Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “team”

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 NTRS2014

Imagery Integration Team

The Human Exploration Science Office (KX) provides leadership for NASA's Imagery Integration (Integration 2) Team, an affiliation of experts in the use of engineering-class imagery intended to monitor the performance of launch vehicles and crewed spacecraft in flight. Typical engineering imagery assessments include studying and characterizing the liftoff and ascent debris environments; launch vehicle and propulsion element performance; in-flight activities; and entry, landing, and recovery operations. Integration 2 support has been provided not only for U.S. Government spaceflight (e.g., Space Shuttle, Ares I-X) but also for commercial launch providers, such as Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corporation, servicing the International Space Station. The NASA Integration 2 Team is composed of imagery integration specialists from JSC, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), who have access to a vast pool of experience and capabilities related to program integration, deployment and management of imagery assets, imagery data management, and photogrammetric analysis. The Integration 2 team is currently providing integration services to commercial demonstration flights, Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1), and the Space Launch System (SLS)-based Exploration Missions (EM)-1 and EM-2. EM-2 will be the first attempt to fly a piloted mission with the Orion spacecraft. The Integration 2 Team provides the customer (both commercial and Government) with access to a wide array of imagery options - ground-based, airborne, seaborne, or vehicle-based - that are available through the Government and commercial vendors. The team guides the customer in assembling the appropriate complement of imagery acquisition assets at the customer's facilities, minimizing costs associated with market research and the risk of purchasing inadequate assets. The NASA Integration 2 capability simplifies the process of securing one-of-a-kind imagery assets and skill sets, such as ground-based fixed and tracking cameras, crew-in the-loop imaging applications, and the integration of custom or commercial-off-the-shelf sensors onboard spacecraft. For spaceflight applications, the Integration 2 Team leverages modeling, analytical, and scientific resources along with decades of experience and lessons learned to assist the customer in optimizing engineering imagery acquisition and management schemes for any phase of flight - launch, ascent, on-orbit, descent, and landing. The Integration 2 Team guides the customer in using NASA's world-class imagery analysis teams, which specialize in overcoming inherent challenges associated with spaceflight imagery sets. Precision motion tracking, two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) photogrammetry, image stabilization, 3D modeling of imagery data, lighting assessment, and vehicle fiducial marking assessments are available. During a mission or test, the Integration 2 Team provides oversight of imagery operations to verify fulfillment of imagery requirements. The team oversees the collection, screening, and analysis of imagery to build a set of imagery findings. It integrates and corroborates the imagery findings with other mission data sets, generating executive summaries to support time-critical mission decisions.

Calhoun, Tracy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Diversity and Inclusion in Spacecraft Science Teams: What Do We Know and What Can We Do About It?

