Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Project Life Cycle”

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 NTRS2010

NASA Risk-Informed Decision Making Handbook

This handbook provides guidance for conducting risk-informed decision making in the context of NASA risk management (RM), with a focus on the types of direction-setting key decisions that are characteristic of the NASA program and project life cycles, and which produce derived requirements in accordance with existing systems engineering practices that flow down through the NASA organizational hierarchy. The guidance in this handbook is not meant to be prescriptive. Instead, it is meant to be general enough, and contain a sufficient diversity of examples, to enable the reader to adapt the methods as needed to the particular decision problems that he or she faces. The handbook highlights major issues to consider when making decisions in the presence of potentially significant uncertainty, so that the user is better able to recognize and avoid pitfalls that might otherwise be experienced.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRS2010

NASA Hazard Analysis Process

This viewgraph presentation reviews The NASA Hazard Analysis process. The contents include: 1) Significant Incidents and Close Calls in Human Spaceflight; 2) Subsystem Safety Engineering Through the Project Life Cycle; 3) The Risk Informed Design Process; 4) Types of NASA Hazard Analysis; 5) Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA); 6) Hazard Analysis Process; 7) Identify Hazardous Conditions; 8) Consider All Interfaces; 9) Work a Preliminary Hazard List; 10) NASA Generic Hazards List; and 11) Final Thoughts

Deckert, George↗
NASA NTRS2010

Developing Systems Engineering Skills Through NASA Summer Intern Project

During the Formulation phases of the NASA Project Life Cycle, communication systems engineers are responsible for designing space communication links and analyzing their performance to ensure that the proposed communication architecture is capable of satisfying high-level mission requirements. Senior engineers with extensive experience in communications systems perform these activities. However, the increasing complexity of space systems coupled with the current shortage of communications systems engineers has led to an urgent need for expedited training of new systems engineers. A pilot program, in which college-bound high school and undergraduate students studying various engineering disciplines are immersed in NASA s systems engineering practices, was conceived out of this need. This rapid summerlong training approach is feasible because of the availability of advanced software and technology tools and the students inherent ability to operate such tools. During this pilot internship program, a team of college-level and recently-hired engineers configured and utilized various software applications in the design and analysis of communication links for a plausible lunar sortie mission. The approach taken was to first design the direct-to-Earth communication links for the lunar mission elements, then to design the links between lunar surface and lunar orbital elements. Based on the data obtained from these software applications, an integrated communication system design was realized and the students gained valuable systems engineering knowledge. This paper describes this approach to rapidly training college-bound high school and undergraduate engineering students from various disciplines in NASA s systems engineering practices and tools. A summary of the potential use of NASA s emerging systems engineering internship program in broader applications is also described.

Bhasin, Kul↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA Technology Readiness Level Definitions

This presentation will cover the basic Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and their specific wording. We will discuss how they are used in the NASA Project Life Cycle and their effectiveness in practice. We'll also discuss the recent efforts by the International Standards Organization (ISO) to develop a broadly acceptable set of TRL definitions for the international space community and some of the issues brought to light. This information will provide input for further discussion of the use of the TRL scale in manufacturing.

Mcnamara, Karen M.↗
NASA NTRS2014

NASA's Space Launch System: Momentum Builds Toward First Launch

NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) is gaining momentum toward the first launch of a new exploration-class heavy lift launch vehicle for international exploration and science initiatives. The SLS comprises an architecture that begins with a vehicle capable of launching 70 metric tons (t) into low Earth orbit. It will launch the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) on its first autonomous flight beyond the Moon and back in December 2017. Its first crewed flight follows in 2021. SLS can evolve to a130-t lift capability and serve as a baseline for numerous robotic and human missions ranging from a Mars sample return to delivering the first astronauts to explore another planet. The SLS Program formally transitioned from the formulation phase to implementation with the successful completion of the rigorous Key Decision Point C review in 2014. As a result, the Agency authorized the Program to move forward to Critical Design Review, scheduled for 2015. In the NASA project life cycle process, SLS has completed 50 percent of its major milestones toward first flight. Every SLS element manufactured development hardware for testing over the past year. Accomplishments during 2013/2014 included manufacture of core stage test articles, preparations for qualification testing the solid rocket boosters and the RS-25 main engines, and shipment of the first flight hardware in preparation for the Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) in 2014. SLS was conceived with the goals of safety, affordability, and sustainability, while also providing unprecedented capability for human exploration and scientific discovery beyond Earth orbit. In an environment of economic challenges, the SLS team continues to meet ambitious budget and schedule targets through the studied use of hardware, infrastructure, and workforce investments the United States made in the last half century, while selectively using new technologies for design, manufacturing, and testing, as well as streamlined management approaches that have increased decision velocity and reduced associated costs. This paper will summarize recent SLS Program accomplishments, as well as the challenges and opportunities ahead for the most powerful and capable launch vehicle in history.

