Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “decision framework”

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.

529 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

System Modeling of a Lunar Molten Regolith Electrolysis Plant

Introduction: In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) is the process of extracting local resources to produce commodities for propulsion, life support systems, and off-planet construction rather than transporting consumables from Earth. Molten Regolith Electrolysis (MRE) is a novel ISRU method of extracting oxygen gas and metal alloy from lunar regolith. The MRE process involves placing lunar regolith between two electrodes, through which current is passed, to melt the regolith and reduce the metal oxide constituents by direct electrolysis (e.g. FeO, SiO2, MgO, Al2O3) into oxygen gas and metal alloys. The oxygen is liquefied and used as propellant for landers, while the metals (e.g. Ferro-alloys) are further processed and used in structural building materials and parts manufacturing. A system model was developed that accounted for the major processes of an MRE plant (from excavation of raw materials to storage of products) to assess the feasibility of a lunar MRE plant. The System Engineering and Integration (SE&I) ISRU Modeling and Analysis (SIMA) team utilized its previously documented system sizing model, the Mission Analysis and Integration Tool (MAIT) [1] as framework of the system model. MAIT uses MATLAB/Simulink to integrate subsystem models into a complete system model of the MRE plant. Total mass, volume, and power requirements were computed for numerous iterations of a MRE plant. System Model: Figure 1: MRE Plant Block Diagram The regolith excavation model determines the mass and power needed to excavate sufficient regolith. The preheating auger initiates the regolith heating process before regolith enters the MRE re-actor to reduce the energy required to turn the solid into a molten liquid. The MRE reactor is modeled in COMSOL Multiphysics and based on the research by Dominguez, Sibille, and Schreiner [2, 3, 4]. This preliminary reactor model provides an accurate calculation of thermal equilibrium during electrochemical operation of the reactor system to assess the optimal mass and power required to process the inlet flow of regolith. The model also computes the outlet flowrates of oxygen and molten products. For this analysis, the primary components of the metal alloy considered were iron and silicon. The oxygen is then purified using an Yttrium Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ) electrode, followed by liquefaction using a 90K cryocooler to be stored as liquid oxygen in insulated cylindrical tanks. In future iterations of the system model, the molten metal tapped from the MRE reactor will undergo additional processing or refinement. However, downstream handling of metals is currently a technology gap that is missing a high TRL subsystem model. Therefore, for this analysis, the accumulated metal alloy stream terminates after leaving the MRE reactor. Study Goals: This analysis investigates multiple input variables to the system to determine the sensitivity of a (near) complete plant at full-scale. This preliminary investigation ran parametric sweeps on the MRE reactor geometry, electrical current supply, layers of multi-layer insulation (MLI) on the reactor, size of the electrodes in the oxygen purification model, and regolith composition (based on landing site location). Three production targets of oxygen (1,000, 10,000, and 50,000 kg/yr) were investigated for this analysis. The parametric sweeps conducted in this analysis provide valuable insight into the expected impact of the various model inputs on plant size. This information can be used to identify the most critical components of the plant and guide future decisions on allocating funding for research and development, providing subsystem developers with appropriate interfaces with downstream and upstream processes, and assessing the overall feasibility of MRE when compared to other ISRU plants. References: [1] Carlson, A. et al. (2024) ICES, ICES-2024-53. [2] Dominguez, D.A., and Sibille, L. (2011) AIAA, AIAA-2011-700. [3] Schreiner, S.S. (2015) MIT, Dissertation. [4] Schreiner, S.S. et al. (2016) ASR, 57(7), pp.1585-1603.

