Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “financial”

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 NTRS1997

NASA Accountability Report

NASA is piloting fiscal year (FY) 1997 Accountability Reports, which streamline and upgrade reporting to Congress and the public. The document presents statements by the NASA administrator, and the Chief Financial Officer, followed by an overview of NASA's organizational structure and the planning and budgeting process. The performance of NASA in four strategic enterprises is reviewed: (1) Space Science, (2) Mission to Planet Earth, (3) Human Exploration and Development of Space, and (4) Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology. Those areas which support the strategic enterprises are also reviewed in a section called Crosscutting Processes. For each of the four enterprises, there is discussion about the long term goals, the short term objectives and the accomplishments during FY 1997. The Crosscutting Processes section reviews issues and accomplishments relating to human resources, procurement, information technology, physical resources, financial management, small and disadvantaged businesses, and policy and plans. Following the discussion about the individual areas is Management's Discussion and Analysis, about NASA's financial statements. This is followed by a report by an independent commercial auditor and the financial statements.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1999

NASA University Program Management Information System

As basic policy, NASA believes that colleges and universities should be encouraged to participate in the nation's space and aeronautics program to the maximum extent practicable. Indeed, universities are considered as partners with government and industry in the nation's aerospace program. NASA's objective is to have them bring their scientific, engineering, and social research competence to bear on aerospace problems and on the broader social, economic, and international implications of NASA's technical and scientific programs. It is expected that, in so doing, universities will strengthen both their research and their educational capabilities to contribute more effectively to the national well-being. NASA field codes and certain Headquarters program offices provide funds for those activities in universities which contribute to the mission needs of that particular NASA element. Although NASA has no predetermined amount of money to devote to university activities, the effort funded each year is substantial. (See the bar chart on the next page). This annual report is one means of documenting the NASA-university relationship, frequently denoted, collectively, as NASA's University Program. This report is consistent with agency accounting records, as the data is obtained from NASA's Financial and Contractual Status (FACS) System, operated by the Financial Management Division and the Procurement Office. However, in accordance with interagency agreements, the orientation differs from that required for financial or procurement purposes. Any apparent discrepancies between this report and other NASA procurement or financial reports stem from the selection criteria for the data.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1999

Effectiveness of Loan Guarantees versus Tax Incentives for Space Launch Ventures

Over the course of the past few years, several new and innovative fully or partiailly reusable launch vehicle designs have been initiated with the objective of reducing the cost of space transportation. These new designs are in various stages hardware development for technology and system demonstrators. The larger vehicles include the Lockheed Martin X-33 technology demonstrator for VentureStar and the Space Access launcher. The smaller launcher ventures include Kelly Space and Technology and Rotary Rocket Company. A common denominator between the new large and small commercial launch systems is the ability to obtain project financing and at an affordable cost. Both are having or will have great difficulty in obtaining financing in the capital markets because of the dollar amounts and the risk involved. The large established companies are pursuing multi-billion dollar developments which are a major challenge to finance because of the size and risk of the projects. The smaller start-up companies require less capital for their smaller systems, however, their lack of corporate financial muscle and launch vehicle track record results in a major challenge to obtain financing also because of high risk. On Wall Street, new launch system financing is a question of market, technical, organizational, legal/regulatory and financial risk. The current limit of acceptable financial risk for Space businesses on Wall Street are the telecommunications and broadcast satellite projects, of which many in number are projected for the future. Tbc recent problems with Iridium market and financial performance are casting a long shadow over new satellite project financing, making it increasingly difficult for the new satellite projects to obtain needed financing.