May, Todd A.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Model-Based Verification and Validation of the SMAP Uplink Processes

This case study stands as an example of how a project can validate a system-level design earlier in the project life cycle than traditional V&V processes by using simulation on a system model. Specifically, this paper describes how simulation was added to a system model of the Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) mission's uplink process.Also discussed are the advantages and disadvantages of the methods employed and the lessons learned; which are intended to benefit future model-based and simulation-based V&V development efforts.

verification and validation (V&V)↗
NASA NTRS2009

Early Career Hire Rapid Training and Development Program: Status Report

The aging of the industrialized workforce, particularly in the aerospace industry, has resulted in a very large generation gap in the workforce. The disproportionate size of Baby Boomers, increasing longevity and declining birth rates has made this phenomenon a reality that no organization can ignore. It is now critical that aerospace organizations prepare themselves for this watershed transformation in the workforce and take the initiative to prepare the incoming workforce with the skills and knowledge necessary to stay at the forefront. Last year the Jet Propulsion Laboratory launched a pioneering training program, known as Phaeton, to provide the knowledge, practice, experience, mentoring opportunities, and project life cycle exposure to our incoming generation of engineers. After 14 months of operation, now is the time to discuss the preliminary results of this new program.

Riley, Betsy N.↗
NASA NTRS2016

NASA Operational Simulator for Small Satellites: Tools for Software Based Validation and Verification of Small Satellites

The NASA Operational Simulator for Small Satellites (NOS3) is a suite of tools to aid in areas such as software development, integration test (IT), mission operations training, verification and validation (VV), and software systems check-out. NOS3 provides a software development environment, a multi-target build system, an operator interface-ground station, dynamics and environment simulations, and software-based hardware models. NOS3 enables the development of flight software (FSW) early in the project life cycle, when access to hardware is typically not available. For small satellites there are extensive lead times on many of the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components as well as limited funding for engineering test units (ETU). Considering the difficulty of providing a hardware test-bed to each developer tester, hardware models are modeled based upon characteristic data or manufacturers data sheets for each individual component. The fidelity of each hardware models is such that FSW executes unaware that physical hardware is not present. This allows binaries to be compiled for both the simulation environment, and the flight computer, without changing the FSW source code. For hardware models that provide data dependent on the environment, such as a GPS receiver or magnetometer, an open-source tool from NASA GSFC (42 Spacecraft Simulation) is used to provide the necessary data. The underlying infrastructure used to transfer messages between FSW and the hardware models can also be used to monitor, intercept, and inject messages, which has proven to be beneficial for VV of larger missions such as James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). As hardware is procured, drivers can be added to the environment to enable hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) testing. When strict time synchronization is not vital, any number of combinations of hardware components and software-based models can be tested. The open-source operator interface used in NOS3 is COSMOS from Ball Aerospace. For testing, plug-ins are implemented in COSMOS to control the NOS3 simulations, while the command and telemetry tools available in COSMOS are used to communicate with FSW. NOS3 is actively being used for FSW development and component testing of the Simulation-to-Flight 1 (STF-1) CubeSat. As NOS3 matures, hardware models have been added for common CubeSat components such as Novatel GPS receivers, ClydeSpace electrical power systems and batteries, ISISpace antenna systems, etc. In the future, NASA IVV plans to distribute NOS3 to other CubeSat developers and release the suite to the open-source community.