Introduction: Not only does the planetary science community lack diversity [1-3], the subset of the community that participates on spacecraft science team is even less diverse than the community as a whole [1, 4]. Results of 2020 Workforce Survey: Previous studies of the diversity of members of spacecraft science teams made incorrect assumptions about the nature of the data before collecting the data. Those analyses assumed a binary gender and ignored the existence of planetary scientists who are neither men nor women [4-6]. We present here results where demographic data was collected without assumptions; each individual surveyed supplied their own answers to demographic questions. The April 2020 survey of Planetary Scientists, which was conducted by the Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and funded by the American Astronomical Society (AAS)’s Division of Planetary Science (DPS) asked participants their gender with 4 possible responses: Woman, Man, Another identify (please specify if you wish), and Prefer not to answer. 32% of respondents chose Woman, 67% chose Man and 1% chose Another gender identity [1]. The survey also asked demographic questions on race, ethnicity, LGBTQ+ identity, and disability. For a full list of questions, see https://dps.aas.org/sites/dps.aas.org/files/reports/2020/survey2020_questionnaire.pdf. In addition to demographic questions, the 2020 Workforce survey asked how many times respondents had been involved in Mission proposals as a Principal Investigator (PI) and, separately, as a Co-Investigator (CoI) [1]. Answers to questions about mission involvement were correlated with answers to demographic questions and the results show that members of historically underrepresented groups (non-white scientists, women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and disabled scientists) were less likely to be involved in spacecraft mission proposals than were members of historically overrepresented groups [1]. The figures below show the correlated responses for four different axes of underrepresentation [1]. Note that while the figure on gender shows only Women and Men (due to the small percentage of folks answering “Another gender”), non-binary respondents are included in the LGBTQ+ community figure. Conclusion: Being part of a spacecraft science team is a goal for many planetary scientists. With it comes brand new data, more stable funding, and a sense of awe and exploration. It can lead to a cascade of opportunities from conference and public presentations, to membership in subsequent mission teams, and prestige in the community [4]. As a result, participation in spacecraft teams can be used a measure of success within the field. From the survey results, we see that members of historically excluded groups, even after they have overcome barriers to participating in the field, are still experiencing barriers to success within the field itself. Why?: The diminishing percentage of members of underrepresented groups as a career progresses has been referred to as a “leaky pipeline”. However, this fails to adequately capture the experiences of the members of these underrepresented groups as it implies a passive process. In order to capture the active processes (bias, discrimination, harassment, and other exclusionary behaviors) that contribute to low retention in the workforce, the term “Hostile Obstacle Course” is more useful [7,8]. It is these processes that need to be addressed in order to retain valued members of our community. Moving Forward: In order to broaden participation in planetary science, particularly mission science teams, we need to address conditions that create hostile workplace climates. What can mission teams and other groups do to address these conditions? First, each group/team needs to evaluate their own members to determine what specific barriers exist in their own interactions. One tool to accomplish this would be an anonymous survey designed to understand how team members feel about working within the group. Working with professionals who know how to create and analyze such surveys (often called “climate surveys” when applied to University students, for example) would ensure that the survey meets its goals and does not make assumptions that counter the meaningfulness of the results. Such professionals in EDIA (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) and workplace culture can make suggestions for policy changes that would eliminate hostile workplace conditions. Policy changes that are often suggested include instituting professional EDIA training for the team and/or for team leadership, instituting and following a code of conduct [9], including more interactive group activities in group meetings, etc. Training and information on EDIA is available for all members of the planetary science community. The first place to look would be in your University or Institution’s EDIA or human resources offices. Bystander Intervention is often offered as part of other meetings [10]. A newer offering is a Workshop on EDIA for Leaders in Planetary Science led by Julie Rathbun (first author of this abstract) and JA Grier (https://edialps.psi.edu/). This 3-day workshop gives participants the tools they need to enact positive change in their personal and professional spheres. The first workshop was help in November 2022 and another workshop will take place in the late spring 2023 with exact dates to be announced soon.

J. A. Rathbun↗
NASA NTRS1992

Team dynamics in isolated, confined environments - Saturation divers and high altitude climbers

The effects of leadership dynamics and social organization factors on team performance under conditions of high altitude climbing and deep sea diving are studied. Teams of two to four members that know each other well and have a relaxed informal team structure with much sharing of responsibilities are found to do better than military teams with more than four members who do not know each other well and have a formal team structure with highly specialized rules. Professionally guided teams with more than four members, a formally defined team structure, and clearly designated role assignments did better than 'club' teams of more than four members with a fairly informal team structure and little role specialization.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Sounds like Team Spirit