Scottoline, S.↗
NASA NTRS2000

NASA University Program Management Information System

As basic policy, NASA believes that colleges and universities should be encouraged to participate in the nation's space and aeronautics program to the maximum extent practicable. Indeed, universities are considered as partners with government and industry in the nation's aerospace program. NASA:s objective is to have them bring their scientific, engineering, and social research competence to bear on aerospace problems and on the broader social, economic, and international implications of NASA's technical and scientific programs. It is expected that, in so doing, universities will strengthen both their research and their educational capabilities to contribute more effectively to the national well-being. NASA field codes and certain Headquarters program offices provide funds for those activities in universities which contribute to the mission needs of that particular NASA element. Although NASA has no predetermined amount of money to devote to university activities, the effort funded each year is substantial. This annual report is one means of documenting the NASA-university relationship, frequently denoted, collectively, as NASA's University Program. This report is consistent with agency accounting records, as the data is obtained from NASA:s Financial and Contractual Status (FACS) System, operated by the Financial Management Division and the Procurement Office. However, in accordance with interagency agreements, the orientation differs from that required for financial or procurement purposes. Any apparent discrepancies between this report and other NASA procurement or financial reports stem from the selection criteria for the data.* This report was prepared by the Education Division/FE, Office of Human Resources and Education, using a management information system which was modernized during FY 1993.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2001

University Program Management Information System

As basic policy, NASA believes that colleges and universities should be encouraged to participate in the nation's space and aeronautics program to the maximum extent practicable. Indeed, universities are considered as partners with government and industry in the nation's aerospace program. NASA' objective is to have them bring their scientific, engineering, and social research competence to bear on aerospace problems and on the broader social, economic, and international implications of NASA's technical and scientific programs. It is expected that, in so doing, universities will strengthen both their research and their educational capabilities to contribute more effectively to the national well being. This annual report is one means of documenting the NASA-university relationship, frequently denoted, collectively, as NASA's University Program. This report is consistent with agency accounting records, as the data is obtained from NASA's Financial and Contractual Status (FACS) System, operated by the Financial Management Division and the Procurement Office. However, in accordance with interagency agreements, the orientation differs from that required for financial or procurement purposes. Any apparent discrepancies between this report and other NASA procurement or financial reports stem from the selection criteria for the data.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

University Program Management Information System

As basic policy, NASA believes that colleges and universities should be encouraged to participate in the nation's space and aeronautics program to the maximum extent practicable. Indeed, universities are considered as partners with government and industry in the nation's aerospace program. NASA's objective is to have them bring their scientific, engineering, and social research competence to bear on aerospace problems and on the broader social, economic, and international implications of NASA's technical and scientific programs. It is expected that, in so doing, universities will strengthen both their research and their educational capabilities to contribute more effectively to the national well-being. This annual report is one means of documenting the NASA-university relationship, frequently denoted, collectively, as NASA's University Program. This report is consistent with agency accounting records, as the data is obtained from NASA's Financial and Contractual Status (FACS) System, operated by the Financial Management Division and the Procurement Office. However, in accordance with interagency agreements, the orientation differs from that required for financial or procurement purposes. Any apparent discrepancies between this report and other NASA procurement or financial reports stem from the selection criteria for the data. This report was prepared by the Education Division/FE, Office of Human Resources and Education.

Gans, Gary↗
NASA NTRS2003

University Program Management Information System: NASA's University Program Active Projects

As basic policy, NASA believes that colleges and universities should be encouraged to participate in the nation's space and aeronautics program to the maximum extent practicable. Indeed, universities are considered as partners with government and industry in the nation's aerospace program. NASA's objective is to have them bring their scientific, engineering, and social research competence to bear on aerospace problems and on the broader social, economic, and international implications of NASA's technical and scientific programs. It is expected that, in so doing, universities will strengthen both their research and their educational capabilities to contribute more effectively to the national well being. This annual report is one means of documenting the NASA-university relationship, frequently denoted, collectively, as NASA's University Program. This report is consistent with agency accounting records, as the data is obtained from NASA's Financial and Contractual Status (FACS) System, operated by the Financial Management Division and the Procurement Office. However, in accordance with interagency agreements, the orientation differs from that required for financial or procurement purposes. Any apparent discrepancies between this report and other NASA procurement or financial reports stem from the selection criteria for the data. This report was prepared by the Office of Education/N.