ISRU↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing Concepts of Operations Using Multi-Step Tool Techniques With Large Language Models

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Air Mobility Pathfinders (AMP) project is developing and evaluating concepts of operations (ConOps) for safe, secure, and scalable Urban Air Mobility (UAM) operations. The AMP project’s Operational Concepts, Architecture, and Requirements Integration (OCARI) Team is using a Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) approach for integration, interoperability, and traceability of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) ecosystems centered around urban air taxi services. The team’s goal is to define structures and behaviors needed for system feasibility, readiness, and interoperability, establish a UAM knowledge base, and trace and validate assumptions and requirements relevant to AAM. NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) is spearheading an innovative digital engineering approach to integrate, communicate, and facilitate the research of multi-modal transportation systems. The Knowledge-based Digital Platform (KbDP) is a concept being developed that ties the workflows of Project Managers (PM), Principal Investigators (PI), and System Engineers together across organizational boundaries. It does so through the management of an information database defined by mathematical, data science, and system engineering principles. Machine Learning (ML) algorithms play a key role in this concept by extracting meaningful knowledge from relational and graph databases, document repositories, and system artifacts, which the human user leverages to greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their research. Recent advancements in the field of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically models trained for tool use, such as Command-R , now allow for the reliable implementation of single-step and multi-step tool-centric systems. These techniques provide the LLM with a set of tools, in our case Python functions, that can be called on to answer a much wider range of questions compared to LLMs implemented using a traditional single-source or Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) approach. Through this method, the LLM can pull information from multiple data sources, such as relational or graph databases, document repositories, application programming interfaces (APIs), and SysML artifacts depending on the user’s question. The LLM can also output the information in a variety of different formats, using output generation tools, such as CSV, UML, or SysML artifacts. Additionally, tools can be assigned roles and can work together to provide answers to queries in an “agent” like approach, similar to that implemented by Microsoft’s AutoGen framework where different agents can converse with each other to accomplish tasks. Previously, our team developed a chatbot system with “agent like” functionality in the form of different “modes” the user could select from a user interface (UI), this architecture can be seen on the left in figure 1. Three different modes were implemented, the first mode allowed the LLM to utilize the structures and algorithms within a graph database to trace UAM requirements. The second mode gave the LLM access to a vector search capable of providing relevant information from thousands of document pages related to UAM ConOps and requirements. The third mode served as a general assistant where users could enter open-ended questions and custom prompts to utilize the LLM for different use-cases. This system improved the process surrounding generating and analyzing information related to UAM requirements, however, the implementation provided a clunky user experience. Users were required to know what mode to select within the UI in advance before entering their question to the selected tool. Moreover, the different tools were isolated from each other, they lacked bidirectional links that would allow for tools to collaborate to generate better responses. Our team is working on a new architecture, seen on the right in the below figure, with the goal to address many of the UX shortcomings of our original system while improving the accuracy and depth of responses from the LLM. This new system will automatically select the appropriate tool to use based off the user’s question. Each tool will be capable of calling on any of the other tools available to the LLM, resulting in a collaborative pipeline where tools can pass data between other tools until enough data is received to generate an answer to the user’s question. Using a locally deployed, open-source, LLM, the NASA OCARI team, in collaboration with Collins Aerospace, will implement a prototype application that will bridge knowledge across multiple sources to assist System Engineers (SEs) with requirements discovery and tracing, research question and use case identification, and assumption validation. Such a system will also allow SEs to more easily, and intuitively, explore the AAM ecosystem, ultimately improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the SE's research and decision-making processes surrounding ConOps development and validation. In this session, our team will provide a video demonstration of our new prototype architecture in action. We will also present an overview of our prototype system architecture and talk about its advantages over traditional LLM deployments along with how those advantages can provide additional value to the field of System Engineering.

systems engineering↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA System Safety Handbook: System Safety Framework and Concepts for Implementation - Volume 1

