Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Project Life Cycle”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 NTRS1989

Implementation of a production Ada project: The GRODY study

The use of the Ada language and design methodologies that encourage full use of its capabilities have a strong impact on all phases of the software development project life cycle. At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA/GSFC), the Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) conducted an experiment in parallel development of two flight dynamics systems in FORTRAN and Ada. The differences observed during the implementation, unit testing, and integration phases of the two projects are described and the lessons learned during the implementation phase of the Ada development are outlined. Included are recommendations for future Ada development projects.

Godfrey, Sara↗
NASA NTRS1998

Designing for Change: Minimizing the Impact of Changing Requirements in the Later Stages of a Spaceflight Software Project

In the traditional 'waterfall' model of the software project life cycle, the Requirements Phase ends and flows into the Design Phase, which ends and flows into the Development Phase. Unfortunately, the process rarely, if ever, works so smoothly in practice. Instead, software developers often receive new requirements, or modifications to the original requirements, well after the earlier project phases have been completed. In particular, projects with shorter than ideal schedules are highly susceptible to frequent requirements changes, as the software requirements analysis phase is often forced to begin before the overall system requirements and top-level design are complete. This results in later modifications to the software requirements, even though the software design and development phases may be complete. Requirements changes received in the later stages of a software project inevitably lead to modification of existing developed software. Presented here is a series of software design techniques that can greatly reduce the impact of last-minute requirements changes. These techniques were successfully used to add built-in flexibility to two complex software systems in which the requirements were expected to (and did) change frequently. These large, real-time systems were developed at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) to test and control the Lidar In-Space Technology Experiment (LITE) instrument which flew aboard the space shuttle Discovery as the primary payload on the STS-64 mission.

Allen, B. Danette↗
DOE OSTI2023

Risk Management for CO 2 Storage Projects

Conference poster presented at American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Conference, Houston, Texas, April 25–27, 2023. There is no one-size-fits-all risk management approach for storage projects. Instead, risk management is about having a detailed process in place, adhering to that process throughout the project life cycle, and adapting the process depending on site-specific conditions, applicable regulatory requirements, and any additional requirements imposed by pursuing one or more financial incentive programs. The Plains CO 2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership Initiative experience has demonstrated the value of managing risk analysis in concert with storage project regulatory permit requirements, which drive the geologic exhibits and site characterization needs for the permit and the risk analysis.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
NASA NTRS2018

Gaps in Thermal Design Guidelines in the Goddard Space Flight Center GOLD Rules

The GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center) GOLD Rules (Goddard Open Learning Design; GSFC-STD-1000) provide a reasonably comprehensive list of guidelines for the design and testing of spacecraft and instruments based on the long heritage of successful GSFC missions. In general, all GSFC missions are required to comply with the GOLD Rules across a number of subsystems or to seek waivers to particular GOLD rules where compliance is not practical, either due to the risk posture of a mission or the cost and/or schedule associated with compliance. In thermal subsystems, GOLD Rules are applied to design margins throughout the project life cycle and include temperature margins, heater power margins, and two-phase transport margins. However, no explicit guidance is provided for two thermal design aspects: heater control authority (for stability requirements) and cryogenic design margins (which are often not reasonable to express in terms of temperatures). This can lead to ambiguity and inconsistency among projects when demonstrating GOLD Rules compliance. Two current GSFC projects, TIRS-2 (Thermal InfraRed Sensor 2) and WFIRST (Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope), are both missions with cryogenic aspects and active thermal control for stability. This paper seeks to outline the characterization of cryogenic margins during the design process for TIRS-2 and WFIRST as well as the project derived guidelines for heater control authority margin. This effort serves as potential first steps for updating the GOLD Rules to address these two areas in guiding thermal designs at GSFC.

