Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Concurrent Engineering”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Costing at the Speed of Light: How Your Concurrent Engineering Design Team can Bootstrap Your Organizations Programmatic Capabilities

What do you do when it is necessary to generate reasonable cost estimates at the earliest Concept Maturity Levels and you have never flown any similar missions before? This paper describes the current and future Team X cost processes and methods, how they are being used to expand our data frontiers and cost modelling capabilities, and how this enables the ability to estimate early and estimate often.

Ramirez, Matthew↗
NASA NTRS2020

Estimate Early and Estimate Often: How Your Concurrent Engineering Design Team Can Bootstrap Your Organizations Programmatic Capabilities

What do you do when it is necessary to generate reasonable cost estimates at the earliest Concept Maturity Levels and you have never flown any similar missions before? This paper describes the current and future Team X and A-Team cost processes and methods, how they are being used to expand our data frontiers, cost modelling capabilities and how this enables the ability to estimate early and estimate often.

Hihn, Jairus↗
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 NTRS2017

Review of a Draft - Avoiding the Impossible: Re-focusing a Non-Feasible Mission 2-Hrs into a 3-Day Engineering Session

Concurrent engineering offers a great many benefits to engineers and mission designers throughout the world of aerospace. The only downside of concurrent engineering, and this is somewhat unavoidable, is that you don’t know the results of a design session until the end when it is completed. Usually, this is not a problem – you wouldn’t start building a spacecraft before the design is finished. However, within mass and cost constrained systems, you may end up with a final design that although technically sound – is not feasible due to mass or cost limits. Employing in-session mass and cost models with flexible inputs that refine their estimates and variance as more detailed information comes in throughout a design session allows major design changes to be made when the probability of breaching a mass or cost cap exceeds a threshold level. This enables mission designers to re-focus the study, and avoid spending 3-days with 15 engineers designing a non-feasible mission. By understanding key correlations and nested relationships within mass or cost, and specifically mass or cost allocations per mission element by mission type, it’s possible to get flexible-input, statistically based mass and cost estimates very early in the design process. Baseline models are seeded using mission characteristics and general parameters (outer planetary orbiter-probe mission, $500M cost cap for example) to provide a rough estimate of the expected mass or cost. As information gets solidified during the session, it gets added to the model and the estimates are updated. Continuing the orbiter-probe mission example, modeling probe heat shield cost as a percent of total probe cost, and probe cost as a percent of total flight system cost, and total flight system cost as a percent of total mission cost allows a design team to roll-up solidified information to estimate the probability of fitting within a mass or cost constraint early in a concurrent design session. When only the heat shield cost is known, the variance of the final estimate is higher, whereas when the full probe gets defined, naturally, the variance of the estimate decreases. A methodology, model, verification and demo implementation for cost limit breach are presented.

Hihn, Jairus M.↗