SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The Air Traffic Management eXploration project, or ATM-X, is transforming air traffic management to accommodate new air vehicles and improve the efficiency of existing aviation operations – from commercial aircraft to autonomous aircraft and urban air taxis.
Many physiological, environmental, and operational risks exist for crewmembers during spaceflight. An understanding of these risks from an integrated perspective is required to provide effective and efficient mitigations during future exploration missions that typically have stringent limitations on resources available, such as mass, power, and crew time. The Human Research Program (HRP) is in the early stages of developing collaborative modeling approaches for the purposes of managing its science portfolio in an integrated manner to support cross-disciplinary risk mitigation strategies and to enable resilient human and engineered systems in the spaceflight environment. In this talk, we will share ideas being explored from fields such as network science, complexity theory, and system-of-systems modeling. Initial work on tools to support these explorations will be discussed briefly, along with ideas for future efforts.
NASA's Earth science flight program is a dynamic undertaking that consists of a large fleet of operating satellites, an array of satellite and instrument projects in various stages of development, a robust airborne science program, and a massive data archiving and distribution system. Each element of the flight program is complex and present unique challenges. NASA builds upon its successes and learns from its setbacks to manage this evolving portfolio to meet NASA's Earth science objectives. NASA fleet of 16 operating missions provide a wide range of scientific measurements made from dedicated Earth science satellites and from instruments mounted to the International Space Station. For operational missions, the program must address issues such as an aging satellites operating well beyond their prime mission, constellation flying, and collision avoidance with other spacecraft and orbital debris. Projects in development are divided into two broad categories: systematic missions and pathfinders. The Earth Systematic Missions (ESM) include a broad range of multi-disciplinary Earth-observing research satellite missions aimed at understanding the Earth system and its response to natural and human-induced forces and changes. Understanding these forces will help determine how to predict future changes, and how to mitigate or adapt to these changes. The Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) program provides frequent, regular, competitively selected Earth science research opportunities that accommodate new and emerging scientific priorities and measurement capabilities. This results in a series of relatively low-cost, small-sized investigations and missions. Principal investigators whose scientific objectives support a variety of studies lead these missions, including studies of the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, polar ice regions, or solid Earth. This portfolio of missions and investigations provides opportunity for investment in innovative Earth science that enhances NASA's capability for better understanding the current state of the Earth system. ESM and ESSP projects often involve partnerships with other US agencies and/or international organizations. This adds to the complexity of mission development, but allows for a greater scientific return on NASA's investments. The Earth Science Airborne Science Program provides manned and unmanned aircraft systems that further science and advance the use of satellite data. NASA uses these assets worldwide in campaigns to investigate extreme weather events, observe Earth system processes, obtain data for Earth science modeling activities, and calibrate instruments flying aboard Earth science spacecraft. The Airborne Science Program has six dedicated aircraft and access to many other platforms. The Earth Science Multi-Mission Operations program acquires, preserves, and distributes observational data from operating spacecraft to support Earth Science research focus areas. The Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS), which has been in operations since 1994, primarily accomplishes this. EOSDIS acquires, processes, archives, and distributes Earth Science data and information products. The archiving of NASA Earth Science information happens at eight Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) and four disciplinary data centers located across the United States. The DAACs specialize by topic area, and make their data available to researchers around the world. The DAACs currently house over 9 petabytes of data, growing at a rate of 6.4 terabytes per day. NASA's current Earth Science portfolio is responsive to the National Research Council (NRC) 2007 Earth Science Decadal Survey and well as the 2010 NASA Response to President Obama's Climate Plan. As the program evolves into the future it will leverage the lessons learned from the current missions in operations and development, and plan for adjustments to future objectives in response to the anticipated 2017 NRC Decadal Survey.
A brief and final update is presented that summarizes recent high-speed studies conducted under different sponsorships leading up to 2021. Specifically, work sponsored by the Portfolio Analysis and Management Office is reflected against contracted efforts sponsored by the Hypersonic Technology Project.
Mobility Metrics Summary developed by Crown Consulting Inc. for the NASA Portfolio Analysis and Management Office from January 24, 2017.