Verification↗
NASA NTRS2018

NOS3: NASA Operational Simulator for Small Satellites

The NASA Operational Simulator for Small Satellites (NOS3) is a suite of open-source software tools to aid in areas such as software development, integration & test (I&T), mission operations/training, verification and validation (V&V), and software systems check-out. NOS3 provides a software development environment, a multi-target build system, operational interface/ground software, dynamics and environment simulations, and software-based hardware models. NOS3 has just recently been open-sourced by NASA and is available for immediate use. It enables the development of flight software (FSW) early in the project life cycle when hardware availability is limited. Small satellite development suffers from extensive lead times on many of the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components as well as limited funding for engineering test units (ETUs). To alleviate the need to provide a hardware test-bed for each developer/tester, NOS3 hardware models are based upon characteristic data or manufacturer's data sheets for each individual component. The NOS3 hardware models' fidelity is such that FSW executes unaware that physical hardware is not present. This allows FSW binaries to be compiled for both the simulation environment and the flight computer without changing the FSW source code. For hardware models that provide data which is dependent upon the environment and spacecraft dynamics, such as a GPS receiver or magnetometer, an open-source tool from NASA GSFC (42 Spacecraft Simulator) is used to provide the necessary data. The underlying infrastructure used to transfer messages between FSW and the hardware models can also be used to monitor, intercept, and inject messages, which has proven to be beneficial for V&V of larger missions such as James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). As hardware is selected and becomes available, drivers can be added to the NOS3 environment to enable hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) testing. When strict time synchronization is not vital, any number of combinations of hardware components and software-based models can be tested. NOS3 was actively used for FSW development and component testing of the Simulation-to-Flight 1 (STF-1) CubeSat and the Lunar IceCube CubeSat. As NOS3 matures, hardware models have been added for common small satellite components such as GPS receivers, electrical power systems and batteries, and antenna systems.

Suder, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2016

Application of Model-Based Systems Engineering for the Development of the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission

Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) can augment existing Systems Engineering (SE) processes to more efficiently deliver enhanced products over the project life cycle. Using a multi-user accessible System Model, MBSE has been successfully deployed for the conceptual and preliminary design development of the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM). The paper provides an overview and examples of the targeted MBSE deployment for development of the mission operational concept, system description, and functional requirements. The paper also includes description of the challenges and lessons learned.

Sindiy, Oleg V.↗
NASA NTRS2019

A Proposal for Standardized MMOD Shielding for Robotic Spacecraft

NASA robotic spacecraft are required to assess the potential for small debris induced failure for all disposal-critical components. Additional shielding might then be necessary in order to meet the acceptable risk requirement for the overall mission. Traditionally this requirement had been met with little or no additional shielding. Since the introduction of a high density debris population in ORDEM 3.0, some missions, especially those in higher portions of Low Earth Orbit, have needed additional MMOD-specific shielding in order for the mission to meet the requirement. This is a costly design effort when performed late in the project life cycle, which adds unexpected mass to the spacecraft components during the integration phase, and could disrupt thermal management.A proposal is discussed to develop a more cost-effective approach to MMOD-shielding, which can be employed earlier in the hardware design phase. The development and adoption of standardized shielding assemblies allows early tailoring of the shielding around a component, so that the mass is accounted for, as well as the small particle penetration risk, at a point in the design phase when the cost and schedule impact are more manageable. A set of several assemblies can be developed with a range of protection thresholds, in order to control mass where less shielding is needed. Such shielding assemblies would be developed in collaboration with blanket assembly specialists and thermal control engineers to ensure manufacturability and thermal performance challenges are known and acceptable. One clear benefit of such an approach is that hypervelocity testing can be performed on each of the standard shield assemblies to refine and confirm their performance prior to use.The challenges inherent in designing supplemental MMOD shielding will be discussed, including variations in the orbital debris environment and performance prediction. The benefits of a standardized shielding approach and example applications will also be presented.