Gans, Gary↗
NASA NTRS2004

University Program Management Information System

As basic policy, NASA believes that colleges and universities should be encouraged to participate in the nation's space and aeronautics program to the maximum extent practicable. Indeed, universities are considered as partners with government and industry in the nation's aerospace program. NASA's objective is to have them bring their scientific, engineering, and social research competence to bear on aerospace problems and on the broader social, economic, and international implications of NASA's technical and scientific programs. It is expected that, in so doing, universities will strengthen both their research and their educational capabilities to contribute more effectively to the national well being. This annual report is one means of documenting the NASA-university relationship, frequently denoted, collectively, as NASA's University Program. This report is consistent with agency accounting records, as the data is obtained from NASA's Financial and Contractual Status (FACS) System, operated by the Financial Management Division and the Procurement Office. However, in accordance with interagency agreements, the orientation differs from that required for financial or procurement purposes. Any apparent discrepancies between this report and other NASA procurement or financial reports stem from the selection criteria for the data.

Gans, Gary↗
NASA NTRS2016

Flat H Frangible Joint Evolution

Space vehicle staging and separation events require pyrotechnic devices. They are single-use mechanisms that cannot be tested, nor can failure-tolerant performance be demonstrated in actual flight articles prior to flight use. This necessitates the implementation of a robust design and test approach coupled with a fully redundant, failure-tolerant explosive mechanism to ensure that the system functions even in the event of a single failure. Historically, NASA has followed the single failure-tolerant (SFT) design philosophy for all human-rated spacecraft, including the Space Shuttle Program. Following the end of this program, aerospace companies proposed building the next generation human-rated vehicles with off-the-shelf, non-redundant, zero-failure-tolerant (ZFT) separation systems. Currently, spacecraft and launch vehicle providers for both the Orion and Commercial Crew Programs (CCPs) plan to deviate from the heritage safety approach and NASA's SFT human rating requirements. Both programs' partners have base-lined ZFT frangible joints for vehicle staging and fairing separation. These joints are commercially available from pyrotechnic vendors. Non-human-rated missions have flown them numerous times. The joints are relatively easy to integrate structurally within the spacecraft. In addition, the separation event is debris free, and the resultant pyro shock is lower than that of other design solutions. It is, however, a serious deficiency to lack failure tolerance. When used for critical applications on human-rated vehicles, a single failure could potentially lead to loss of crew (LOC) or loss of mission (LOM)). The Engineering and Safety & Mission Assurance directorates within the NASA Johnson Space Center took action to address this safety issue by initiating a project to develop a fully redundant, SFT frangible joint design, known as the Flat H. Critical to the ability to retrofit on launch vehicles being developed, the SFT mechanisms must fit within the same three-dimensional envelope as current designs as well as meet structural loads requirements. There is increased mass associated with the redundant design, and the goal is to minimize the weight impact as much as possible. These requirements presented significant challenges, both technically and financially; these challenges will be explored in this paper. Perhaps greater than the technical issues confronted during this design process, were the financial considerations. These were a significant part of the story of this design and development plan. Insufficient financial and labor resources were formidable barriers to completing this project. Nevertheless, JSC personnel successfully conducted several test series at JSC with very useful results. The many lessons learned drove design improvements, performance efficiency, and increased functional reliability. This paper examines the significant technical and financial challenges that these requirements posed to the project team. It discusses the evolution of the SFT frangible joint design, including optimization, testing, and successful partnering of the Johnson Space Center (JSC) engineering and JSC safety organizations, to enhance the flight safety margin for America's next generation of human-rated space vehicles.

Diegelman, Thomas E.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Selecting a software development methodology

The state of the art analytical techniques for the development and verification of digital flight control software is studied and a practical designer oriented development and verification methodology is produced. The effectiveness of the analytic techniques chosen for the development and verification methodology are assessed both technically and financially. Technical assessments analyze the error preventing and detecting capabilities of the chosen technique in all of the pertinent software development phases. Financial assessments describe the cost impact of using the techniques, specifically, the cost of implementing and applying the techniques as well as the relizable cost savings. Both the technical and financial assessment are quantitative where possible. In the case of techniques which cannot be quantitatively assessed, qualitative judgements are expressed about the effectiveness and cost of the techniques. The reasons why quantitative assessments are not possible will be documented.

