SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “mission execution”

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 541 records · Page 30

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2012

Field Geologic Observation and Sample Collection Strategies for Planetary Surface Exploration: Insights from the 2010 Desert RATS Geologist Crewmembers

Observation is the primary role of all field geologists, and geologic observations put into an evolving conceptual context will be the most important data stream that will be relayed to Earth during a planetary exploration mission. Sample collection is also an important planetary field activity, and its success is closely tied to the quality of contextual observations. To test protocols for doing effective planetary geologic field- work, the Desert RATS(Research and Technology Studies) project deployed two prototype rovers for two weeks of simulated exploratory traverses in the San Francisco volcanic field of northern Arizona. The authors of this paper represent the geologist crew members who participated in the 2010 field test.We document the procedures adopted for Desert RATS 2010 and report on our experiences regarding these protocols. Careful consideration must be made of various issues that impact the interplay between field geologic observations and sample collection, including time management; strategies relatedtoduplicationofsamplesandobservations;logisticalconstraintson the volume and mass of samples and the volume/transfer of data collected; and paradigms for evaluation of mission success. We find that the 2010 field protocols brought to light important aspects of each of these issues, and we recommend best practices and modifications to training and operational protocols to address them. Underlying our recommendations is the recognition that the capacity of the crew to flexibly execute their activities is paramount. Careful design of mission parameters, especially field geologic protocols, is critical for enabling the crews to successfully meet their science objectives.

Hurtado, Jose M., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Tools and Technologies Needed for Conducting Planetary Field Geology While On EVA: Insights from the 2010 Desert RATS Geologist Crewmembers

Observation is the primary role of all field geologists, and geologic observations put into an evolving conceptual context will be the most important data stream that will be relayed to Earth during a planetary exploration mission. Sample collection is also an important planetary field activity, and its success is closely tied to the quality of contextual observations. To test protocols for doing effective planetary geologic fieldwork, the Desert RATS (Research and Technology Studies) project deployed two prototype rovers for two weeks of simulated exploratory traverses in the San Francisco volcanic field of northern Arizona. The authors of this paper represent the geologist crewmembers who participated in the 2010 field test. We document the procedures adopted for Desert RATS 2010 and report on our experiences regarding these protocols. Careful consideration must be made of various issues that impact the interplay between field geologic observations and sample collection, including time management; strategies related to duplication of samples and observations; logistical constraints on the volume and mass of samples and the volume/transfer of data collected; and paradigms for evaluation of mission success. We find that the 2010 field protocols brought to light important aspects of each of these issues, and we recommend best practices and modifications to training and operational protocols to address them. Underlying our recommendations is the recognition that the capacity of the crew to "flexibly execute" their activities is paramount. Careful design of mission parameters, especially field geologic protocols, is critical for enabling the crews to successfully meet their science objectives.

Young, Kelsey↗

DOE OSTI2022

Production Agency Quality Assurance Management Execution Strategy [Thesis]

There are multiple federal directives that Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) must follow for the proper implementation of quality assurance, strategic planning, and execution of manufacturing and surveillance operations. Recent assessments identified that manufacturing in all processing areas is dynamic due to influencing scope changes, design modifications, funding adjustments, and staff attrition. In response, this project was started to develop a comprehensive PAQ execution strategy to support the success of LANL’s manufacturing mission. This project’s method for developing an updated architecture was to create an integrated, flexible, reliable, and agile strategic process. The execution plan has five deliverables: 1) an integrated schedule view of PAQ work scope, 2) a resource management plan that aligns with the required scope, 3) a metrics monitoring dashboard, 4) a project management plan for sustaining NAP 401.1A implementation, and 5) a risk management plan. The research design is a mixed-method approach focused on data collection for each deliverable. The methodology entails qualitative and quantitative research, metrics monitoring, data analysis, and the creation of a dashboard. The qualitative methods used include literature reviews and interviews. The quantitative methods include resource, financial, schedule and survey data analysis. Preliminary and final results were peer reviewed by subject matter experts both within the ALDWP organization and deployed support.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Your Role as a Program Manager in Pit Production Mission Integration (PPMI-DO)

PPMI is responsible for integrating the planning, execution, and reporting for LANL’s Pit Manufacturing efforts, surplus plutonium disposition activities, the Material Recycle and Recovery (MR&R) program, and other programs of national significance. Our programmatic sponsors rely on PPMI to capitalize on the unique capabilities and expertise in PF-4 (the only Security Cat I/Haz Cat II Pu processing facility in the Nation) and other vital facilities across the laboratory to deliver on mission critical products in support of National Security.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRS2016