Hull, Scott M.↗
NASA NTRS2019

A Proposal for Standardized MMOD Shielding for Robotic Spacecraft

NASA robotic spacecraft are required to assess the potential for small debris induced failure for all disposal-critical components. Additional shielding might then be necessary in order to meet the acceptable risk requirement for the overall mission. Traditionally this requirement had been met with little or no additional shielding. Since the introduction of a high density debris population in ORDEM 3.0, some missions, especially those in higher portions of Low Earth Orbit, have needed additional MMOD-specific shielding in order for the mission to meet the requirement. This is a costly design effort when performed late in the project life cycle, which adds unexpected mass to the spacecraft components during the integration phase, and could disrupt thermal management. A proposal is discussed to develop a more cost-effective approach to MMOD-shielding, which can be employed earlier in the hardware design phase. The development and adoption of standardized shielding assemblies allows early tailoring of the shielding around a component, so that the mass is accounted for, as well as the small particle penetration risk, at a point in the design phase when the cost and schedule impact are more manageable. A set of several assemblies can be developed with a range of protection thresholds, in order to control mass where less shielding is needed. Such shielding assemblies would be developed in collaboration with blanket assembly specialists and thermal control engineers to ensure manufacturability and thermal performance challenges are known and acceptable. One clear benefit of such an approach is that hypervelocity testing can be performed on each of the standard shield assemblies to refine and confirm their performance prior to use.The challenges inherent in designing supplemental MMOD shielding will be discussed, including variations in the orbital debris environment and performance prediction. The benefits of a standardized shielding approach and example applications will also be presented.

Hull, Scott M.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Model-Based Radiation Assurance for Satellites with Commercial Parts

Presents a methodology for modeling radiation hardness assurance activities into MBSE throughout the NASA project life cycle. Also includes information about quantitatively and qualitatively modeling radiation-induced failures with system models.

Radiation Hardness Assurance↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Planetary Protection Program to Assure Mission Safety and Success

NASA’s planetary protection program seeks to understand and control harmful contamination of solar systems targets of exploration by terrestrial contamination and prevent harmful biological contamination of the Earth-Moon system by extraterrestrial life, should it exist. To accomplish these objective’s NASA has developed a balanced safety and mission assurance strategy that leverages COSPAR Policy guidelines, workshops, scientific consensus, partnerships and international working groups to develop policy and implementation guidelines. Upcoming crewed missions to the Moon and Mars, as well as robotic missions to small solar system bodies, Europa, Titan and Mars are some of the driving activities of astrobiological interest that continue to emphasize the importance of planetary protection throughout the project life cycle. Development of a responsive and updated agency planetary protection policy has been a focus area in supporting upcoming mission opportunities for exploration to include Mars sample return and crewed mission concepts. An extensive update of this policy is underway which encompasses crewed and robotic procedural polices, a general technical requirements standard, and an implementation handbook. During this timeframe NASA has been working with the international community to develop scientific consensus, and to identify and fill in knowledge gaps for developing balanced policy guidelines, incorporation of risk informed decision making and quantitative technical standards. NASA has developed a planetary protection roadmap as a technology management strategy to track and monitor the development of each knowledge gaps. The Committee of Space Research (COSPAR) Policy on Planetary Protection and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee of Planetary Protection are used to inform updates to the planetary protection polices and guidelines. This integrated strategy for planetary protection seeks to provide a transparent, structured approach for enabling missions, providing guidance for NASA and NASA partnered missions, and being responsive to the increased interest and activities in space exploration whilst maintaining an understanding and control of harmful contamination.

James Benardini↗
NASA NTRS2022

A Systems Margin Metric for Capability Above Basic Estimates

A systems margin metric is described that indicates the total system performance capability above the basic estimates (CABE) for mass, power, energy, propellant, V, ISP, computer performance, and any other design parameter with a defined margin. This concept normalizes all terms for contingency, margin, growth allowance, and reserves to the amount that the basic mass of the vehicle could grow if each of those “room to grow” terms were released. The CABE metric is intended to provide a uniform indication of the total performance margin of a system at a given point in the project life cycle. The CABE metric can also provide a normalized means to trade the “room to grow” terms between various resources in order to solve system performance issues as they arise. For example, the CABE percentage for ISP margin could be equally traded with the CABE percentage for power margin.