Jones, R. E.↗
NASA NTRS1988

System capacity and economic modeling computer tool for satellite mobile communications systems

A unique computer modeling tool that combines an engineering tool with a financial analysis program is described. The resulting combination yields a flexible economic model that can predict the cost effectiveness of various mobile systems. Cost modeling is necessary in order to ascertain if a given system with a finite satellite resource is capable of supporting itself financially and to determine what services can be supported. Personal computer techniques using Lotus 123 are used for the model in order to provide as universal an application as possible such that the model can be used and modified to fit many situations and conditions. The output of the engineering portion of the model consists of a channel capacity analysis and link calculations for several qualities of service using up to 16 types of earth terminal configurations. The outputs of the financial model are a revenue analysis, an income statement, and a cost model validation section.

Wiedeman, Robert A.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Quality Audit in the Fastener Industry

Both the financial and quality communities rely on audits to verify customers records. The financial community is highly structured around three categories of risk, INHERENT RISK, CONTROL RISK, and DETECTION RISK. Combined, the product of these three categories constitute the AUDIT RISK. The financial community establishes CONTROL RISK based in large part on a systems level understanding of the process flow. This system level understanding is best expressed in a flowchart. The quality community may be able to adopt this structure and thereby reduce cost while maintaining and enhancing quality. The quality community should attempt to flowchart the systems level quality process before beginning substantive testing. This theory needs to be applied in several trial cases to prove or disprove this hypothesis

Reagan, John R.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Multiple Hub Network Choice in the Liberalized European Market

A key question that so far has received relatively little attention in the germane literature is that of the changes at various airports as a result of the EU liberalization policies. That is, presently, most major European airports still benefit from the so-called home-carrier phenomenon where the country's publicly or semi-publicly owned carrier uses the country's main airport as its gateway hub and, consequently, the home-carrier is also the principal user of this airport (in terms of proportion of total aircraft movements, number of passengers transported, connections, slots ownership, etc.). The country's main airport has substantially benefited from these monopoly conditions of airline captivity, strongly determined by the bilateral system of international air transport regulation. Therefore, European major airports were used to operate in essentially different markets, compared to the increasingly competitive markets of their home based carriers. This partly explains relative stability of transport volumes and financial results of European major airports compared to the relatively volatile financial results of most European national airlines. However, the liberalization of European aviation is likely to change this situation. Market access is open now to all community carriers, i.e. carriers with majority ownership and effective control in the hands of EU citizens. Ticket prices are free, governments can only intervene in case of dumping or excessive pricing. A community airline can choose its seat in any of the 15 member states. Licensing procedures are harmonized between member states. In the last few months community carriers have had unrestricted route access within the EU. Most probably this development will be extended to countries inside and outside Europe. Last year the European Commission got the mandate to start negotiations with 10 other European countries. In the meantime the EC has also started negotiations with the USA on so-called soft rights. In the meantime, open skies agreements have been concluded between the USA and most of the EU member states to facilitate strategic alliances between airlines of the states involved. As a result of this on-going liberalization the model of the single 'national' carrier using the national home base as its single hub for the designated third, fourth and sixth freedom operations will stepwise disappear. Within the EU the concept of the national carrier has already been replaced by that of the community carrier. State ownership in more and more European carriers is reduced. On the longer run mergers or even bankruptcy will further undermine the "single national carrier - single national hub" model in Europe. In the meantime, strategic alliances between national carriers in Europe will already reduce the airlines' loyalty to a single airport. Profit maximization and accountability to share holders will supersede the loyalty of these newly emerging alliances, probably looking for the opportunities of a multiple hub network to adequately cover the whole European market. As a consequence, some European airports might see a substantial decline in arriving, departing and transfer traffic, thus in revenues and financial solvency, as well as in their connection to other inter-continental and intra-European destinations. At the same time, other airports might realize a significant increase in traffic as they will be sought after by the profit maximizing airlines as their major gateway hubs. Which will be the losing airports and which will be the winning ones? Can airports anticipate the actions of airlines in deregulated markets and utilize policies which will improve their relative position? If so, what should be these anticipatory policies? These questions become the more urgent, since an increasing number of major European airports will be privatized in the near future. Although increasing airport congestion in Europe will also be reflected in a growing demand pressure for airport slots, this is not a guarantee for a stable transport volume growth of individual airports. The more volatile the market is, the more vulnerable privatized airports become. Therefore, the main issue of this study is the analysis of the opportunities of major European airports to become a central hub as a result of the network choices made by the new European airlines in a completely liberalized market. In a previous study (Berechman and de Wit, 1996), we already explored the potential of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol of becoming the major West-European hub, once European aviation markets are deregulated. A major hindrance of that study was the use of a single hub-and-spoke network. For example that model could not analyze the viability of different combinations of European hubs within a multiple hub network of alternative airline alliances. In this study, we have formulated the model of a multi-hub network where two West-European airports are used for inter-continental and intra-European travel to enable a more realistic analysis of hub choice. Like the previous one also this multi-hub model is primarily used to assess the potential ability of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol for becoming a major West-European hub. Thus, in particular, the policy tests focus on this airport in a double hub network.