I recently accompanied my son Dan to one of his guitar lessons. As I sat in a separate room, I focused on the music he was playing and the beautiful, robust sound that comes from a well-played guitar. Later that night, I woke up around 3 am. I tend to have my best thoughts at this hour. The trouble is I usually roll over and fall back asleep. This time I was still awake an hour later, so I got up and jotted some notes down in my study. I was thinking about the pure, honest sound of a well-played instrument. From there my mind wandered into the realm of high-performance teams and successful projects. (I know this sounds weird, but this is the sort of thing I think about at 3 am. Maybe you have your own weird thoughts around that time.) Consider a team in relation to music. It seems to me that a crack team can achieve a beautiful, perfect unity in the same way that a band of brilliant musicians can when they're in harmony with one another. With more than a little satisfaction I have to admit, I started to think about the great work performed for you by the Knowledge Sharing team, including this magazine you are reading. Over the past two years I personally have received some of my greatest pleasures as the APPL Director from the Knowledge Sharing activities - the Masters Forums, NASA Center visits, ASK Magazine. The Knowledge Sharing team expresses such passion for their work, just like great musicians convey their passion in the music they play. In the case of Knowledge Sharing, there are many factors that have made this so enjoyable (and hopefully worthwhile for NASA). Three ingredients come to mind -- ingredients that have produced a signature sound. First, through the crazy, passionate playing of Alex Laufer, Michelle Collins, Denise Lee, and Todd Post, I always know that something startling and original is going to come out of their activities. This team has consistently done things that are unique and innovative. For me, best of all is that they are always trying to improve on what they've done before. Second, success in any endeavor stems from people who know how to interpret a composition to sound beautiful when played in a different style. For Knowledge Sharing to work, it must be adapted, reinterpreted, shaped and played with at the centers. In this regard, we've been blessed with another crazy, passionate, inspired artist named Claire Smith. Claire has turned Ames Research Center in California into APPL-west. She is so good and committed to what she does that I just refer people to her whenever they have questions about implementing project management development at the field level. Finally, any great effort requires talented people working behind the scenes, the people who formulate a business approach and know how to manage the money so that the music gets heard. I have known many brilliant and creative people with a ton of ideas that never take off due to an inability to work the business. Again, the Knowledge Sharing team has been fortunate to have competent and passionate people, specifically Tony Maturo and his procurement team at Goddard Space Flight Center, to make sure the process is in place to support the effort. This kind of support is every bit as crucial as the activity itself, and the efforts and creativity that go into successful procurement and contracting is a vital ingredient of this successful team.

Hoffman, Edward↗
NASA NTRS1998

Modeling and Analysis of Multidiscipline Research Teams at NASA Langley Research Center: A Systems Thinking Approach

Multidisciplinary analysis and design is inherently a team activity due to the variety of required expertise and knowledge. As a team activity, multidisciplinary research cannot escape the issues that affect all teams. The level of technical diversity required to perform multidisciplinary analysis and design makes the teaming aspects even more important. A study was conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center to develop a model of multidiscipline teams that can be used to help understand their dynamics and identify key factors that influence their effectiveness. The study sought to apply the elements of systems thinking to better understand the factors, both generic and Langley-specific, that influence the effectiveness of multidiscipline teams. The model of multidiscipline research teams developed during this study has been valuable in identifying means to enhance team effectiveness, recognize and avoid problem behaviors, and provide guidance for forming and coordinating multidiscipline teams.

Waszak, Martin R.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Concurrent Mission and Systems Design at NASA Glenn Research Center: The Origins of the COMPASS Team

Established at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in 2006 to meet the need for rapid mission analysis and multi-disciplinary systems design for in-space and human missions, the Collaborative Modeling for Parametric Assessment of Space Systems (COMPASS) team is a multidisciplinary, concurrent engineering group whose primary purpose is to perform integrated systems analysis, but it is also capable of designing any system that involves one or more of the disciplines present in the team. The authors were involved in the development of the COMPASS team and its design process, and are continuously making refinements and enhancements. The team was unofficially started in the early 2000s as part of the distributed team known as Team JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) in support of the multi-center collaborative JIMO spacecraft design during Project Prometheus. This paper documents the origins of a concurrent mission and systems design team at GRC and how it evolved into the COMPASS team, including defining the process, gathering the team and tools, building the facility, and performing studies.

McGuire, Melissa L.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Trusted Communication: Utilizing Speech Communication to Enhance Human-Machine Teaming Success