System safety assessment is defined in NPR 8715.3C, NASA General Safety Program Requirements as a disciplined, systematic approach to the analysis of risks resulting from hazards that can affect humans, the environment, and mission assets. Achievement of the highest practicable degree of system safety is one of NASA's highest priorities. Traditionally, system safety assessment at NASA and elsewhere has focused on the application of a set of safety analysis tools to identify safety risks and formulate effective controls.1 Familiar tools used for this purpose include various forms of hazard analyses, failure modes and effects analyses, and probabilistic safety assessment (commonly also referred to as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)). In the past, it has been assumed that to show that a system is safe, it is sufficient to provide assurance that the process for identifying the hazards has been as comprehensive as possible and that each identified hazard has one or more associated controls. The NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has made several statements in its annual reports supporting a more holistic approach. In 2006, it recommended that "... a comprehensive risk assessment, communication and acceptance process be implemented to ensure that overall launch risk is considered in an integrated and consistent manner." In 2009, it advocated for "... a process for using a risk-informed design approach to produce a design that is optimally and sufficiently safe." As a rationale for the latter advocacy, it stated that "... the ASAP applauds switching to a performance-based approach because it emphasizes early risk identification to guide designs, thus enabling creative design approaches that might be more efficient, safer, or both." For purposes of this preface, it is worth mentioning three areas where the handbook emphasizes a more holistic type of thinking. First, the handbook takes the position that it is important to not just focus on risk on an individual basis but to consider measures of aggregate safety risk and to ensure wherever possible that there be quantitative measures for evaluating how effective the controls are in reducing these aggregate risks. The term aggregate risk, when used in this handbook, refers to the accumulation of risks from individual scenarios that lead to a shortfall in safety performance at a high level: e.g., an excessively high probability of loss of crew, loss of mission, planetary contamination, etc. Without aggregated quantitative measures such as these, it is not reasonable to expect that safety has been optimized with respect to other technical and programmatic objectives. At the same time, it is fully recognized that not all sources of risk are amenable to precise quantitative analysis and that the use of qualitative approaches and bounding estimates may be appropriate for those risk sources. Second, the handbook stresses the necessity of developing confidence that the controls derived for the purpose of achieving system safety not only handle risks that have been identified and properly characterized but also provide a general, more holistic means for protecting against unidentified or uncharacterized risks. For example, while it is not possible to be assured that all credible causes of risk have been identified, there are defenses that can provide protection against broad categories of risks and thereby increase the chances that individual causes are contained. Third, the handbook strives at all times to treat uncertainties as an integral aspect of risk and as a part of making decisions. The term "uncertainty" here does not refer to an actuarial type of data analysis, but rather to a characterization of our state of knowledge regarding results from logical and physical models that approximate reality. Uncertainty analysis finds how the output parameters of the models are related to plausible variations in the input parameters and in the modeling assumptions. The evaluation of unrtainties represents a method of probabilistic thinking wherein the analyst and decision makers recognize possible outcomes other than the outcome perceived to be "most likely." Without this type of analysis, it is not possible to determine the worth of an analysis product as a basis for making decisions related to safety and mission success. In line with these considerations the handbook does not take a hazard-analysis-centric approach to system safety. Hazard analysis remains a useful tool to facilitate brainstorming but does not substitute for a more holistic approach geared to a comprehensive identification and understanding of individual risk issues and their contributions to aggregate safety risks. The handbook strives to emphasize the importance of identifying the most critical scenarios that contribute to the risk of not meeting the agreed-upon safety objectives and requirements using all appropriate tools (including but not limited to hazard analysis). Thereafter, emphasis shifts to identifying the risk drivers that cause these scenarios to be critical and ensuring that there are controls directed toward preventing or mitigating the risk drivers. To address these and other areas, the handbook advocates a proactive, analytic-deliberative, risk-informed approach to system safety, enabling the integration of system safety activities with systems engineering and risk management processes. It emphasizes how one can systematically provide the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim that a system is safe to within an acceptable risk tolerance, and that safety has been achieved in a cost-effective manner. The methodology discussed in this handbook is part of a systems engineering process and is intended to be integral to the system safety practices being conducted by the NASA safety and mission assurance and systems engineering organizations. The handbook posits that to conclude that a system is adequately safe, it is necessary to consider a set of safety claims that derive from the safety objectives of the organization. The safety claims are developed from a hierarchy of safety objectives and are therefore hierarchical themselves. Assurance that all the claims are true within acceptable risk tolerance limits implies that all of the safety objectives have been satisfied, and therefore that the system is safe. The acceptable risk tolerance limits are provided by the authority who must make the decision whether or not to proceed to the next step in the life cycle. These tolerances are therefore referred to as the decision maker's risk tolerances. In general, the safety claims address two fundamental facets of safety: 1) whether required safety thresholds or goals have been achieved, and 2) whether the safety risk is as low as possible within reasonable impacts on cost, schedule, and performance. The latter facet includes consideration of controls that are collective in nature (i.e., apply generically to broad categories of risks) and thereby provide protection against unidentified or uncharacterized risks.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRS2011