Berechman, Joseph↗
NASA NTRS1998

Cost and Economics for Advanced Launch Vehicles

Market sensitivity and weight-based cost estimating relationships are key drivers in determining the financial viability of advanced space launch vehicle designs. Due to decreasing space transportation budgets and increasing foreign competition, it has become essential for financial assessments of prospective launch vehicles to be performed during the conceptual design phase. As part of this financial assessment, it is imperative to understand the relationship between market volatility, the uncertainty of weight estimates, and the economic viability of an advanced space launch vehicle program. This paper reports the results of a study that evaluated the economic risk inherent in market variability and the uncertainty of developing weight estimates for an advanced space launch vehicle program. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity of a business case for advanced space flight design with respect to the changing nature of market conditions and the complexity of determining accurate weight estimations during the conceptual design phase. The expected uncertainty associated with these two factors drives the economic risk of the overall program. The study incorporates Monte Carlo simulation techniques to determine the probability of attaining specific levels of economic performance when the market and weight parameters are allowed to vary. This structured approach toward uncertainties allows for the assessment of risks associated with a launch vehicle program's economic performance. This results in the determination of the value of the additional risk placed on the project by these two factors.

Whitfield, Jeff↗
NASA NTRS1999

The Aviation System Analysis Capability Air Carrier Cost-Benefit Model

To meet its objective of assisting the U.S. aviation industry with the technological challenges of the future, NASA must identify research areas that have the greatest potential for improving the operation of the air transportation system. Therefore, NASA is developing the ability to evaluate the potential impact of various advanced technologies. By thoroughly understanding the economic impact of advanced aviation technologies and by evaluating how the new technologies will be used in the integrated aviation system, NASA aims to balance its aeronautical research program and help speed the introduction of high-leverage technologies. To meet these objectives, NASA is building the Aviation System Analysis Capability (ASAC). NASA envisions ASAC primarily as a process for understanding and evaluating the impact of advanced aviation technologies on the U.S. economy. ASAC consists of a diverse collection of models and databases used by analysts and other individuals from the public and private sectors brought together to work on issues of common interest to organizations in the aviation community. ASAC also will be a resource available to the aviation community to analyze; inform; and assist scientists, engineers, analysts, and program managers in their daily work. The ASAC differs from previous NASA modeling efforts in that the economic behavior of buyers and sellers in the air transportation and aviation industries is central to its conception. Commercial air carriers, in particular, are an important stakeholder in this community. Therefore, to fully evaluate the implications of advanced aviation technologies, ASAC requires a flexible financial analysis tool that credibly links the technology of flight with the financial performance of commercial air carriers. By linking technical and financial information, NASA ensures that its technology programs will continue to benefit the user community. In addition, the analysis tool must be capable of being incorporated into the wide-ranging suite of economic and technical models that comprise ASAC. This report describes an Air Carrier Cost-Benefit Model (CBM) that meets these requirements. The ASAC CBM is distinguished from many of the aviation cost-benefit models by its exclusive focus on commercial air carriers. The model considers such benefit categories as time and fuel savings, utilization opportunities, reliability and capacity enhancements, and safety and security improvements. The model distinguishes between benefits that are predictable and those that occur randomly. By making such a distinction, the model captures the ability of air carriers to reoptimize scheduling and crew assignments for predictable benefits. In addition, the model incorporates a life-cycle cost module for new technology, which applies the costs of nonrecurring acquisitions, recurring maintenance and operation, and training to each aircraft equipment type independently.