As part of Kennedy Space Center's (KSC's) challenge to open the space frontier, new spaceport technologies must be developed, matured and successfully transitioned to operational systems. R&D investment decisions can be considered from multiple perspectives. Near mid and far term technology horizons must be understood. Because a multitude of technology investment opportunities are available, we must identify choices that promise the greatest likelihood of significant lifecycle At the same time, the costs and risks of any choice must be well understood and balanced against its potential returns The problem is not one of simply rank- ordering projects in terms of their desirability. KSC wants to determine a portfolio of projects that simultaneously satisfies multiple goals, such as getting the biggest bang for the buck, supporting projects that may be too risky for private funding, staying within annual budget cycles without foregoing the requirements of a long term technology vision, and ensuring the development of a diversity of technologies that, support the variety of operational functions involved in space transportation. This work aims to assist in the development of in methods and techniques that support strategic technology investment decisions and ease the process of determining an optimal portfolio of spaceport R&D investments. Available literature on risks and returns to R&D is reviewed and most useful pieces are brought to the attention of the Spaceport Technology Development Office (STDO). KSC's current project management procedures are reviewed. It is found that the "one size fits all" nature of KSC's existing procedures and project selection criteria is not conducive to prudent decision-making. Directions for improving KSC's - procedures and criteria are outlined. With help of a contractor, STDO is currently developing a tool, named Change Management Analysis Tool (CMAT)/ Portfolio Analysis Tool (PAT), to assist KSC's R&D portfolio determination. A critical review of CMAT/PAT is undertaken. Directions for the improvement of this tool are provided. STDO and KSC intend to follow up on many, if not all, of the recommendations provided.
Air cargo companies and aircraft manufacturers are making significant investments to enable the movement of cargo via various levels of automated aircraft, such as aircraft with simplified operations requiring a pilot, remotely monitored or piloted aircraft, and fully autonomous aircraft. These investments will enable greater utilization of aircraft while unlocking new air markets traditionally served by ground transportation only. Many cargo companies and aerospace experts envision an operating environment where a single pilot can remotely pilot numerous aircraft for significant increases in aircraft utilization. The future operating environment is also expected to include air cargo companies flying smaller aircraft from airports and distribution centers outside of major U.S. cities directly to city centers, avoiding congested roads and increasing the velocity of cargo shipments, particularly those that are high-value, time-sensitive, and security sensitive (e.g., pharmaceuticals). These are just a few benefits and use cases cargo companies and aerospace experts see with the advancement of automated aircraft. To better understand industry’s direction, NASA asked the LMI team to research the forecasted market, timeline, risks, and opportunities for integrating unmanned air cargo vehicles into the National Airspace System (NAS) for the development and prioritization of the NASA Air Traffic Management Exploration’s research portfolio. To begin the market assessment, we gathered data via numerous interviews with key stakeholders and subject matter experts and literature reviews. We then incorporated the data into a custom-developed systems dynamics model and visualization dashboard. The systems dynamics model classifies the size of the market (e.g., overall fleet size of automated aircraft) for four distinct use cases over the next 20 years. The model projects the year in which various types of automated aircraft will enter the commercial cargo market based on our team’s collective research on when the aircraft will become viable due to manufacturing and certification timelines and the lifespan of current, traditional aircraft in service, to name a few factors. While this report defines our team’s estimated timeline of entry and growth, the model is dynamic—it enables NASA users to change variables based on future-year events. If the necessary technology does not mature in accordance with our assumptions, then NASA can change the entry of service point to a future year to evaluate the changes in market size in the out years. This flexibility will be key to deciding when and how NASA should invest in various areas.