Cassini Maneuver Performance Assessment and Execution-Error Modeling Through 2015

In its twelfth year touring Saturn, the Cassini spacecraft continues to gather valuable scientific data about the planet and its moons. Cassini has executed a total of 331 propulsive maneuvers through January 23, 2016. With more than 30 maneuvers planned through July 2017 before the mission ends in September 2017, a dwindling propellant supply has become a chief concern. This manuscript will report on the analysis of Cassini maneuvers performed through December 30, 2015 and recommend execution-error models for the remainder of the mission. Maneuver performance assessment techniques and execution-error model development methods will also be outlined.

Wagner, Sean V.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Cassini Maneuver Performance Assessment and Execution-Error Modeling Through 2015

Wagner, Sean V.↗

NASA NTRS2009

A Process for Comparing Dynamics of Distributed Space Systems Simulations

The paper describes a process that was developed for comparing the primary orbital dynamics behavior between space systems distributed simulations. This process is used to characterize and understand the fundamental fidelities and compatibilities of the modeling of orbital dynamics between spacecraft simulations. This is required for high-latency distributed simulations such as NASA s Integrated Mission Simulation and must be understood when reporting results from simulation executions. This paper presents 10 principal comparison tests along with their rationale and examples of the results. The Integrated Mission Simulation (IMSim) (formerly know as the Distributed Space Exploration Simulation (DSES)) is a NASA research and development project focusing on the technologies and processes that are related to the collaborative simulation of complex space systems involved in the exploration of our solar system. Currently, the NASA centers that are actively participating in the IMSim project are the Ames Research Center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the Johnson Space Center (JSC), the Kennedy Space Center, the Langley Research Center and the Marshall Space Flight Center. In concept, each center participating in IMSim has its own set of simulation models and environment(s). These simulation tools are used to build the various simulation products that are used for scientific investigation, engineering analysis, system design, training, planning, operations and more. Working individually, these production simulations provide important data to various NASA projects.

Cures, Edwin Z.↗

NASA NTRS1975

Manned systems utilization analysis (study 2.1). Volume 1: Executive summary

Man's contribution to the achievement of scientific mission objectives in the space environment is investigated in terms of potential improvement in future applications of scientific instruments relative to the need for interactive manned support operations. Emphasis is placed on experience gained from space programs and the development of empirical techniques to associate the benefit of repair and management actions. Design features are addressed in terms of weight, volume, and reliability associated with designing for space maintenance. The results of the following programs are examined: the OVI series of automated spacecraft; the OSO-7 automated spacecraft; and the Skylab S-056 X-ray telescope experiment in the ATM. It is shown that orbital maintenance is the most realistic means of achieving high system availabilities for scientific instruments.

Wolfe, R. R.↗

NASA NTRS1977

Assess 2: Spacelab simulation. Executive summary

An Airborne Science/Spacelab Experiments System Simulation (ASSESS II) mission, was conducted with the CV-990 airborne laboratory in May 1977. The project studied the full range of Spacelab-type activities including management interactions, experiment selection and funding, hardware development, payload integration and checkout, mission specialist and payload specialist selection and training, mission control center payload operations control center arrangements and interactions, real time interaction during flight between principal investigators and the flight crew, and retrieval of scientific flight data. ESA established an integration and coordination center for the ESA portion of the payload as planned for Spacelab. A strongly realistic Spacelab mission was conducted on the CV-990 aircraft. U.S. and ESA scientific experiments were integrated into a payload and flown over a 10 day period, with the payload flight crew fully-confined to represent a Spacelab mission. Specific conclusions for Spacelab planning are presented along with a brief explanation of each.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2006

Development of In Situ Instruments for Planetary Exploration - Unique Challenges in Design, Development, and Execution

A viewgraph presentation describing in situ instruments for NASA missions is shown. The topics include: 1) In Situ Instrumentation; 2) Planetary Extremes; 3) Mars Surface Environment; 4) Lunar Precursor Mission Environment; 5) Europa Surface Analogue; 6) Other Parameters; 7) Space In Situ Instrumentation still in its Infancy; 8) Needed Capabilities For In Situ Science; 9) Framework For Putting The Pieces Together; 10) The Wild World of Astrobiology; 11) Timeline; 12) Example: MOD; 13) In Situ Sample Analysis Laboratories are more complex; 14) technologies In Situ Sample Analysis Requires Integration of Many Emerging Advanced Concepts; 15) Supporting technologies for In Situ Laboratories; 16) Micro-laboratory example; 17) In Situ Instrument Classes; and 18) Key for Analytical Instrument:Sample Preparation.

