SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “REVIEWS”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2008

Reducing NPR 7120.5D to Practice: Preparing for a Life-Cycle Review

In March 2007, NASA issued revised rules for space flight project management, NPR 7120.5D, 'NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements.' Central to the new rules was the construct of Key Decision Points, maturity gates that the project team must pass in order to continue development. In order that the KDP decision be fully informed, the NPR required, as entrance criteria for the gate, the generation and delivery of specified planning, technical, and cost/schedule documents (gate products) and a life-cycle review, the Preliminary Design Review. Building on JPL experience on the Prometheus and Juno projects, the team successfully organized for and conducted these reviews on an aggressive schedule. Key actions were taken to proactively interact with the SRB, produce high-quality gate products with stakeholder review, generate review presentation materials, and handle a myriad of supporting logistical functions. A review preparation team was established, including a Review Captain and leads for documentation, information systems, and logistics, and their roles, responsibilities and task assignments were identified. Aids were produced, including a detailed review preparation schedule and a comprehensive gate products production table. Institutional support was leveraged early and often. Implementation strategy reflected the needs of a nationally-distributed team, as well as applicable export control and IT security requirements. This paper gives a brief overview of the GRAIL mission and its project management challenges, provides a detailed description of project PMSR and PDR preparation and execution activities, including positive and negative lessons learned, and identifies recommendations for future NASA (and non-NASA) project teams.

NPR 7120.5D↗

NASA NTRS2003

I Hate Reviews!

In our business we have all kinds of reviews: financial reviews, strategy reviews, technical reviews, test reviews, design reviews, baseline reviews, etc., etc. Some ways to avoid the most common pitfalls that I find specifically in these kinds of reviews are given.

Little, Terry↗

NASA NTRS1998

The NPG 7120.5A Electronic Review Process

The use of electronics to review a document is well within the technical realm of today's state-of-the-art workplace. File servers and web site interaction are common tools for many NASA employees. The electronic comment processing described here was developed for the NPG 7120.5A review to augment the existing NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS). The NODIS system is NASA's official system for formal review, approval and storage of NASA Directives. The electronic review process worked so well that NASA and other agencies may want to consider it as one of our "best practices." It was participatory decision making at its very best, a process that attracted dozens of very good ideas to improve the document as well as the way we can be managing projects far more effectively. The revision of NPG 7120.5A has significant implications for the way all elements of the Agency accomplish program and project management. Therefore, the review of NPG 7120.5A was an Agencywide effort with high visibility, heavy participation and a short schedule. The level of involvement created interest in supplementing the formal NODIS system with a system to collect comments efficiently and to allow the Centers and Codes to review and consolidate their comments into the official system in a short period of time. In addition, the Program Management Council Working Group (PMCWG), responsible for the revision of the document and the disposition of official comments, needed an electronic system to manage the disposition of comments, obtain PMCWG consensus on each disposition, and coordinate the disposition with the appropriate Headquarters Code that had submitted the official comment. The combined NASA and contractor talents and resources provided a system that supplemented the NODIS system and its operating personnel to produce a thorough review and approval of NPG 7120.5A on April 3, 1998, 7.5 months from the start of the process. The original six-month schedule is indicated. All milestones occurred on time, except for completion of comment disposition, which required an additional 30 days. Approval of the document occurred sixteen days after completion of the "Purple Package."

McBrayer, Robert↗

NASA NTRS2004

Stress, Cognition, and Human Performance: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