NASA's In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) Program was managed for 5 years at the NASA MSFC and significant strides were made in the advancement of key transportation technologies that will enable or enhance future robotic science and deep space exploration missions. At the program's inception, a set of technology investment priorities were established using an NASA-wide, mission-driven prioritization process and, for the most part, these priorities changed little - thus allowing a consistent framework in which to fund and manage technology development. Technologies in the portfolio included aerocapture, advanced chemical propulsion, solar electric propulsion, solar sail propulsion, electrodynamic and momentum transfer tethers, and various very advanced propulsion technologies with significantly lower technology readiness. The program invested in technologies that have the potential to revolutionize the robotic exploration of deep space. For robotic exploration and science missions, increased efficiencies of future propulsion systems are critical to reduce overall life-cycle costs and, in some cases, enable missions previously considered impossible. Continued reliance on conventional chemical propulsion alone will not enable the robust exploration of deep space - the maximum theoretical efficiencies have almost been reached and they are insufficient to meet needs for many ambitious science missions currently being considered. By developing the capability to support mid-term robotic mission needs, the program was to lay the technological foundation for travel to nearby interstellar space. The ambitious goals of the program at its inception included supporting the development of technologies that could support all of NASA's missions, both human and robotic. As time went on and budgets were never as high as planned, the scope of the program was reduced almost every year, forcing the elimination of not only the broader goals of the initial program, but also of funding for over half of the technologies in the original portfolio. In addition, the frequency at which the application requirements for the program changed exceeded the development time required to mature technologies: forcing sometimes radical rescoping of research efforts already halfway (or more) to completion. At the end of its fifth year, both the scope and funding of the program were at a minimum despite the program successfully meeting all of it's initial high priority objectives. This paper will describe the program, its requirements, technology portfolio, and technology maturation processes. Also discussed will be the major technology milestones achieved and the lessons learned from managing a $100M+ technology program.
The purpose of HSR&TD is to deliver human support technologies to the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) that will be selected for future missions. This requires identifying promising candidate technologies and advancing them in technology readiness until they are acceptable. HSR&TD must select an may of technology development projects, guide them, and either terminate or continue them, so as to maximize the resulting number of usable advanced human support technologies. This paper proposes an effective project scoring methodology to support managing the HSR&TD project portfolio. Researchers strongly disagree as to what are the best technology project selection methods, or even if there are any proven ones. Technology development is risky and outstanding achievements are rare and unpredictable. There is no simple formula for success. Organizations that are satisfied with their project selection approach typically use a mix of financial, strategic, and scoring methods in an open, established, explicit, formal process. This approach helps to build consensus and develop management insight. It encourages better project proposals by clarifying the desired project attributes. We propose a project scoring technique based on a method previously used in a federal laboratory and supported by recent research. Projects are ranked by their perceived relevance, risk, and return - a new 3 R's. Relevance is the degree to which the project objective supports the HSR&TD goal of developing usable advanced human support technologies. Risk is the estimated probability that the project will achieve its specific objective. Return is the reduction in mission life cycle cost obtained if the project is successful. If the project objective technology performs a new function with no current cost, its return is the estimated cash value of performing the new function. The proposed project selection scoring method includes definitions of the criteria, a project evaluation questionnaire, and a scoring formula.
Consistent with the call of the Minnesota Symposium for new theory in knowledge management, we offer a new conceptualization of Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) as a portfolio of personalized knowledge delivery services. Borrowing from research on online consumer behavior, we describe the challenges imposed by personalized knowledge delivery services, and suggest design parameters that can help to overcome these challenges. We develop our design constructs through a set of hypotheses and discuss the research implications of our new conceptualization. Finally, we describe practical implications suggested by our conceptualization - practical suggestions that we hope to gain some experience with as part of an ongoing action research project at our partner organization.
The purpose of NASA s Research and Development (R&D) programs is to provide advanced human support technologies for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). The new technologies must be sufficiently attractive and proven to be selectable for future missions. This requires identifying promising candidate technologies and advancing them in technology readiness until they are likely options for flight. The R&D programs must select an array of technology development projects, manage them, and either terminate or continue them, so as to maximize the delivered number of potentially usable advanced human support technologies. This paper proposes an effective project selection methodology to help manage NASA R&D project portfolios.