In Situ Instrumentation↗

NASA NTRS2008

Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle Similitude to the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

The Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle is the first in a series of flight test vehicles that will take the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle design from development to operational capability. The test flight is scheduled for April 2009, relatively early in the Ares I design process so that data obtained from the flight can impact the design of Ares I before its Critical Design Review. Because of the short time frame (relative to new launch vehicle development) before the Ares I-X flight, decisions about the flight test vehicle design had to be made in order to complete analysis and testing in time to manufacture the Ares I-X vehicle hardware elements. This paper describes the similarities and differences between the Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle and the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. Areas of comparison include the outer mold line geometry, aerosciences, trajectory, structural modes, flight control architecture, separation sequence, and relevant element differences. Most of the outer mold line differences present between Ares I and Ares I-X are minor and will not have a significant effect on overall vehicle performance. The most significant impacts are related to the geometric differences in Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle at the forward end of the stack. These physical differences will cause differences in the flow physics in these areas. Even with these differences, the Ares I-X flight test is poised to meet all five primary objectives and six secondary objectives. Knowledge of what the Ares I-X flight test will provide in similitude to Ares I as well as what the test will not provide is important in the continued execution of the Ares I-X mission leading to its flight and the continued design and development of Ares I.

Huebner, Lawrence D.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle Similitude to the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

The Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle is the first in a series of flight test vehicles that will take the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle design from development to operational capability. Ares I-X is scheduled for a 2009 flight date, early enough in the Ares I design and development process so that data obtained from the flight can impact the design of Ares I before its Critical Design Review. Decisions on Ares I-X scope, flight test objectives, and FTV fidelity were made prior to the Ares I systems requirements being baselined. This was necessary in order to achieve a development flight test to impact the Ares I design. Differences between the Ares I-X and the Ares I configurations are artifacts of formulating this experimental project at an early stage and the natural maturation of the Ares I design process. This paper describes the similarities and differences between the Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle and the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. Areas of comparison include the outer mold line geometry, aerosciences, trajectory, structural modes, flight control architecture, separation sequence, and relevant element differences. Most of the outer mold line differences present between Ares I and Ares I-X are minor and will not have a significant effect on overall vehicle performance. The most significant impacts are related to the geometric differences in Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle at the forward end of the stack. These physical differences will cause differences in the flow physics in these areas. Even with these differences, the Ares I-X flight test is poised to meet all five primary objectives and six secondary objectives. Knowledge of what the Ares I-X flight test will provide in similitude to Ares I - as well as what the test will not provide - is important in the continued execution of the Ares I-X mission leading to its flight and the continued design and development of Ares I.

Huebner, Lawrence D.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Overview of the Orion Thermal Protection System

The Orion spacecraft is being developed as part of the Constellation Exploration Program and will serve as the United States crewed transportation system to the International Space Station after the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 and as the eventual means to return U.S. astronauts to the Moon. Therefore, Orion is being designed for reentry missions from both low Earth orbit and from Lunar-return trajectories. This presentation will provide an overview of the development of the Orion TPS, a critical component in the development of the spacecraft. The thermal protection system (TPS) that protects the crew module from the extreme environments associated with Earth atmospheric reentry consists of a forward heatshield and an aft backshell. The requirements that drive the design of the TPS will be discussed, including several key requirements that establish a precedent for U.S. human-rated spacecraft. For the first time in U.S. human spaceflight, a vehicle s TPS is being designed with a specific, derived requirement for reliability. Also, due to the increased presence of spacecraft in Earth s orbit in recent decades, requirements for micro-meteoroid/orbital debris damage tolerance are also a driving requirement that has affected the selection of portions of the TPS. The efforts to select materials and to define a preliminary design for both the heatshield and the backshell will be described. This will include a discussion of the design challenges presented by the numerous penetrations on both the backshell and the heatshield. Finally, the verification and validation plan which is currently under development to certify the TPS for human-rated missions will be outlined. To support the execution of this plan, a ground test campaign for both thermal and structural performance is being designed. This test campaign will directly support thermal and thermal/structural analyses that also are fundamental to the certification effort.