An area of increasing interest for the next generation of aircraft is autonomy and the integration of increasingly autonomous systems into the national airspace. Such an integration requires humans to work closely with autonomous systems, forming teams. Our hypothesis is that a team composed of both humans and autonomous systems will operate better than either entity alone. We have existing procedures for certifying pilots to operate in the national airspace and are currently working on methods for validating the function of autonomous systems, however we have no method in place for assessing the interaction of these two disparate systems. Communication is one avenue. This paper will examine the use of language as a metric for ascertaining human-machine teaming effectiveness. A proof-of-concept of the application of two communication-based analysis techniques, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), for the prediction of success in human/chatbot teaming was conducted. By running these analyses over data from the 2014 and 2015 Loebner Prize competitions of human/chatbot teaming, numerical scores were obtained that can be associated with scores provided by human judges during the competition. Correlating their LIWC and LSA data with the scores provided by the judges, and using linear regression over this correlation, formulae were obtained that predict the score of human/chatbot interaction. These formulae were tested over the 2013 Loebner Prize transcripts, determining that, though there was strong correlation between predicted and actual scores, the predictive success of this method was not strong. However, with specialized topic spaces and lexica, as well as larger data sets, the predictive power of these metrics will improve. Given the importance of providing metrics for human-machine system team success and given the promise shown by the communication-basedLIWCand LSAmethods, continuing research in this area is necessary. After examining the potential for using communication and spoken language as a metric for the success of human/autonomous system teaming, this paper then examines aspects inherent to communication systems that may contribute to unreliability and reduced trust. Modern natural language processing tools rely on deep learning algorithms to create language rules that produce accurate results, but these rules are uninterpretable. The resulting blackbox system lacks transparency necessary for full validation and complete trust. Additionally, speech-based interfaces pose other difficulties to developing coordinated teamwork between humans and autonomous systems. Human communication is infrequently limited to speech only, instead usually relying on a combination of verbal, gestural, and general body language communication. Reducing an analysis of team effectiveness to a study of spoken language alone is problematic as it leaves these other equally important forms of communication out. This paper will examine these problems and the general deficiencies in speech-based metrics for human-machine teaming.

E L Meszaros↗
NASA NTRS2021

Remote Concurrent Engineering: A-Team Studies in the Virtual World

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s)Architecture Team (A-Team) has nearly a decade of experiencein maturing early formulation mission and technology conceptsby combining innovative collaborative engineering methodswith cutting-edge subject matter expertise and advancedanalysis tools in an in-person environment. When COVID-19forced JPL’s workforce to work remotely in March 2020, ATeamhad to quickly pivot from an in-person collaborativeenvironment to a remote working environment.Through introspection, careful planning, and considerablepractice, A-Team was able to develop new operating proceduresto effectively continue early formulation studies in a virtualenvironment. A-Team has held over 57 remote studies in the 10months since the start of mandatory telework at JPL in March2020. In the remote setting, A-Team conducts studies in half-daysessions with clients and subject matter experts (SMEs) viavideoconferencing, shared computer screens, and digitalcollaborative tools.The key lesson is that increased staffing and planning is neededto prepare and successfully run remote A-Team studies. RemoteA-Team studies require careful selection of the appropriatetools for security, accessibility, and usability within theNASA/JPL environment. Knowledge capture methods andtemplates need to be thought out and agreed upon in advance asthere is less room for improvising in a remote format. Variouscommunication channels have to be monitored to allow for teamcoordination while maintaining fruitful participant engagementduring a session. In addition, technical backup for all roleswithin the A-Team have to be identified to allow the study tocontinue even if a team member’s connectivity is temporarilyinterrupted. Finally, careful thought has to be put into methodsand processes to create a collaborative environment in a virtualspace such that a group of experts who are only connected viathe internet can experience the creative spark and flow of a greatcollaborative and innovative study.

Zusack, Steven↗
NASA NTRS2005

The NASA Exploration Design Team; Blueprint for a New Design Paradigm

NASA has chosen JPL to deliver a NASA-wide rapid-response real-time collaborative design team to perform rapid execution of program, system, mission, and technology trade studies. This team will draw on the expertise of all NASA centers and external partners necessary. The NASA Exploration Design Team (NEDT) will be led by NASA Headquarters, with field centers and partners added according to the needs of each study. Through real-time distributed collaboration we will effectively bring all NASA field centers directly inside Headquarters. JPL's Team X pioneered the technique of real time collaborative design 8 years ago. Since its inception, Team X has performed over 600 mission studies and has reduced per-study cost by a factor of 5 and per-study duration by a factor of 10 compared to conventional design processes. The Team X concept has spread to other NASA centers, industry, academia, and international partners. In this paper, we discuss the extension of the JPL Team X process to the NASA-wide collaborative design team. We discuss the architecture for such a process and elaborate on the implementation challenges of this process. We further discuss our current ideas on how to address these challenges.