The following literature review addresses the effects of various stressors on cognition. While attempting to be as inclusive as possible, the review focuses its examination on the relationships between cognitive appraisal, attention, memory, and stress as they relate to information processing and human performance. The review begins with an overview of constructs and theoretical perspectives followed by an examination of effects across attention, memory, perceptual-motor functions, judgment and decision making, putative stressors such as workload, thermals, noise, and fatigue and closes with a discussion of moderating variables and related topics. In summation of the review, a conceptual framework for cognitive process under stress has been assembled. As one might imagine, the research literature that addresses stress, theories governing its effects on human performance, and experimental evidence that supports these notions is large and diverse. In attempting to organize and synthesize this body of work, I was guided by several earlier efforts (Bourne & Yaroush, 2003; Driskell, Mullen, Johnson, Hughes, & Batchelor, 1992; Driskell & Salas, 1996; Haridcock & Desmond, 2001; Stokes & Kite, 1994). These authors should be credited with accomplishing the monumental task of providing focused reviews in this area and their collective efforts laid the foundation for this present review. Similarly, the format of this review has been designed in accordance with these previous exemplars. However, each of these previous efforts either simply reported general findings, without sufficient experimental illustration, or narrowed their scope of investigation to the extent that the breadth of such findings remained hidden from the reader. Moreover, none of these examinations yielded an architecture that adequately describes or explains the inter-relations between information processing elements under stress conditions.

Stress↗

NASA NTRS2010

Proposal for Ground Safety Review Coordination at ISS Launch Sites

As the transportation of ISS payloads and cargo shifts from KSC to other launch sites, close coordination of ground safety review processes would be of benefit to all parties. The benefit would have the launch sites receiving consistent data that would require less effort to review while still meeting their needs. Until recently, ground safety focus for the ISS program has been almost exclusively for prelaunch processing at KSC/post-landing processing at KSC/DFRC Each launch site, used by the ISS Program, has a ground safety review process. Ground safety viewed as local prerogative. Up till now, ground processing has consisted of low risk/low hazard items; but this will not always be the case. Recent coordination issues associated with the ground safety review of ORU's to be processed at Tanegashima for HTV-2, illustrate that IP ground safety review processes are not well understood by the ISS community at large. Confusion for data providers (US only?). Lack of internal review process for data being submitted to launch sites can lead to inconsistent submittals. NCRs/HRs. Majority of IP ground safety requirements are based upon old KHB 1700.7 (now KNPR 8715.3, Chapter 20). Proposals include: Establish a ground safety working group as part of the MS&MAP. Search for efficiencies in requirements and data submittal processes. Document processes in NSTS 13830/SSP 30599. Each launch site report out its payload ground safety status at the F2F (Monthly's as required). Completions/due dates/NCRs/issues/changes. Establish internal processes for review of ground safety submittals.

Kirkpatrick, Paul D.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Automated Assignment of Proposals to Reviewers

A computer program automates the process of selecting unbiased peer reviewers of research proposals submitted to NASA. Heretofore, such selection has been performed by manual searching of two large databases subject to a set of assignment rules. One database lists proposals and proposers; the other database lists potential reviewers. The manual search takes an average of several weeks per proposal. In contrast, the present software can perform the selection in seconds. The program begins by selecting one entry from each database, then applying the assignment rules to this pair of entries. If and only if all the assignment rules are satisfied, the chosen reviewer is assigned to the chosen proposal. The assignment rules enforced by the program are (1) a maximum allowable number of proposals assigned to a single reviewer; (2) a maximum allowable number of reviewers assigned to a single proposal; (3) if the proposing team includes a member affiliated with an industry, then the reviewer must not be affiliated with any industry; and (4) the reviewer must not be a member of the proposing team or affiliated with the same institution as that of a member of the proposing team.

Kantak, Anil↗

NASA NTRS2016

NASA Standing Review Board Handbook: Revision B

This SRB Handbook provides review guidance for the program and project communities and for the SRBs regarding the expectations, processes, products, timelines, and working interfaces with review organizations, Centers, Mission Directorates, Mission Support Organizations, and Management Councils. It provides guidelines for membership selection, review implementation, review products, and reporting of results. The SRB Handbook guidance may be tailored, with the Convening Authorities' approval, to meet the needs of the Agency, Mission Directorates, Centers, and the programs and projects being reviewed. The final review agreement of the SRB, program and project, and Convening Authorities for program and project Life-Cycle Reviews (LCRs) is documented in the terms of reference, as described in Section 4.1 and Appendix H.

