SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “team building”

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 NTRS2016

Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team (A-Team). The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an ATeam study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels (CML) are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram (SRD). In the process of developing the SRD, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid towards developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions and reveal the mission concept’s most compelling science. This paper will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.In June of 2011 a new collaborative engineering approach forearly concept formulation began in the JPL InnovationFoundry [1], six months later becoming the “A-Team” [2].Responding to a need for exploring mission architecturelevel trades [3], the A-Team precedes Team X [4,5] in asequence of concurrent engineering teams at JPL that can beused to mature a concept from a “cocktail napkin” level ideato a complete mission point design. The A-Team efficientlyexplores the science, implementation, and programmatictrade space in early concept formulation. Small, facilitatedgroups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitativelyassess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the tradespace through collaborative analysis and use of advancedmethods and tools. The A-Team process builds off theexperience within JPL and other recent approaches to earlyconcept formulation [6] including best practices of the JPLInnovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering &Formulation Section, Team Eureka and the Rapid MissionArchitecture Team[7].The A-Team is a focal point for innovative formulationapproaches and people within JPL. It relies on a largebackground of study resources, creative thinkers and “greybeard” scrutinizers, advanced tools, and subject matterexperts with both breadth and depth in experience andexpertise that are all available at JPL. The A-Team isdesigned to be a rapid and efficient process takingapproximately 6 weeks (the entire process can be as short asjust a few days or as long as up to three months) and costingthe equivalent of a work-month of a full-time employee orless. Studies begin with detailed planning and client reviewfollowed by study sessions, analysis work, and reporting.The staffing on each study is customized to the study goalsand objectives, and it is addressed early in the A-Teamprocess. Sessions are generally half-day or whole-day eventsand conducted over a series of days with focused agendas thatare moderated by a trained facilitator. Preliminary results andknowledge capture are available within hours of each session,and a final report is generally available two weeks later.One of the biggest challenges facing early conceptdevelopment is understanding the gradient in science returnversus various available mission scenarios and payload options. Often times, major areas of scientific inquiry havealready been prioritized by science groups, including throughthe National Research Council’s Decadal Studies inAstronomy, Planetary, and Earth Science. Yet science teamscontinue to struggle, especially in competitive missionsolicitations, to capture the right amount of scope that’sachievable within the cost constraints of the opportunity.Often the desire to completely and comprehensively study ascience area in just one mission (after all, true missionopportunities are rare) drives teams to take on too much,providing requirements that are unachievable within theresources of the opportunity without inducing unacceptableimplementation risk. Alternatively, science teams can seekto reduce risk by using an established instrument, but havenot thought through the traceability and key aspects of thescience question to justify its use. Both scenarios lead to badassumptions at the beginning of the concept development thatcan then ripple through implementation option choices,potentially preventing what would have been a good scienceinvestigation from being selected.The purpose of this paper is first to provide some additionalbackground and summary of the A-Team process, tools,people, and facilities. We then focus on the A-Teammethodology for overcoming the barriers of defining thescience scope well at the early concept development stage.This includes understanding the science story andtraceability, and then examining the gradient in science returnversus key characteristics of observables, developing theright payload and mission requirement specification throughexamining the science and implementation trade space.

Ziemer, John K.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Robotic Specialization in Autonomous Robotic Structural Assembly

Robotic in-space assembly of large space structures is a long-term NASA goal to reduce launch costs and enable larger scale missions. Recently, researchers have proposed using discrete lattice building blocks and co-designed robots to build high-performance, scalable primary structure for various on-orbit and surface applications. These robots would locomote on the lattice and work in teams to build and reconfigure building-blocks into functional structure. However, the most reliable and efficient robotic system architecture, characterized by the number of different robotic 'species' and the allocation of functionality between species, is an open question. To address this problem, we decompose the robotic building-block assembly task into functional primitives and, in simulation, study the performance of the the variety of possible resulting architectures. For a set consisting of five process types (move self, move block, move friend, align bock, fasten block), we describe a method of feature space exploration and ranking based on energy and reliability cost functions. The solution space is enumerated, filtered for unique solutions, and evaluated against energy and reliability cost functions for various simulated build sizes. We find that a 2 species system, dividing the five mentioned process types between one unit cell transport robot and one fastening robot, results in the lowest energy cost system, at some cost to reliability. This system enables fastening functionality to occupy the build front while reducing the need for that functional mass to travel back and forth from a feed station. Because the details of a robot design affect the weighting and final allocation of functionality, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of changing mass allocations on architecture performance. Future systems with additional functionalities such as repair, inspection, and others may use this process to analyze and determine alternative robot architectures.