Gaier, Eric M.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Leasing as a Source of Finance by the Major US Airlines: Hidden Debt and its Changes Over Time

This paper updates prior research on aircraft leasing and contrasts the findings of current data with prior results. Usage of leases by air carriers is a means to lessen the impact of financial obligations from fleet purchases. The study revisits two previous studies, one in 1969 and one in 1991, which is analyzed the incidence of leases by major air carriers. The current study updates these past studies to consider air carriers current usage of leases. Additionally, since operating leases are not reflected in the balance sheets of airlines, operating lease information was capitalized using a present value of future operating lease payments. Then, financial debt burden ratios were computed to determine the impact from the capitalization of lease information. The usage of operating leases increased, significantly from the first study to the 1991 study, and this trend continues. The incidence of leasing, the classification of leases as operating, and the percentage of operating leases to total fleet have all increased for the majority of the airlines reviewed. When operating lease data were capitalized, debt ratios weakened, providing further evidence of deterioration in the financial health of air carriers.

Gritta, Richard D.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Productivity Analysis of Public and Private Airports: A Causal Investigation

Around the world, airports are being viewed as enterprises, rather than public services, which are expected to be managed efficiently and provide passengers with courteous customer services. Governments are, increasingly, turning to the private sectors for their efficiency in managing the operation, financing, and development, as well as providing security for airports. Operational and financial performance evaluation has become increasingly important to airport operators due to recent trends in airport privatization. Assessing performance allows the airport operators to plan for human resources and capital investment as efficiently as possible. Productivity measurements may be used as comparisons and guidelines in strategic planning, in the internal analysis of operational efficiency and effectiveness, and in assessing the competitive position of an airport in transportation industry. The primary purpose of this paper is to investigate the operational and financial efficiencies of 22 major airports in the United States and Europe. These airports are divided into three groups based on private ownership (7 British Airport Authority airports), public ownership (8 major United States airports), and a mix of private and public ownership (7 major European Union airports. The detail ownership structures of these airports are presented in Appendix A. Total factor productivity (TFP) model was utilized to measure airport performance in terms of financial and operational efficiencies and to develop a benchmarking tool to identify the areas of strength and weakness. A regression model was then employed to measure the relationship between TFP and ownership structure. Finally a Granger causality test was performed to determine whether ownership structure is a Granger cause of TFP. The results of the analysis presented in this paper demonstrate that there is not a significant relationship between airport TFP and ownership structure. Airport productivity and efficiency is, however dependent upon the level of competition, choice of the market, and regulatory control.

Vasigh, Bijan↗
NASA NTRS2007

A Black-Scholes Approach to Satisfying the Demand in a Failure-Prone Manufacturing System

The goal of this paper is to use a financial model and a hedging strategy in a systems application. In particular, the classical Black-Scholes model, which was developed in 1973 to find the fair price of a financial contract, is adapted to satisfy an uncertain demand in a manufacturing system when one of two production machines is unreliable. This financial model together with a hedging strategy are used to develop a closed formula for the production strategies of each machine. The strategy guarantees that the uncertain demand will be met in probability at the final time of the production process. It is assumed that the production efficiency of the unreliable machine can be modeled as a continuous-time stochastic process. Two simple examples illustrate the result.

Chavez-Fuentes, Jorge R.↗