Team X↗
NASA NTRS1993

Technology Applications Team: Applications of aerospace technology

Highlights of the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) Applications Team activities over the past quarter are presented in Section 1.0. The Team's progress in fulfilling the requirements of the contract is summarized in Section 2.0. In addition to our market-driven approach to applications project development, RTI has placed increased effort on activities to commercialize technologies developed at NASA Centers. These Technology Commercialization efforts are summarized in Section 3.0. New problem statements prepared by the Team in the reporting period are presented in Section 4.0. The Team's transfer activities for ongoing projects with the NASA Centers are presented in Section 5.0. Section 6.0 summarizes the status of four add-on tasks. Travel for the reporting period is described in Section 7.0. The RTI Team staff and consultants and their project responsibilities are listed in Appendix A. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of many individuals to the RTI Technology Applications Team program. The time and effort contributed by managers, engineers, and scientists throughout NASA were essential to program success. Most important to the program has been a productive working relationship with the NASA Field Center Technology Utilization (TU) Offices. The RTI Team continues to strive for improved effectiveness as a resource to these offices. Industry managers, technical staff, medical researchers, and clinicians have been cooperative and open in their participation. The RTI Team looks forward to continuing expansion of its interaction with U.S. industry to facilitate the transfer of aerospace technology to the private sector.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1993

NASA technology applications team: Applications of aerospace technology

This report covers the activities of the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) Technology Applications Team for the period 1 October 1992 through 30 September 1993. The work reported herein was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Contract No. NASW-4367. Highlights of the RTI Applications Team activities over the past year are presented in Section 1.0. The Team's progress in fulfilling the requirements of the contract is summarized in Section 2.0. In addition to our market-driven approach to applications project development, RTI has placed increased effort on activities to commercialize technologies developed at NASA Centers. These Technology Commercialization efforts are summarized in Section 3.0. New problem statements prepared by the Team in the reporting period are presented in Section 4.0. The Team's transfer activities for ongoing projects with the NASA Centers are presented in Section 5.0. Section 6.0 summarizes the status of four add-on tasks. Travel for the reporting period is described in Section 7.0. The RTI Team staff and consultants and their project responsibilities are listed in Appendix A. Appendix B includes Technology Opportunity Announcements and Spinoff! Sheets prepared by the Team while Appendix C contains a series of technology transfer articles prepared by the Team.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

High-school Student Teams in a National NASA Microgravity Science Competition

The Dropping In a Microgravity Environment or DIME competition for high-school-aged student teams has completed the first year for nationwide eligibility after two regional pilot years. With the expanded geographic participation and increased complexity of experiments, new lessons were learned by the DIME staff. A team participating in DIME will research the field of microgravity, develop a hypothesis, and prepare a proposal for an experiment to be conducted in a NASA microgravity drop tower. A team of NASA scientists and engineers will select the top proposals and then the selected teams will design and build their experiment apparatus. When completed, team representatives will visit NASA Glenn in Cleveland, Ohio to operate their experiment in the 2.2 Second Drop Tower and participate in workshops and center tours. NASA participates in a wide variety of educational activities including competitive events. There are competitive events sponsored by NASA (e.g. NASA Student Involvement Program) and student teams mentored by NASA centers (e.g. For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology Robotics Competition). This participation by NASA in these public forums serves to bring the excitement of aerospace science to students and educators.Researchers from academic institutions, NASA, and industry utilize the 2.2 Second Drop Tower at NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio for microgravity research. The researcher may be able to complete the suite of experiments in the drop tower but many experiments are precursor experiments for spaceflight experiments. The short turnaround time for an experiment's operations (45 minutes) and ready access to experiment carriers makes the facility amenable for use in a student program. The pilot year for DIME was conducted during the 2000-2001 school year with invitations sent out to Ohio- based schools and organizations. A second pilot year was conducted during the 2001-2002 school year for teams in the six-state region of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The third year for DIME was conducted during the 2002-2003 school year for teams from the fifty United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. An annual national DIME program is planned for the foreseeable future. Presented in this paper will be a description of DIME, an overview of the planning and execution of such a program, results from the first three years, and lessons learned from the first national competition.