Modeling↗
NASA NTRS2013

Manager's Role in Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Control

This presentation captures the essence of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) engineering from a project manager's perspective. It explains the basics of EMC and the benefits to the project of early incorporation of EMC best practices. The EMC requirement products during a project life cycle are identified, along with the requirement verification methods that should be utilized. The goal of the presentation is to raise awareness and simplify the mystique surrounding electromagnetic compatibility for managers that have little or no electromagnetics background

Safety↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Risk Management Handbook

The purpose of this handbook is to provide guidance for implementing the Risk Management (RM) requirements of NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) document NPR 8000.4A, Agency Risk Management Procedural Requirements [1], with a specific focus on programs and projects, and applying to each level of the NASA organizational hierarchy as requirements flow down. This handbook supports RM application within the NASA systems engineering process, and is a complement to the guidance contained in NASA/SP-2007-6105, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook [2]. Specifically, this handbook provides guidance that is applicable to the common technical processes of Technical Risk Management and Decision Analysis established by NPR 7123.1A, NASA Systems Engineering Process and Requirements [3]. These processes are part of the \Systems Engineering Engine. (Figure 1) that is used to drive the development of the system and associated work products to satisfy stakeholder expectations in all mission execution domains, including safety, technical, cost, and schedule. Like NPR 7123.1A, NPR 8000.4A is a discipline-oriented NPR that intersects with product-oriented NPRs such as NPR 7120.5D, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements [4]; NPR 7120.7, NASA Information Technology and Institutional Infrastructure Program and Project Management Requirements [5]; and NPR 7120.8, NASA Research and Technology Program and Project Management Requirements [6]. In much the same way that the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook is intended to provide guidance on the implementation of NPR 7123.1A, this handbook is intended to provide guidance on the implementation of NPR 8000.4A. 1.2 Scope and Depth This handbook provides guidance for conducting RM in the context of NASA program and project life cycles, which produce derived requirements in accordance with existing systems engineering practices that flow down through the NASA organizational hierarchy. The guidance in this handbook is not meant to be prescriptive. Instead, it is meant to be general enough, and contain a sufficient diversity of examples, to enable the reader to adapt the methods as needed to the particular risk management issues that he or she faces. The handbook highlights major issues to consider when managing programs and projects in the presence of potentially significant uncertainty, so that the user is better able to recognize and avoid pitfalls that might otherwise be experienced.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRS1977

A life cycle cost economics model for projects with uniformly varying operating costs

A mathematical model is developed for calculating the life cycle costs for a project where the operating costs increase or decrease in a linear manner with time. The life cycle cost is shown to be a function of the investment costs, initial operating costs, operating cost gradient, project life time, interest rate for capital and salvage value. The results show that the life cycle cost for a project can be grossly underestimated (or overestimated) if the operating costs increase (or decrease) uniformly over time rather than being constant as is often assumed in project economic evaluations. The following range of variables is examined: (1) project life from 2 to 30 years; (2) interest rate from 0 to 15 percent per year; and (3) operating cost gradient from 5 to 90 percent of the initial operating costs. A numerical example plus tables and graphs is given to help calculate project life cycle costs over a wide range of variables.

Remer, D. S.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Rapid Response Risk Assessment in New Project Development

A capability for rapidly performing quantitative risk assessments has been developed by JSC Safety and Mission Assurance for use on project design trade studies early in the project life cycle, i.e., concept development through preliminary design phases. A risk assessment tool set has been developed consisting of interactive and integrated software modules that allow a user/project designer to assess the impact of alternative design or programmatic options on the probability of mission success or other risk metrics. The risk and design trade space includes interactive options for selecting parameters and/or metrics for numerous design characteristics including component reliability characteristics, functional redundancy levels, item or system technology readiness levels, and mission event characteristics. This capability is intended for use on any project or system development with a defined mission, and an example project will used for demonstration and descriptive purposes, e.g., landing a robot on the moon. The effects of various alternative design considerations and their impact of these decisions on mission success (or failure) can be measured in real time on a personal computer. This capability provides a high degree of efficiency for quickly providing information in NASA s evolving risk-based decision environment

Graber, Robert R.↗
NASA NTRS2013

PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessments) Participation versus Validation

Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs) are performed for projects or programs where the consequences of failure are highly undesirable. PRAs primarily address the level of risk those projects or programs posed during operations. PRAs are often developed after the design has been completed. Design and operational details used to develop models include approved and accepted design information regarding equipment, components, systems and failure data. This methodology basically validates the risk parameters of the project or system design. For high risk or high dollar projects, using PRA methodologies during the design process provides new opportunities to influence the design early in the project life cycle to identify, eliminate or mitigate potential risks. Identifying risk drivers before the design has been set allows the design engineers to understand the inherent risk of their current design and consider potential risk mitigation changes. This can become an iterative process where the PRA model can be used to determine if the mitigation technique is effective in reducing risk. This can result in more efficient and cost effective design changes. PRA methodology can be used to assess the risk of design alternatives and can demonstrate how major design changes or program modifications impact the overall program or project risk. PRA has been used for the last two decades to validate risk predictions and acceptability. Providing risk information which can positively influence final system and equipment design the PRA tool can also participate in design development, providing a safe and cost effective product.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Run Time Improvement Efforts for the Roman Space Telescope Thermal Analysis

"Observatory thermal models for large, complex missions, such as the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope (WFIRST) mission, produce an immense amount of data to be processed. Configuration management of the model throughout the project life cycle has mainly focused on which versions of the subsystem models form the current observatory level configuration. However, the results produced by the model are not nearly as well The Roman Space Telescope (RST), formerly known as the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope, is the next great astrophysics observatory mission to follow the James Webb Space Telescope with a planned launch in 2026. As a large scale, flagship mission for NASA with challenging wave front error stability requirements, a single model approach for both thermal discipline analysis and thermo-optical distortion analysis has been used since the early days of the project. In alleviating the need to maintain two separate models for different analysis types, it imposes run time penalties on the thermal analysis with a large model with significant radiation heat exchange. Throughout the lifecycle of the project, the component models have steadily grown in size, resulting in a continuous growth of the overall observatory model with each update and consequently a considerable increase in the model run time. While ongoing efforts to reduce run time are continuously investigated, previous efforts had primarily focused on timestep size and total simulation time to reach quasi-equilibrium. More recently, studies were performed on the total number of radiation couplings (radks) included in the model, which has a nearly linear impact on run time, but increases exponentially with node count. As standard practice for spacecraft analysis, small radks were excluded from the temperature solution based on the assumption that their interchange/view factors have a negligible impact on heat flow. Four approaches were investigated to reduce the model run time while minimizing the impact on accuracy: (1) the Equivalent Radiation Network node, (2) Progressive Radk Inclusion as solution proceeds, (3) Targeted Radk Filtering for critical/non critical areas, and lastly (4) Representation of culled radks with Backloads. Furthermore, the investigation of model run time also revealed that cold cases took noticeably longer to run than hot cases; the root computational inefficiencies were explored along with the computation penalty of linearization of the external radks and recalculation of temperature dependent linear couplings at each timestep. This paper outlines the details of each of the above approaches and their impact on run time and model accuracy.

Thermal Analysis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Run Time Improvement Efforts for the Roman Space Telescope Thermal Analysis

Observatory thermal models for large, complex missions, such as the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope (WFIRST) mission, produce an immense amount of data to be processed. Configuration management of the model throughout the project life cycle has mainly focused on which versions of the subsystem models form the current observatory level configuration. However, the results produced by the model are not nearly as well The Roman Space Telescope (RST), formerly known as the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope, is the next great astrophysics observatory mission to follow the James Webb Space Telescope with a planned launch in 2026. As a large scale, flagship mission for NASA with challenging wave front error stability requirements, a single model approach for both thermal discipline analysis and thermo-optical distortion analysis has been used since the early days of the project. In alleviating the need to maintain two separate models for different analysis types, it imposes run time penalties on the thermal analysis with a large model with significant radiation heat exchange. Throughout the lifecycle of the project, the component models have steadily grown in size, resulting in a continuous growth of the overall observatory model with each update and consequently a considerable increase in the model run time. While ongoing efforts to reduce run time are continuously investigated, previous efforts had primarily focused on timestep size and total simulation time to reach quasi-equilibrium. More recently, studies were performed on the total number of radiation couplings (radks) included in the model, which has a nearly linear impact on run time, but increases exponentially with node count. As standard practice for spacecraft analysis, small radks were excluded from the temperature solution based on the assumption that their interchange/view factors have a negligible impact on heat flow. Four approaches were investigated to reduce the model run time while minimizing the impact on accuracy: (1) the Equivalent Radiation Network node, (2) Progressive Radk Inclusion as solution proceeds, (3) Targeted Radk Filtering for critical/non critical areas, and lastly (4) Representation of culled radks with Backloads. Furthermore, the investigation of model run time also revealed that cold cases took noticeably longer to run than hot cases; the root computational inefficiencies were explored along with the computation penalty of linearization of the external radks and recalculation of temperature dependent linear couplings at each timestep. This paper outlines the details of each of the above approaches and their impact on run time and model accuracy.