Bernus, Borbala↗

NASA NTRS2020

Osiris-Rex Shape Model Performance During the Navigation Campaign

The Navigation Campaign of the OSIRIS-REx mission began when the first image of Bennu was recorded by the PolyCam high-resolution imager on Au-gust 17, 2018. In the ensuing months, two teams began building shape models based on imagery taken during the Approach and Preliminary survey phases to be used for the transition to landmark navigation in the Orbital A phase. The orbit determination team began analyzing and characterizing the performance and errors associated with each shape model delivery working closely to iterate on the next shape model delivery. By the end of Orbital A, shape models produced by the Altimetry Working Group and JPL exceeded pre-launch performance re-quirements. This paper provides a summary of the analysis performed during operations.

Leonard, Jason M.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Big Software for SmallSats: Adapting CFS to CubeSat Missions

Expanding capabilities and mission objectives for SmallSats and CubeSats is driving the need for reliable, reusable, and robust flight software. While missions are becoming more complicated and the scientific goals more ambitious, the level of acceptable risk has decreased. Design challenges are further compounded by budget and schedule constraints that have not kept pace. NASA's Core Flight Software System (cFS) is an open source solution which enables teams to build flagship satellite level flight software within a CubeSat schedule and budget. NASA originally developed cFS to reduce mission and schedule risk for flagship satellite missions by increasing code reuse and reliability. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which launched in 2009, was the first of a growing list of Class B rated missions to use cFS. Large parts of cFS are now open source, which has spurred adoption outside of NASA. This paper reports on the experiences of two teams using cFS for current CubeSat missions. The performance overheads of cFS are quantified, and the reusability of code between missions is discussed. The analysis shows that cFS is well suited to use on CubeSats and demonstrates the portability and modularity of cFS code.

Open Source↗

NASA NTRS1996

Balancing Science Objectives and Operational Constraints: A Mission Planner's Challenge

The Air Force minute sensor technology integration (MSTI-3) satellite's primary mission is to characterize Earth's atmospheric background clutter. MSTI-3 will use three cameras for data collection, a mid-wave infrared imager, a short wave infrared imager, and a visible imaging spectrometer. Mission science objectives call for the collection of over 2 million images within the one year mission life. In addition, operational constraints limit camera usage to four operations of twenty minutes per day, with no more than 10,000 data and calibrating images collected per day. To balance the operational constraints and science objectives, the mission planning team has designed a planning process to e event schedules and sensor operation timelines. Each set of constraints, including spacecraft performance capabilities, the camera filters, the geographical regions, and the spacecraft-Sun-Earth geometries of interest, and remote tracking station deconflictions has been accounted for in this methodology. To aid in this process, the mission planning team is building a series of tools from commercial off-the-shelf software. These include the mission manifest which builds a daily schedule of events, and the MSTI Scene Simulator which helps build geometrically correct scans. These tools provide an efficient, responsive, and highly flexible architecture that maximizes data collection while minimizing mission planning time.

Weldy, Michelle↗

NASA NTRS2002

The Summer Robotic Autonomy Course

We offered a first Robotic Autonomy course this summer, located at NASA/Ames' new NASA Research Park, for approximately 30 high school students. In this 7-week course, students worked in ten teams to build then program advanced autonomous robots capable of visual processing and high-speed wireless communication. The course made use of challenge-based curricula, culminating each week with a Wednesday Challenge Day and a Friday Exhibition and Contest Day. Robotic Autonomy provided a comprehensive grounding in elementary robotics, including basic electronics, electronics evaluation, microprocessor programming, real-time control, and robot mechanics and kinematics. Our course then continued the educational process by introducing higher-level perception, action and autonomy topics, including teleoperation, visual servoing, intelligent scheduling and planning and cooperative problem-solving. We were able to deliver such a comprehensive, high-level education in robotic autonomy for two reasons. First, the content resulted from close collaboration between the CMU Robotics Institute and researchers in the Information Sciences and Technology Directorate and various education program/project managers at NASA/Ames. This collaboration produced not only educational content, but will also be focal to the conduct of formative and summative evaluations of the course for further refinement. Second, CMU rapid prototyping skills as well as the PI's low-overhead perception and locomotion research projects enabled design and delivery of affordable robot kits with unprecedented sensory- locomotory capability. Each Trikebot robot was capable of both indoor locomotion and high-speed outdoor motion and was equipped with a high-speed vision system coupled to a low-cost pan/tilt head. As planned, follow the completion of Robotic Autonomy, each student took home an autonomous, competent robot. This robot is the student's to keep, as she explores robotics with an extremely capable tool in the midst of a new community for roboticists. CMU provided undergraduate course credit for this official course, 16-162U, for 13 students, with all other students receiving course credit from National Hispanic University.