DeLombard, Richard↗
NASA NTRS2006

Human Performance Modeling and Simulation for Launch Team Applications

This paper describes ongoing research into modeling and simulation of humans for launch team analysis, training, and evaluation. The initial research is sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)'s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) and NASA's Exploration Program and is focused on current and future launch team operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The paper begins with a description of existing KSC launch team environments and procedures. It then describes the goals of new Simulation and Analysis of Launch Teams (SALT) research. The majority of this paper describes products from the SALT team's initial proof-of-concept effort. These products include a nominal case task analysis and a discrete event model and simulation of launch team performance during the final phase of a shuttle countdown; and a first proof-of-concept training demonstration of launch team communications in which the computer plays most roles, and the trainee plays a role of the trainee's choice. This paper then describes possible next steps for the research team and provides conclusions. This research is expected to have significant value to NASA's Exploration Program.

Peaden, Cary J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

A Team Mental Model Perspective of Pre-Quantitative Risk

This study was conducted to better understand how teams conceptualize risk before it can be quantified, and the processes by which a team forms a shared mental model of this pre-quantitative risk. Using an extreme case, this study analyzes seven months of team meeting transcripts, covering the entire lifetime of the team. Through an analysis of team discussions, a rich and varied structural model of risk emerges that goes significantly beyond classical representations of risk as the product of a negative consequence and a probability. In addition to those two fundamental components, the team conceptualization includes the ability to influence outcomes and probabilities, networks of goals, interaction effects, and qualitative judgments about the acceptability of risk, all affected by associated uncertainties. In moving from individual to team mental models, team members employ a number of strategies to gain group recognition of risks and to resolve or accept differences.

Cooper, Lynne P.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Spreadsheets in Team X: Preserving Order in an Inherently Chaotic Environment

JPL is NASA's prime center for deep space missions. In response to the need to reduce the cost and time to complete early concept studies and proposals JPL created the first concurrent engineering team in the aerospace industry: Team X. Started in 1995, Team X has carried out over 800 studies, dramatically reducing the time and cost involved, and has been the model for other concurrent engineering teams both within NASA and throughout the larger aerospace community. Since its inception, the software backbone of this highly successful design team - engaged in examining some of NASA's cutting edge concepts - has been the unassuming spreadsheet. Over the years the Team X spreadsheet-based tools have evolved from simple standalone engineering models into a networked spreadsheet intensive system with real time parameter updating. Recent new capabilities include stochastic cost estimation and a graphical drag and drop block diagram that automatically populates the related spreadsheet parameters of cost, mass and power. This paper describes how the spreadsheet functions within Team X: its history, architecture, current capabilities, enabling strengths and persistent weaknesses. In addition, the verification methods and institutional oversight that have evolved as the Team X products became increasingly critical to Laboratory success are also discussed.