Kowal, T. John↗

NASA NTRS2013

Workflow-Based Software Development Environment

The Software Developer's Assistant (SDA) helps software teams more efficiently and accurately conduct or execute software processes associated with NASA mission-critical software. SDA is a process enactment platform that guides software teams through project-specific standards, processes, and procedures. Software projects are decomposed into all of their required process steps or tasks, and each task is assigned to project personnel. SDA orchestrates the performance of work required to complete all process tasks in the correct sequence. The software then notifies team members when they may begin work on their assigned tasks and provides the tools, instructions, reference materials, and supportive artifacts that allow users to compliantly perform the work. A combination of technology components captures and enacts any software process use to support the software lifecycle. It creates an adaptive workflow environment that can be modified as needed. SDA achieves software process automation through a Business Process Management (BPM) approach to managing the software lifecycle for mission-critical projects. It contains five main parts: TieFlow (workflow engine), Business Rules (rules to alter process flow), Common Repository (storage for project artifacts, versions, history, schedules, etc.), SOA (interface to allow internal, GFE, or COTS tools integration), and the Web Portal Interface (collaborative web environment

Izygon, Michel E.↗

NASA NTRS2015

ACAS-Xu Initial Self-Separation Flight Tests

The purpose of this flight test report is to document and report the details of the ACAS Xu (Airborne Collision Avoidance System For Unmanned Aircraft) / Self-Separation flight test series performed at Edwards AFB from November to December of 2014. Included in this document are details about participating aircraft, aircrew, mission crew, system configurations, flight data, flight execution, flight summary, test results, and lessons learned.

UAS in the NAS↗

NASA NTRS2016

Encke-Beta Predictor for Orion Burn Targeting and Guidance

The state vector prediction algorithm selected for Orion on-board targeting and guidance is known as the Encke-Beta method. Encke-Beta uses a universal anomaly (beta) as the independent variable, valid for circular, elliptical, parabolic, and hyperbolic orbits. The variable, related to the change in eccentric anomaly, results in integration steps that cover smaller arcs of the trajectory at or near perigee, when velocity is higher. Some burns in the EM-1 and EM-2 mission plans are much longer than burns executed with the Apollo and Space Shuttle vehicles. Burn length, as well as hyperbolic trajectories, has driven the use of the Encke-Beta numerical predictor by the predictor/corrector guidance algorithm in place of legacy analytic thrust and gravity integrals.

Robinson, Shane↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Identified Risks of Adverse Outcomes Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture in Human Spaceflight

The NASA Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has the overall responsibility for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks that it has identified to be associated with human spaceflight. As part of this process, the Board is charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to mitigate those risks, and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. One of the identified risks is due to inadequate human systems integration architecture (HSIA) and a driving factor of this risk is that given decreasing real-time ground support for execution of complex operations during future exploration missions, there is a possibility of adverse performance outcomes including that crew are unable to adequately respond to unanticipated critical malfunctions or detect safety critical procedural errors. The HSRB uses Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) as a communication tool for describing how astronaut exposure to spaceflight hazards leads to meaningful mission-level health and performance outcomes and as the basis for understanding intermediate causal relationships between risk contributing factors and countermeasures that link hazards to outcomes. The HSIA risk DAG will be presented and described. Historically, critical malfunctions requiring Crew/MCC management occurred at a rate of 1.7 times per year for ISS averaged over the lifetime and 3-4 times per year in the burn in phase for the vehicle. These averages do not include EVA data, which greatly increases the incident rate. Prior experience from the Apollo program showed 10/11 crewed missions experienced significant anomalies where crew relied heavily on MCC expertise in real-time. These failure patterns are in line with those observed in other complex engineered systems (e.g., oil rigs, launch systems, commercial aviation, etc.) It is likely that general malfunction and error rates are > 10% for short duration missions (<30 days), based on past and current spaceflight operations data. Likelihood of adverse outcomes has the potential to increase as crew conduct work with new, complex systems and with less ground support. For Low Earth Orbit missions and Lunar missions less than 30 days, assuming minimal comm delays, disruptions and bandwidth limitations, malfunctions and errors can affect mission objectives and crew health but may be mitigated by ground support. For Lunar missions greater than 30 days and any potential Mars mission malfunctions and errors can have Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission consequences due to reduced ground support (communication delays, constraints and blackouts) for more complex operations, as well as reduced resupply and evacuation options.

Daniel M Buckland↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Digital Engineering for HabWorlds

New role within HWOTM: Digital Architect, meant to help the program set up and execute digital engineering ONLY as appropriate for mission success. Reports directly to the Systems Engineering team. First principles look at engineering, collaboration, & communication requirements. Analysis of alternatives presented to the MSE and project team for decisions.

Jama↗