Thermal Analysis↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA Systems Engineering Handbook

The update of this handbook continues the methodology of the previous revision: a top-down compatibility with higher level Agency policy and a bottom-up infusion of guidance from the NASA practitioners in the field. This approach provides the opportunity to obtain best practices from across NASA and bridge the information to the established NASA systems engineering processes and to communicate principles of good practice as well as alternative approaches rather than specify a particular way to accomplish a task. The result embodied in this handbook is a top-level implementation approach on the practice of systems engineering unique to NASA. Material used for updating this handbook has been drawn from many sources, including NPRs, Center systems engineering handbooks and processes, other Agency best practices, and external systems engineering textbooks and guides. This handbook consists of six chapters: (1) an introduction, (2) a systems engineering fundamentals discussion, (3) the NASA program project life cycles, (4) systems engineering processes to get from a concept to a design, (5) systems engineering processes to get from a design to a final product, and (6) crosscutting management processes in systems engineering. The chapters are supplemented by appendices that provide outlines, examples, and further information to illustrate topics in the chapters. The handbook makes extensive use of boxes and figures to define, refine, illustrate, and extend concepts in the chapters.

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT; HANDBOOKS; MANAGEMENT METH↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2019

ANS Summary of Safety Design Strategy for the Versatile Test Reactor

This paper describes the unique challenges with developing and documenting the Safety Design Strategy for the Versatile Test Reactor in the following key areas: 1. Identification of the key safety goals in the VTR facility design and operation that are to ensure adequate protection of the public, workers, and environment as required by 10 CFR 830, “Nuclear Safety Management.” These goals are fulfilled by an approach that applies defense-in-depth (DID) by applying various layers (or levels) of protection to prevent the release of radioactive and hazardous materials. 2. Early identification of the hazards that are normally associated with a large fast reactor facility can result from postulated failure conditions in one or more of the reactor systems or from operational errors. 3. Identification of the key decisions that must be made during the initial project life cycle that will affect the eventual design and construction of the VTR and enable clarity in safety expectations. 4. Identification of the applicable regulatory framework requirements for demonstrating compliance with safety basis requirements in 10 CFR 830 Subpart B for the VTR. 5. Application of the proposed Licensing Modernization Program (LMP) recommendations for advanced non-LWR reactors as outlined in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)-18-04, “Risk-Informed Performance-Based Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development.”

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 1

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0. NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Uncertainty↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 2

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0 (January 2020). NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Risk Leadership↗
DOE OSTI2023

Energy Justice Framework for Marine Energy: Considerations from PacWave

To accelerate the energy transition while addressing land use conflicts and community opposition, federal policies and incentives require that new energy infrastructure provide direct benefits to communities, and ensure that these benefits remain in the community. The objective of this study is to develop a framework for collecting demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental data and supporting communities in understanding how such data can support more just and equitable outcomes. Specifically, this study addresses two research questions: (1) How can energy justice be incorporated into ME project life cycle, and (2) what social and economic data are needed to assess how marine energy development supports energy justice? Based on our literature review and the data collection template, a case study of PacWave, a wave energy testing facility located on the central Oregon Coast, is employed to draw more specific implications for how energy justice can be integrated into marine energy. PacWave represents a flagship investment by Oregon State University, the State of Oregon, and the Department of Energy. The facility is situated in Lincoln County, which is home to the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and family-scale fishing enterprises. PacWave has strong community support as a testing site and holds potential to provide valuable lessons for other communities.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