Tahani R Amer↗

NASA NTRS2016

Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

The Editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics are deeply indebted to the many people among the research community that serve this journal through peer review. The journal could not exist without the time and effort invested by the community through this voluntary activity, providing expert evaluations and thoughtful assessments of the work of others. In 2015, the journal had 1506 scientists contribute to the process with at least one peer review, for a total of 3575 reviews completed, including additional reviews of resubmitted manuscripts. There were 277 reviewers that contributed four or more reports in 2015. The average number of reviews per referee in 2015 was, therefore, 2.4. Note that the total number of manuscript final decisions (i.e., accept or reject) for Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) Space Physics was 1147 in 2015. Of this, 774 were accepted and 373 were declined, for an acceptance rate of 67% last year. If the 1334 "revision" decisions are included in the tally, then the total number of decisions made in 2015 was 2481. Working out the arithmetic, it means that on average, a manuscript gets about 1.2 revision decisions before a final accept-or-reject decision. This explains the ~3.1 average number of reviews per manuscript throughout each paper's lifetime in the submission-revision editorial process. We are pleased and happy that the research community is willing and able to devote their resources toward this service endeavor. We appreciate each and every one of you that helped maintain the high quality of papers in JGR Space Physics last year. We look forward to another excellent year working with all of you through the year ahead.

Liemohn, Michael W.↗

NASA NTRS1986

A review of aerothermal problems associated with hypersonic flight

A review is presented of some important aerothermal problems associated with hypersonic flight with emphasis on those involved with viscous/inviscid interaction. The flow regimes of importance to hypersonic vehicles of current interest are discussed and the performance of experimental facilities currently available to study real gas phenomena associated with hypervelocity flight are briefly reviewed. Viscous interaction and real gas effects in hypervelocity flight at high altitudes are discussed with reference to measurements which are required to support the development of improved prediction capabilities in this regime. Theoretical and experimental research on 2D and 3D shock wave/laminar boundary layer interaction relevant to the performance of control surfaces and inlets in hypersonic flight at high altitudes is reviewed. The characteristics of transition regions in hypersonic flows are discussed with particular reference to transitional flows over nosetips and swept leading edges. Studies of shock interaction phenomena on indented nosetips are discussed, followed by a review of the surface roughness and blowing effects. Research to describe the characteristics of 2D and 3D regions of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction in hypersonic flow is reviewed with particular reference to intrinsic unsteadiness and potential compressibility effects in these flows. This review is concluded with a brief discussion of observations suggesting a decrease in the spreading rate in shear layer mixing in hypersonic flow.

Holden, M. S.↗

NASA NTRS2004

An Approach to Tailoring Major Technical Reviews Based on Project Characteristics and Stakeholder Interests

There are numerous technical reviews that occur throughout the systems engineering process life cycle. Many are well known by project managers and stakeholders such as developers and end users, an example of much is the critical design review (CDR). This major milestone for a large, complex new project may last two or more days, include an extensive agenda of topics, and entail hundreds of hours of developer time to prepare presentation materials and associated documents. Additionally, the weeks of schedule spent on review preparation is at least partly at the expense of other work. This paper suggests an approach for tailoring technical reviews, based on the project characteristics and the project manager s identification of the key stakeholders and understanding of their most important issues and considerations. With this insight the project manager can communicate to, manage expectations oc and establish formal agreement with the stakeholders as to which reviews, and at what depth, are most appropriate to achieve project success. The authors, coming from diverse organizations and backgrounds, have drawn on their personal experiences and summarized the best practices of their own organizations to create a common framework to provide guidance on the adaptation of design reviews to other system engineers.

Richstein, Alan B.↗

NASA NTRS2009

NASA Product Peer Review Process

This viewgraph presentation describes NASA's product peer review process. The contents include: 1) Inspection/Peer Review at NASA; 2) Reasons for product peer reviews; 3) Different types of peer reviews; and 4) NASA requirements for peer reviews. This presentation also includes a demonstration of an actual product peer review.

