine learning (ML), extracting relevant information from these large amounts of data and running complex models faster has become possible. As a result, it is becoming necessary and possible to build intuitive and interactive frameworks that will enable users with various skill levels and/or organizational hierarchy levels to easily access large amounts of targeted information along with the relevant tools and models (Earth system and human activity models), to support them in analyzing and visualizing this information, to help them understand interactions among models, to visualize the potential outcomes of various impacts, and to support decision or policy making. The full power of digital twins is that, through an integrated representation and standardized tools and software technologies, the same digital replica can address the needs of multiple users at various resolutions (spatial and temporal) and for various applications (science, economic, policy, etc.) – “from farmer to scientist”. With all these interests at stake, the challenges of building optimal digital twins are many and complex. The first challenge is to determine if a Digital Twin should be global or local, and multi-domain or thematic. For example, some domains such as Climate or Weather will require a global Digital Twin or Digital Twin capabilities while science areas such as Biodiversity might be more local. We can also envision that multiple thematic ESDTs, e.g., Air Quality, Wildfires, Hydrology could be federated or provide input to other ESDTs, either on a regional level or to a more global ESDT. Overall, we can imagine a future “web” of Digital Twins co-existing in a hierarchy or in a network, and capable of being connected or federated depending on the needs. This last point brings up the very important challenge of interoperability, including standards and protocols that will need to be built into these systems from the beginning. Each individual digital twin would have full flexibility in internal construction but would need standards-based interfaces (input and output) or hooks to make it compatible with others. Another challenge when building digital twins will be to decide how to organize each digital replica. Based on the applications targeted by the DT under implementation, various amounts and types of raw data, Analysis Ready Data (ARD) and information will need to be incorporated. Depending on the required latencies and needs of the users, various solutions can be considered, including Data Cubes, Data Lakes, pointers, or computing information on demand. We envision that each ESDT will choose a solution adapted to its specific objectives. Another important challenge is the type(s) of visualization that will be used, as well as the level of interactivity and refresh rate that will be required. Again, this will depend on the objectives of the ESDT, but also on the various users’ needs. In most cases, several types of visualizations and human interfaces will need to be offered depending on the projected users of that system. In parallel to the challenges highlighted above, there are also many tools and technologies that will need to be developed or improved for all types of digital twins. Among those are improved machine learning technologies, for example providing explainability, but also ML techniques for causality and providing a better integration of physics models. Additionally, reliable uncertainty quantification methods will be needed for all ESDT components, from validating data fusion and assimilation to assessing the accuracy of ML models and weighing the values of decisions supported by those systems. This presentation introduces the ESDT concept, presents several ESDT use cases, and a proposed ESDT architecture framework, as well as various technologies being developed by the Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) Program."
Small-satellite rideshare capabilities and opportunities for low-cost access to space have been evolving over the past 10 years. Small space launch vehicle technology is rapidly being developed and demonstrated, including the Minotaur series and the Space X Falcon, among others, along with the lower cost launch facilities at Alaska's Kodiak Launch Complex, NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, and the Reagan Test Site in the Pacific. Demonstrated capabilities for the launch of multiple payloads have increased (and continue to increase) significantly. This will allow more efficient and cost-effective use of the various launch opportunities, including utilizing the excess capacity of the emerging Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)-based missions. The definition of standardized interfaces and processes, along with various user guides and payload implementation plans, has been developed and continues to be refined. Top-level agency policies for the support of low-cost access to space for small experimental payloads, such as the DoD policy structure on auxiliary payloads, have been defined and provide the basis for the continued refinement and implementation of these evolving technologies. Most importantly, the coordination and cooperative interfaces between the various stakeholders continues to evolve. The degree of this coordination and technical interchange is demonstrated by the wide stakeholder participation at the recent 2008 Small Payload Rideshare Workshop, held at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. This annual workshop has been the major platform for coordination and technical interchange within the rideshare community and with the various sponsoring agencies. These developments have provided the foundation for a robust low-cost small payload rideshare capability. However, the continued evolution, sustainment, and utilization of these capabilities will require continued stakeholder recognition, support, and nourishing. Ongoing, coordinated effort, partnering, and support between stakeholders is essential to acquire the improved organizational processes and efficiencies required to meet the needs of the growing small payload community for low-cost access to space. Further, a mix of capabilities developed within the space community for Operationally Responsive Space, an international committee investigating space systems cross-compatibility, and an industry-based organization seeking small satellite "standardization" all work toward a new paradigm: sharing or leveraging resources amongst multiple users. The challenge: where are those users, and what is the best way to leverage them? What is leveraged-mass, power, cost-sharing? And how does one sort through these options? What policies may prevent the use of some options? Who are the "other users" that might share or leverage capabilities? This paper presents a systematic look at both the users and the launch options, and suggests a way forward.
The goal is the creation of a generally accepted, systematically developed and implemented, but user focused, research agenda for the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD) and the Technical Information Panel (TIP) member countries. Information use seldom exists as an isolated incident. Information use usually takes place within organizational and interpersonal contexts. Therefore, it should not be studied in isolation, but rather in an holistic environment. Once implemented, this research agenda could be completed within 3 to 5 years. The results would be generalizable to AGARD member nations, would form the basis for the development of theory based practice, and would form a significant body of knowledge that can be used by AGARD information professionals for policy, practice, product, and systems development.