concurrent engineering↗
NASA NTRS2015

Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team

A team is defined as: "two or more individuals who interact socially and adaptively, have shared or common goals, and hold meaningful task interdependences; it is hierarchically structured and has a limited life span; in it expertise and roles are distributed; and it is embedded within an organization/environmental context that influences and is influenced by ongoing processes and performance outcomes" (Salas, Stagl, Burke, & Goodwin, 2007, p. 189). From the NASA perspective, a team is commonly understood to be a collection of individuals that is assigned to support and achieve a particular mission. Thus, depending on context, this definition can encompass both the spaceflight crew and the individuals and teams in the larger multi-team system who are assigned to support that crew during a mission. The Team Risk outcomes of interest are predominantly performance related, with a secondary emphasis on long-term health; this is somewhat unique in the NASA HRP in that most Risk areas are medically related and primarily focused on long-term health consequences. In many operational environments (e.g., aviation), performance is assessed as the avoidance of errors. However, the research on performance errors is ambiguous. It implies that actions may be dichotomized into "correct" or "incorrect" responses, where incorrect responses or errors are always undesirable. Researchers have argued that this dichotomy is a harmful oversimplification, and it would be more productive to focus on the variability of human performance and how organizations can manage that variability (Hollnagel, Woods, & Leveson, 2006) (Category III1). Two problems occur when focusing on performance errors: 1) the errors are infrequent and, therefore, difficult to observe and record; and 2) the errors do not directly correspond to failure. Research reveals that humans are fairly adept at correcting or compensating for performance errors before such errors result in recognizable or recordable failures. Astronauts are notably adept high performers. Most failures are recorded only when multiple, small errors occur and humans are unable to recognize and correct or compensate for these errors in time to prevent a failure (Dismukes, Berman, Loukopoulos, 2007) (Category III). More commonly, observers record variability in levels of performance. Some teams commit no observable errors but fail to achieve performance objectives or perform only adequately, while other teams commit some errors but perform spectacularly. Successful performance, therefore, cannot be viewed as simply the absence of errors or the avoidance of failure Johnson Space Center (JSC) Joint Leadership Team, 2008). While failure is commonly attributed to making a major error, focusing solely on the elimination of error(s) does not significantly reduce the risk of failure. Failure may also occur when performance is simply insufficient or an effort is incapable of adjusting sufficiently to a contextual change (e.g., changing levels of autonomy).

Landon, Lauren Blackwell↗
NASA NTRS2015

Essentials for Team Based Rehearsals and the Differences Between Earth Orbiting and Deep Space Missions

The mission readiness environment is where spacecraft and ground systems converge to form the entire as built flight system for the final phase of operationally-themed testing. For most space missions, this phase starts between nine to twelve months prior to the planned launch. In the mission readiness environment, the goal is to perform sufficient testing to exercise the flight teams and systems through all mission phases in order to demonstrate that all elements are ready to support. As part of the maturation process, a mission rehearsal program is introduced to focus on team processes within the final flight system, in a more realistic operational environment. The overall goal for a mission rehearsal program is to: 1) ensure all flight system elements are able to meet mission objectives as a cohesive team; 2) reduce the risk in space based operations due to deficiencies in people, processes, procedures, or systems; and 3) instill confidence in the teams that will execute these first time flight activities. A good rehearsal program ensures critical events are exercised, discovers team or flight system nuances whose impact were previously unknown, and provides a real-time environment in which to interact with the various teams and systems. For flight team members, the rehearsal program provides experience and training in the event of planned (or unplanned) flight contingencies. To preserve the essence for team based rehearsals, this paper will explore the important elements necessary for a successful rehearsal program, document differences driven by Earth Orbiting (Aqua, Aura, Suomi-National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP)) and Deep Space missions (New Horizons, Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN)) and discuss common challenges to both mission types. In addition, large scale program considerations and enhancements or additional steps for developing a rehearsal program will also be considered. For NASA missions, the mission rehearsal phase is a key milestone for predicting and ensuring on-orbit success.

Gomez-Rosa, Carlos↗
NASA NTRS2021

What Makes Hybrid Concurrent Engineering Teams Work and Not Work: A Theoretical Analysis

Aerospace concurrent engineering teams (CETs) have been around since 1995 and have evolved into various shapes and forms. Historically, CETs have been designed to function with all team members physically collocated. In order to continue operating during the coronavirus pandemic, these teams have had to become fully distributed in 2020. Previously, distributed CETs were predicted to be considerably less efficient than traditional CETs. However, at JPL studies are being successfully run at peak rate in a distributed mode. As nominal working conditions resume after the pandemic, a major question is whether these teams must go back to being fully collocated or if they can become successful hybrid teams, with half or more of the engineers working remotely. In order to address this question, it is important to understand the key characteristics that make a CET more likely to be successful in a remote mode. This paper revisits a framework for characterizing concurrent engineering teams, providing a means to describe and compare the behavior of concurrent engineering teams in various settings [1], and uses the framework to make recommendations for future hybrid teams.

Chattopadhyay, Debarati↗