Jenks, Ken↗

NASA NTRS2016

Review of NASA's Evidence Reports on Human Health Risks

NASA has requested a study from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to provide an independent review of more than 30 evidence reports on human health risks for long duration and exploration spaceflight. The evidence reports, which are publicly available, are categorized into five broad categories: (1) behavioral health and performance; (2) human health countermeasures (with a focus on bone metabolism and orthopedics, nutrition, immunology, and cardiac and pulmonary physiology); (3) radiation; (4) human factors issues; and (5) exploration medical capabilities. The reports are revised on an ongoing basis to incorporate new scientific information. In conducting this study, an IOM ad hoc committee will build on the 2008 IOM report Review of NASA's Human Research Program Evidence Books. That report provided an assessment of the process used for developing the evidence reports and provided an initial review of the evidence reports that had been completed at that time. Each year, NASA staff will identify a set of evidence reports for committee review. Over the course of the study all evidence reports will be reviewed. The committee will hold an annual scientific workshop to receive input on the evidence reports it is reviewing that year and an update on the recent literature. The committee will issue an annual letter report that addresses the following questions relevant to each evidence report: 1. Does the evidence report provide sufficient evidence, as well as sufficient risk context, that the risk is of concern for long-term space missions? 2. Does the evidence report make the case for the research gaps presented? 3. Are there any additional gaps in knowledge or areas of fundamental research that should be considered to enhance the basic understanding of this specific risk? 4. Does the evidence report address relevant interactions among risks? 5. Is input from additional disciplines needed? 6. Is the breadth of the cited literature sufficient? 7. What is the overall readability and quality? 8. Is the expertise of the authors sufficient to fully cover the scope of the given risk? 9. Has the evidence report addressed previous recommendations made by the IOM in the 2008 letter report?

Scott-Conner, Carol E. H.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Using Model-Based Systems Engineering to Provide Artifacts for NASA Project Life-cycle and Technical Reviews

This paper is for the AIAA Space Conference. The ability of systems engineers to use model-based systems engineering (MBSE) to generate self-consistent, up-to-date systems engineering products for project life-cycle and technical reviews is an important aspect for the continued and accelerated acceptance of MBSE. Currently, many review products are generated using labor-intensive, error-prone approaches based on documents, spreadsheets, and chart sets; a promised benefit of MBSE is that users will experience reductions in inconsistencies and errors. This work examines features of SysML that can be used to generate systems engineering products. Model elements, relationships, tables, and diagrams are identified for a large number of the typical systems engineering artifacts. A SysML system model can contain and generate most systems engineering products to a significant extent and this paper provides a guide on how to use MBSE to generate products for project life-cycle and technical reviews. The use of MBSE can reduce the schedule impact usually experienced for review preparation, as in many cases the review products can be auto-generated directly from the system model. These approaches are useful to systems engineers, project managers, review board members, and other key project stakeholders.

MBSE↗

NASA NTRS2017

Using Model-Based Systems Engineering To Provide Artifacts for NASA Project Life-Cycle and Technical Reviews

The ability of systems engineers to use model-based systems engineering (MBSE) to generate self-consistent, up-to-date systems engineering products for project life-cycle and technical reviews is an important aspect for the continued and accelerated acceptance of MBSE. Currently, many review products are generated using labor-intensive, error-prone approaches based on documents, spreadsheets, and chart sets; a promised benefit of MBSE is that users will experience reductions in inconsistencies and errors. This work examines features of SysML that can be used to generate systems engineering products. Model elements, relationships, tables, and diagrams are identified for a large number of the typical systems engineering artifacts. A SysML system model can contain and generate most systems engineering products to a significant extent and this paper provides a guide on how to use MBSE to generate products for project life-cycle and technical reviews. The use of MBSE can reduce the schedule impact usually experienced for review preparation, as in many cases the review products can be auto-generated directly from the system model. These approaches are useful to systems engineers, project managers, review board members, and other key project stakeholders.