Constellation Program: Lessons Learned: Executive Summary - Volume 1

This document (Volume I) provides an executive summary of the lessons learned from the Constellation Program. A companion Volume II provides more detailed analyses for those seeking further insight and information. In this volume, Section 1.0 introduces the approach in preparing and organizing the content to enable rapid assimilation of the lessons. Section 2.0 describes the contextual framework in which the Constellation Program was formulated and functioned that is necessary to understand most of the lessons. Context of a former program may seem irrelevant in the heady days of new program formulation. However, readers should take some time to understand the context. Many of the lessons would be different in a different context, so the reader should reflect on the similarities and differences in his or her current circumstances. Section 3.0 summarizes key findings developed from the significant lessons learned at the program level that appear in Section 4.0. Readers can use the key findings in Section 3.0 to peruse for particular topics, and will find more supporting detail and analyses in Section 4.0 in a topical format. Appendix A contains a white paper describing the Constellation Program formulation that may be of use to readers wanting more context or background information. The reader will no doubt recognize some very similar themes from previous lessons learned, blue-ribbon committee reviews, National Academy reviews, and advisory panel reviews for this and other large-scale human spaceflight programs; including Apollo, Space Shuttle, Shuttle/Mir, and the ISS. This could represent an inability to learn lessons from previous generations; however, it is more likely that similar challenges persist in the Agency structure and approach to program formulation, budget advocacy, and management. Perhaps the greatest value of these Constellation lessons learned can be found in viewing them in context with these previous efforts to guide and advise the Agency and its stakeholders.

Constellation Program↗
NASA NTRS2012

Creation of a Rapid High-Fidelity Aerodynamics Module for a Multidisciplinary Design Environment

In the traditional aerospace vehicle design process, each successive design phase is accompanied by an increment in the modeling fidelity of the disciplinary analyses being performed. This trend follows a corresponding shrinking of the design space as more and more design decisions are locked in. The correlated increase in knowledge about the design and decrease in design freedom occurs partly because increases in modeling fidelity are usually accompanied by significant increases in the computational expense of performing the analyses. When running high fidelity analyses, it is not usually feasible to explore a large number of variations, and so design space exploration is reserved for conceptual design, and higher fidelity analyses are run only once a specific point design has been selected to carry forward. The designs produced by this traditional process have been recognized as being limited by the uncertainty that is present early on due to the use of lower fidelity analyses. For example, uncertainty in aerodynamics predictions produces uncertainty in trajectory optimization, which can impact overall vehicle sizing. This effect can become more significant when trajectories are being shaped by active constraints. For example, if an optimal trajectory is running up against a normal load factor constraint, inaccuracies in the aerodynamic coefficient predictions can cause a feasible trajectory to be considered infeasible, or vice versa. For this reason, a trade must always be performed between the desired fidelity and the resources available. Apart from this trade between fidelity and computational expense, it is very desirable to use higher fidelity analyses earlier in the design process. A large body of work has been performed to this end, led by efforts in the area of surrogate modeling. In surrogate modeling, an up-front investment is made by running a high fidelity code over a Design of Experiments (DOE); once completed, the DOE data is used to create a surrogate model, which captures the relationships between input variables and responses into regression equations. Depending on the dimensionality of the problem and the fidelity of the code for which a surrogate model is being created, the initial DOE can itself be computationally prohibitive to run. Cokriging, a modeling approach from the field of geostatistics, provides a desirable compromise between computational expense and fidelity. To do this, cokriging leverages a large body of data generated by a low fidelity analysis, combines it with a smaller set of data from a higher fidelity analysis, and creates a kriging surrogate model with prediction fidelity approaching that of the higher fidelity analysis. When integrated into a multidisciplinary environment, a disciplinary analysis module employing cokriging can raise the analysis fidelity without drastically impacting the expense of design iterations. This is demonstrated through the creation of an aerodynamics analysis module in NASA’s OpenMDAO framework. Aerodynamic analyses including Missile DATCOM, APAS, and USM3D are leveraged to create high fidelity aerodynamics decks for parametric vehicle geometries, which are created in NASA’s Vehicle Sketch Pad (VSP). Several trade studies are performed to examine the achieved level of model fidelity, and the overall impact to vehicle design is quantified.