Goddard Space Flight Center's Flight Projects Directorate employed a Business Change Initiative (BCI) to infuse a series of activities coordinated to drive improved cost and schedule performance across Goddard's missions. This sustaining change framework provides a platform to manage and implement cost and schedule control techniques throughout the project portfolio. The BCI concluded in December 2014, deploying over 100 cost and schedule management changes including best practices, tools, methods, training, and knowledge sharing. The new business approach has driven the portfolio to improved programmatic performance. The last eight launched GSFC missions have optimized cost, schedule, and technical performance on a sustained basis to deliver on time and within budget, returning funds in many cases. While not every future mission will boast such strong performance, improved cost and schedule tools, management practices, and ongoing comprehensive evaluations of program planning and control methods to refine and implement best practices will continue to provide a framework for sustained performance. This paper will describe the tools, techniques, and processes developed during the BCI and the utilization of collaborative content management tools to disseminate project planning and control techniques to ensure continuous collaboration and optimization of cost and schedule management in the future.
Successful management of NASA Goddard Space Flight Centers portfolio of mission projects (i.e. spacecraft, spacecraft instruments / subsystems, and ground systems) depends upon numerous processes, data and information resources coming together throughout the life-cycle of the projects to enable sound decision-making, risk reduction, conformance with requirements and continual improvement. In the summer of 2012, GSFC SMA management recognized that the set of legacy data systems used to support the SMA mission and responsibilities at GSFC were not effective, integrated nor on par with best practices. Accordingly, GSFC SMA management launched a project to transform the GSFC electronic management system to create and deploy an integrated, state-of-the-market information system for process performance, data management and analytics that is currently operating in support of GSFC overall mission performance. The information system, known as Meta, provides controlled, process-based applications, integrated data management, and analytics for a robust set of integrated applications. Since the inception of the project, a lean, award-winning SMA project team has thus far designed, configured and managed the system to serve as an integrated platform for 18 applications that support key processes for GSFC and the Science Mission Directorate at NASA headquarters, such as internal Management System assessments, Supplier Assessments, Supplier Research & Analysis, Problem Reporting for in-house mission projects, On-orbit Anomaly Reporting for GSFC-operated spacecraft, GSFC Project Life-Cycle Reviews, Risk Management and Reporting, and SMA Project Team Reporting. The system has experienced steady growth in utilization with 1,917 users (NASA employees and support contractor personnel) and 44 gigabytes of data and related files managed by the system as of the end of April 2018. Overall, Meta has achieved increasing levels of process management and real-time data / information integration to enable improved process performance, richer analytics and informed decision-making. This paper will present and examine the need, goals, approach and design driving the management and operation of the Meta information system and its ongoing growth as an integrated platform for advancing NASA mission performance.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) defines risk management as an integrated framework, combining risk-informed decision making and continuous risk management to foster forward-thinking and decision making from an integrated risk perspective. Therefore, decision makers must have access to risks outside of their own project to gain the knowledge that provides the integrated risk perspective. Through the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Projects Directorate (FPD) Business Change Initiative (BCI), risks were integrated into one repository to facilitate access to risk data between projects. With the centralized repository, communications between the FPD, project managers, and risk managers improved and GSFC created the cross-cutting risk framework (CCRF) team. The creation of the consolidated risk repository, in parallel with the initiation of monthly FPD risk managers and risk governance board meetings, are now providing a complete risk management picture spanning the entire directorate. This paper will describe the challenges, methodologies, tools, and techniques used to develop the CCRF, and the lessons learned as the team collectively worked to identify risks that FPD programs projects had in common, both past and present.
2010 was a year of solid performance for the Human Research Program in spite of major changes in NASA's strategic direction for Human Spaceflight. Last year, the Program completed the final steps in solidifying the management foundation, and in 2010 we achieved exceptional performance from all elements of the research and technology portfolio. We transitioned from creating building blocks to full execution of the management tools for an applied research and technology program. As a team, we continue to deliver the answers and technologies that enable human exploration of space. While the Agency awaits strategic direction for human spaceflight, the Program is well positioned and critically important to helping the Agency achieve its goals.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Over the course of my internship in the Flight Projects Office of NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP), I worked on two major projects, both of which dealt with updating current systems to make them more accurate and to allow them to operate more efficiently. The first project dealt with the Mission Integration Reporting System (MIRS), a web-accessible database application used to manage and provide mission status reporting for the LSP portfolio of awarded missions. MIRS had not gone through any major updates since its implementation in 2005, and it was my job to formulate a recommendation for the improvement of the system. The second project I worked on dealt with the Mission Plan, a document that contains an overview of the general life cycle that is followed by every LSP mission. My job on this project was to update the information currently in the mission plan and to add certain features in order to increase the accuracy and thoroughness of the document. The outcomes of these projects have implications in the orderly and efficient operation of the Flight Projects Office, and the process of Mission Management in the Launch Services Program as a whole.