Lepsch, Roger↗
NASA NTRS2022

Assurance Equations: A Cost and Criticality Model for Optimizing Quality Assurance Surveillance

The cost of quality vs cost of failure correction has been a long-running topic of discussion within the Aerospace community. It leads directly to concepts of “risk tolerance”, and risk-based decision-making. It would be valuable if there was a way to compute the optimal investment in customer-executed quality assurance activities using defect significance with respect to performance objectives, the activities’ defect detection effectiveness, and the cost-penalty for late discovery of impactful defects. This optimization is particularly of interest to projects whose budget constraints significantly limit their risk management options.The cost to fix defects (i.e., failure correction) escalates as the project matures. There have been studies attempting to determine the relative cost of fixing defects discovered during various phases of a project life cycle with important implications, all of which suggest growth factors are large. The commonly referred to 1:10:100 rule represents a cost multiplier for repair/rework across the Design to Fab to Test hardware development phases. Cost premiums for QA activities also accumulate when they are treated as mandatory (due to schedule drag) or are performed later than their assigned phase.This paper describes the modeling of development phase -dependencies in the conduct of typical customer-executed quality assurance activities. Our initial modeling encompasses:• Distinct phases of the production lifecycle• Multiple kinds of Defects, each with some a-priori likelihood of being present• Each defect’s impact on performance Objectives for a type of hardware• The cost and efficacy of assurance techniques at detecting such Defects• The costs of fixing those Defects detected in a given phase of the production lifecycleThe model captures assurance activities’ abilities to Detect defects. Upon detection it is assumed that the Defect is immediately fixed. Defects that “escape” detection by some activity may thereafter be detected by a later activity, but by then the cost of fixing the Defect may have escalated. Defects are related to the performance Objectives they would detract from, were those Defects to remain present in the operating system.We have constructed and are exploring, a model that relates the importance of hardware system elements to mission objectives, the impact of types of Defects on those hardware types, the cost of customer-executed assurance activities (i.e., supplier controls) and their effectiveness towards reducing an impactful quality escape, and the cost of Defect correction across production phase. We describe the approach taken to select the key model aspects, why they are relevant to our NASA mission, and our efforts to populate it with relevant and contemporary data. We use a notional example to illustrate model design and function.

Plante, Jeannette↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Providing Affordable Access to the Lunar and Martian Gravity Environments for Conducting Scientific Research and Enabling Technology Development

NASA’s Artemis campaign aims to explore the Moon for scientific discovery, technology advancement, and to learn how to live and work on another world as we prepare for human missions to Mars. Like the Moon, Mars is a rich destination for scientific discovery and a driver of technologies that will enable humans to travel and explore far from Earth. Conducting space research and validating gravity-dependent technologies in low-Earth orbit or on the surface of the Moon or Mars is expensive and typically requires long project life cycles. To achieve NASA’s Moon to Mars objectives, it will be necessary to have affordable, ground-based test platforms for carrying out this research and technology development in the relevant gravity environment. A proposed upgrade to NASA Glenn Research Center’s Zero Gravity Research Facility is presented that will provide more than 10 seconds of any prescribed gravity level between microgravity and Earth gravity, allowing users to rapidly conduct dozens of tests per day in a microgravity, Lunar, and Martian gravity environment. The design concept is described along with expected performance characteristics, and technologies and research areas that will benefit. The proposed ground-based variable gravity test capability will enable scientific breakthroughs and Moon to Mars technology and subsystem development while also providing a tool for educating and inspiring future scientists and engineers.

Variable Gravity↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Lunar Rover Design Concepts Assessments

Mass is a significant risk to programs and projects as they transition from formulation to implementation, especially in larger human space systems where delivery mass or volume can be a constrained commodity. • Concepts developed without an adequate systems-engineering basis, including design and operations experience, may miss significant functionality and subsequent mass required for integration or operations. • Further uncertainty can be associated with not fully understanding design best practices and standards that drive mass, such as design for minimum risk or fault tolerance.1 • Finally, the appropriate systems engineering mass properties management rigor and technical discipline insight are required to set the mass baseline, including appropriate mass growth allowance (MGA) to ensure program success. Mass is a key quantity that should be constantly monitored by the systems engineer and the program/project management stakeholder to ensure mission compatibility throughout the project life cycle. In addition, mass is a key programmatic performance metric monitored by the NASA Chief Financial Officer for current and future program cost estimating. NASA Exploration Systems sought an assessment of reasonableness with respect to different potential rover concepts that balances mass needs and human-class cargo lander capabilities. Appropriate systems engineering mass properties management rigor and technical discipline insight were used, and are required to set the mass baseline, including appropriate MGA to ensure program success. Two independent Lunar rover concepts were evaluated, with a goal to understand concept credibility and the Lunar rover designs potential extensibility for Mars surface operations. A notional generic rover concept is shown in Figure 1.

Systems Engineering↗