Aerodynamic Properties↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Testing a Run-Time Assurance Framework Coupled with Integrated Risk Mitigation Capabilities for Autonomous Urban UAS Flights

The In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) Concept of Operations (ConOps) envisions new capabilities to monitor, assess, and mitigate flight safety risks. Systems will be tailored to mission type, vehicle/equipage type, operational environment, and safety risk tolerance. Within an IASMS framework, several capabilities may be implemented spanning three operational phases (pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight/off-line); and consisting of lower level functions and information services which may reside onboard the aircraft, on third-party server(s), and/or on ground/operator station(s). Each capability will be designed to produce and disseminate safety-relevant information; perform detection, diagnosis, and prediction of unsafe situations; and/or execute mitigation actions when hazardous events warrant such changes. This paper focuses on recent testing of airborne capabilities that demonstrate inflight aspects of the overarching concept for autonomous unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations in urban environments. A flight test architecture is described that applies run-time assurance principles (e.g., executes independent of the unassured autopilot), real-time risk assessment, and a technique to execute contingencies if necessary either automatically or via pilot intervention. Several tests using small UAS were conducted to verify the assured in-flight risk mitigation capability. The paper draws significantly from a larger NASA technical report and recent prior conference papers, providing additional details. Data is analyzed for two representative flights to illustrate the performance for various sequential and simultaneous hazards used during testing. During each automated flight, several hazards are encountered at various points along the flight path. At each point, the hazard is mitigated by the system, with the vehicle then continuing to subsequent points. The paper concludes with lessons-learned regarding relevant aspects of the overarching IASMS concept and how it may be updated and further advanced in the future.

population activity↗
NASA NTRS2007

NASA Hypersonic Propulsion: Overview of Progress from 1995 to 2005

Hypersonic propulsion work supported by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration had a primary focus on Space Transportation during the period from 1995 to 2005. The framework for these advances was established by policy and pursued with substantial funding. Many noteworthy advances were made, highlighted by the pinnacle flights of the X-43. This paper reviews and summarizes the programs and accomplishments of this era. The accomplishments are compared to the goals and objectives to lend an overarching perspective to what was achieved. At least dating back to the early days of the Space Shuttle program, NASA has had the objective of reducing the cost of access to space and concurrently improving safety and reliability. National Space Transportation Policy in 1994 coupled with a base of prior programs such as the National Aerospace Plane and the need to look beyond the Space Shuttle program set the stage for NASA to pursue Space Transportation Advances. Programs defined to pursue the advances represented a broad approach addressing classical rocket propulsion as well as airbreathing propulsion in various combinations and forms. The resulting portfolio of activities included systems analysis and design studies, discipline research and technology, component technology development, propulsion system ground test demonstration and flight demonstration. The types of propulsion systems that were pursued by these programs included classical rocket engines, "aerospike" rocket engines, high performance rocket engines, scram jets, rocket based combined cycles, and turbine based combined cycles. Vehicle architectures included single and two stage vehicles. Either single types of propulsion systems or combinations of the basic propulsion types were applied to both single and two stage vehicle design concepts. Some of the propulsion system design concepts were built and tested at full scale, large scale and small scale. Many flight demonstrators were conceptually defined, fewer designed and some built and one flown to demonstrate several technical advancements including propulsion. The X-43 flights were a culmination of these efforts for airbreathing propulsion. During the course of that period, there was a balance of funding and emphasis toward rocket propulsion but still very substantial airbreathing propulsion effort. The broad objectives of these programs were to both advance and test the state of the art so as to provide a basis for options to be pursued for broad space transportation needs, most importantly focused on crew carrying capability. NASA cooperated with the Department of Defense in planning and implementation of these programs to make efficient use of objectives and capabilities where appropriate. Much of the work was conducted in industry and academia as well as Government laboratories. Many test articles and data-bases now exist as a result of this work. At the conclusion of the period, the body of work made it clear that continued research and technology development was warranted, because although not ready for a NASA system development decision, results continued to support the promise of air-breathing propulsion for access to space.

Cikanek, Harry A., III↗