Nourbakhsh, Illah R.↗

NASA NTRS2001

Lessons Learned (3 Years of H2O2 Propulsion System Testing Efforts at NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center)

John C. Stennis Space Center continues to support the Propulsion community in an effort to validate High-Test Peroxide as an alternative to existing/future oxidizers. This continued volume of peroxide test/handling activity at Stennis Space Center (SSC) provides numerous opportunities for the SSC team to build upon previously documented 'lessons learned'. SSC shall continue to strive to document their experience and findings as H2O2 issues surface. This paper is intended to capture all significant peroxide issues that we have learned over the last three years. This data (lessons learned) has been formulated from practical handling, usage, storage, operations, and initial development/design of our systems/facility viewpoint. The paper is intended to be an information type tool and limited in technical rational; therefore, presenting the peroxide community with some issues to think about as the continued interest in peroxide evolves and more facilities/hardware are built. These lessons learned are intended to assist industry in mitigating problems and identifying potential pitfalls when dealing with the requirements for handling high-test peroxide.

Taylor, Gary O.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Wright Flyer Project

The wind tunnel test results have been published in the literature as summarized at the end of this report. As part of the education program, an introduction to engineering course module was designed and tested on 80 freshman engineering students at Old Dominion University. The five-week module required that five-person teams design, build and fly a radio-controlled airplane using only the wind tunnel data developed by the Wright brothers in 1902. That module is described in Sparks and Ash (2001). The Principal Investigator has co-authored one dozen publications resulting from this research, as listed at the end of this report. The Principal Investigator has given fourteen lectures on the Wright brother testing program and has appeared in two documentary television programs (summarized at the end of this report). Speaking invitations have continued since the completion of the project.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2010

Cost Optimization and Technology Enablement COTSAT-1

Cost Optimized Test of Spacecraft Avionics and Technologies (COTSAT-1) is an ongoing spacecraft research and development project at NASA Ames Research Center (ARC). The space industry was a hot bed of innovation and development at its birth. Many new technologies were developed for and first demonstrated in space. In the recent past this trend has reversed with most of the new technology funding and research being driven by the private industry. Most of the recent advances in spaceflight hardware have come from the cell phone industry with a lag of about 10 to 15 years from lab demonstration to in space usage. NASA has started a project designed to address this problem. The prototype spacecraft known as Cost Optimized Test of Spacecraft Avionics and Technologies (COTSAT-1) and CheapSat work to reduce these issues. This paper highlights the approach taken by NASA Ames Research center to achieve significant subsystem cost reductions. The COSTAT-1 research system design incorporates use of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf), MOTS (Modified Off The Shelf), and GOTS (Government Off The Shelf) hardware for a remote sensing spacecraft. The COTSAT-1 team demonstrated building a fully functional spacecraft for $500K parts and $2.0M labor. The COTSAT-1 system, including a selected science payload, is described within this paper. Many of the advancements identified in the process of cost reduction can be attributed to the use of a one-atmosphere pressurized structure to house the spacecraft components. By using COTS hardware, the spacecraft program can utilize investments already made by commercial vendors. This ambitious project development philosophy/cycle has yielded the COTSAT-1 flight hardware. This paper highlights the advancements of the COTSAT-1 spacecraft leading to the delivery of the current flight hardware that is now located at NASA Ames Research Center. This paper also addresses the plans for COTSAT-2.