This brief abstract reviews the development of the current day approach to human system risk management for space flight and the development of the critical components of this process over the past few years. The human system risk management process now provides a comprehensive assessment of each human system risk by design reference mission (DRM) and is evaluated not only for mission success but also for long‐term health impacts for the astronauts. The discipline of bioastronautics is the study of the biological and medical effects of space flight on humans. In 1997, the Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) initiated the Bioastronautics Roadmap (Roadmap) as the "Critical Path Roadmap", and in 1998 participation in the roadmap was expanded to include the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) and the external community. A total of 55 risks and 250 questions were identified and prioritized and in 2000, the Roadmap was base-lined and put under configuration control. The Roadmap took into account several major advisory committee reviews including the Institute of Medicine (IOM) "Safe Passage: Astronaut care for Exploration Missions", 2001. Subsequently, three collaborating organizations at NASA HQ (Chief Health and Medical Officer, Office of Space Flight and Office of Biological & Physical Research), published the Bioastronautics Strategy in 2003, that identified the human as a "critical subsystem of space flight" and noted that "tolerance limits and safe operating bands must be established" to enable human space flight. These offices also requested a review by the IOM of the Roadmap and that review was published in October 2005 as "A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Exploration of Space: A Review of NASA's Bioastronautics Roadmap", that noted several strengths and weaknesses of the Roadmap and made several recommendations. In parallel with the development of the Roadmap, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) began a process in 2004 of evaluating the tolerance limits and safe operating bands called for in the Bioastronautics Strategy. Over the next several years, the concept of the "operating bands" were turned into Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS), developed by the technical resources of the SLSD at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). These standards were developed and reviewed at the SLSD and then presented to the OCHMO for acceptance. The first set of standards was published in 2007 as the NASA‐STD‐3001, Volume 1, Crew Health that elaborated standards for several physiological areas such as cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, radiation exposure and nutrition. Volume 2, Human Factors, Habitability and Human Health was published in 2011, along with development guidance in the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH). Taken together, the SFHSS Volumes 1 and 2, and the HIDH replaced the NASA‐STD‐3000 with new standards and revisions of the older document. Three other changes were also taking place that facilitated the development of the human system risk management approach. In 2005, the life sciences research and development portfolio underwent a comprehensive review through the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) that resulted in the reformulation of the Bioastronautics Program into Human Research Program (HRP) that was focused on appropriate mitigation results for high priority human health risks. The baseline HRP budget was established in August 2005. In addition, the OCHMO formulated the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) in 2006 that established the position of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at the NASA JSC along with other key technical disciplines, and the OCHMO became the responsible office for the SFHSS as noted above. The final change was the establishment in 2008 of the Human System Risk Board (HSRB), chaired by the CMO with representation from the HRP, SLSD management and technical experts. The HSRB then began to review all human system risks, established a comprehensive risk management and configuration management plan and data sharing policy. These major developments of standards, the HRP, the HMTA and a forum for review of human system risks (HSRB) facilitated the integration of human research, medical operations, systems engineering and many other disciplines in the comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB began a comprehensive review of all potential inflight medical conditions and events and over the course of several reviews consolidated the number of human system risks to 30 where the greatest emphasis is placed for investing program dollars for risk mitigation. The HSRB considers all available evidence from human research, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit 6 and 12 months, deep space sortie for 30 days and 1 year, a one year lunar mission, and a planetary mission for 3 years) are considered as human system risks are modified by the hazards associated with space flight such as microgravity, exposure to radiation, distance from the earth, isolation and a closed environment. Each risk has a summary assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence base for that risk, the available risk mitigations, traceability to the SFHSS and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the HRP, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets. These risk assessments were completed for 6 DRMs in December of 2014 and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB will review each risk at least annually and especially when new information is available that must be considered for effective risk mitigation. The current status of each risk can be reported to program management for operations, budget reviews and general oversight of the human system risk management program.