SE Product↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Venous Gas Embolism: Review to Quantify a Safe Volume of Air in Intravenous Fluids Bags for Spaceflight Applications

INTRODUCTION: The ability to create intravenous fluids (IVF) in-situ from the potable water supply of a spaceflight vehicle or habitat is a desired capability for an exploration medical system. In order to define an acceptable volume of air in IVF bags, an understanding of the volume of venous gas embolism as it relates to negative outcomes is needed. The purpose of this study is to review the literature to determine if there is a known volume of gas that contributes to mortality and/or morbidity that could be used to define requirements for rapid IVF infusion in microgravity. METHODS: A literature review was conducted of the PubMed database using the syntax: (Venous) AND (Gas OR Air) AND (Embolism) AND (Morbidity) AND (Mortality) AND (Volume) as well as manual review of references from relevant articles. 151 articles were screened excluding partial text and pediatric articles. Studies were reviewed for identification of volume of venous gas embolism associated with morbidity and/or mortality, which identified 27 articles. RESULTS: Reviewed literature included animal studies, case reports, and review articles. A high variation of proposed volumes contributing to mortality was reported. The limited human data values ranged from 20 ml to 200 ml of infused air with mortality estimated to be 48 – 80%. No studies evaluated human morbidity in any capacity. DISCUSSION: The lack of consensus on the safe volume of infused air has potential ramifications for IVF use in spaceflight as current technologies to create IVF from potable water may introduce air in IVF bags. While current microgravity infusion protocols call for the use of inline air removal filters, commercially available options have flow rate limitations that preclude rapid infusion in a resuscitation scenario. Such filters may be used in parallel to increase flow rate, but the time required to set up such a system may exclude its use during a medical emergency. Additionally, these consumable filters drive up the overall mass and volume of the medical system. Identification of a safe volume of air in IVF would allow for guidelines for the in-situ production of IVF in future spaceflight vehicles/habitats.

Christopher R Woodard↗

NASA NTRS2003

Patent foramen ovale and paradoxical systemic embolism: a bibliographic review

A patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been reported to be an important risk factor for cardioembolic cerebrovascular accidents through paradoxical systemic embolization, and it provides one potential mechanism for the paradoxical systemic embolization of venous gas bubbles produced after altitude or hyperbaric decompressions. Here, we present in a single document a summary of the original findings and views from authors in this field. It is a comprehensive review of 145 peer-reviewed journal articles related to PFO that is intended to encourage reflection on PFO detection methods and on the possible association between PFO and stroke. There is a heightened debate on whether aviators, astronauts, and scuba divers should go through screening for PFO. Because it is a source of an important controversy, we prefer to present the findings in the format of a neutral bibliographic review independent of our own opinions. Each cited peer-reviewed article includes a short summary in which we attempt to present potential parallels with the pathophysiology of decompression bubbles. Two types of articles are summarized, as follows. First, we report the original clinical and physiological findings which focus on PFO. The consistent reporting sequence begins by describing the method of detection of PFO and goal of the study, followed by bulleted results, and finally the discussion and conclusion. Second, we summarize from review papers the issues related only to PFO. At the end of each section, an abstract with concluding remarks based on the cited articles provides guidelines.

NASA Discipline Environmental Health↗

NASA NTRS1972

Design review - A tool for all seasons.

The origins of design review are considered together with questions of definitions. The main characteristics which distinguish the concept of design review discussed from the basic master-apprentice relationship include competence, objectivity, formality, and a systematic approach. Preliminary, major, and final reviews are the steps used in the management of the design and development process in each company. It is shown that the design review is generically a systems engineering milestone review with certain unique characteristics.

Liberman, D. S.↗

NASA NTRS1974

Apollo experience report the command and service module milestone review process

The sequence of the command and service module milestone review process is given, and the Customer Acceptance Readiness Review and Flight Readiness Review plans are presented. Contents of the System Summary Acceptance Documents for the two formal spacecraft reviews are detailed, and supplemental data required for presentation to the review boards are listed. Typical forms, correspondence, supporting documentation, and minutes of a board meeting are included.

Brendle, H. L.↗