Spremo, Stevan↗

NASA NTRS2002

Design and Development of a Deep Acoustic Lining for the 40-by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel Test Section

The work described in this report has made effective use of design teams to build a state-of-the-art anechoic wind-tunnel facility. Many potential design solutions were evaluated using engineering analysis, and computational tools. Design alternatives were then evaluated using specially developed testing techniques, Large-scale coupon testing was then performed to develop confidence that the preferred design would meet the acoustic, aerodynamic, and structural objectives of the project. Finally, designs were frozen and the final product was installed in the wind tunnel. The result of this technically ambitious project has been the creation of a unique acoustic wind tunnel. Its large test section (39 ft x 79 ft x SO ft), potentially near-anechoic environment, and medium subsonic speed capability (M = 0.45) will support a full range of aeroacoustic testing-from rotorcraft and other vertical takeoff and landing aircraft to the take-off/landing configurations of both subsonic and supersonic transports.

Soderman, Paul T.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Ruby on Rails Issue Tracker

The purpose of this report is to detail the tasks accomplished as a NASA NIFS intern for the summer 2014 session. This internship opportunity is to develop an issue tracker Ruby on Rails web application to improve the communication of developmental anomalies between the Support Software Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI) teams, System Build and Information Architecture. As many may know software development is an arduous, time consuming, collaborative effort. It involves nearly as much work designing, planning, collaborating, discussing, and resolving issues as effort expended in actual development. This internship opportunity was put in place to help alleviate the amount of time spent discussing issues such as bugs, missing tests, new requirements, and usability concerns that arise during development and throughout the life cycle of software applications once in production.

Ruby on Rails↗

NASA NTRS2015

Big Software for SmallSats: Adapting cFS to CubeSat Missions

Flight Software↗

NASA NTRS2017

NASA's CubeQuest Challenge - From Ground Tournaments to Lunar and Deep Space Derby

The First Flight of NASA's Space Launch System will feature 13 CubeSats that will launch into cis-lunar space. Three of these CubeSats are winners of the CubeQuest Challenge, part of NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Centennial Challenge Program. In order to qualify for launch on EM-1, the winning teams needed to win a series of Ground Tournaments, periodically held since 2015. The final Ground Tournament, GT-4, was held in May 2017, and resulted in the Top 3 selection for the EM-1 launch opportunity. The Challenge now proceeds to the in-space Derbies, where teams must build and test their spacecraft before launch on EM-1. Once in space, they will compete for a variety of Communications and Propulsion-based challenges. This is the first Centennial Challenge to compete in space and is a springboard for future in-space Challenges. In addition, the technologies gained from this challenge will also propel development of deep space CubeSats.

deep space↗

NASA NTRS2017

NASA's CubeQuest Challenge - From Ground Tournaments to Lunar and Deep Space Derby

CubeSats↗

NASA NTRS2017

NASA's CubeQuest Challenge - From Ground Tournaments to Lunar and Deep Space Derby

Deep Space↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing Soft Skill in the Geosciences: NASA DEVELOP’s Approach to Strengthening Soft Skills in the Future Geospatial Workforce

Part of NASA’s Applied Sciences, the DEVELOP Program bridges the gap between NASA Earth Science and potential users through rapid feasibility studies that apply Earth observations to environmental decision making needs. The program conducts 50-60 studies a year that engage participants – students, recent graduates, early career individuals, and transitioning career professionals – in autonomous teamwork with an emphasis on professional development and communication. The experience offers participants a robust opportunity to build their teaming skills (facilitated through programmatic personality assessments and discussions), interpersonal communication, and critical thinking skills which are central to project work in the DEVELOP model. The program also offers leadership opportunities where participants lead their peers within a supportive environment. This presentation will introduce the DEVELOP model for soft skill development, lessons learned, and highlight testimonials of past participants.

Amanda Clayton↗

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 NTRS2012

Structural Element Testing in Support of the Design of the NASA Composite Crew Module

In January 2007, the NASA Administrator and Associate Administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate chartered the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) to design, build, and test a full-scale Composite Crew Module (CCM). For the design and manufacturing of the CCM, the team adopted the building block approach where design and manufacturing risks were mitigated through manufacturing trials and structural testing at various levels of complexity. Following NASA's Structural Design Verification Requirements, a further objective was the verification of design analysis methods and the provision of design data for critical structural features. Test articles increasing in complexity from basic material characterization coupons through structural feature elements and large structural components, to full-scale structures were evaluated. This paper discusses only four elements tests three of which include joints and one that includes a tapering honeycomb core detail. For each test series included are specimen details, instrumentation, test results, a brief analysis description, test analysis correlation and conclusions.

Kellas, Sotiris↗