SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “lessons learned information system process improvement”

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.

62 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2005

Business Intelligence Modeling in Launch Operations

This technology project is to advance an integrated Planning and Management Simulation Model for evaluation of risks, costs, and reliability of launch systems from Earth to Orbit for Space Exploration. The approach builds on research done in the NASA ARC/KSC developed Virtual Test Bed (VTB) to integrate architectural, operations process, and mission simulations for the purpose of evaluating enterprise level strategies to reduce cost, improve systems operability, and reduce mission risks. The objectives are to understand the interdependency of architecture and process on recurring launch cost of operations, provide management a tool for assessing systems safety and dependability versus cost, and leverage lessons learned and empirical models from Shuttle and International Space Station to validate models applied to Exploration. The systems-of-systems concept is built to balance the conflicting objectives of safety, reliability, and process strategy in order to achieve long term sustainability. A planning and analysis test bed is needed for evaluation of enterprise level options and strategies for transit and launch systems as well as surface and orbital systems. This environment can also support agency simulation .based acquisition process objectives. The technology development approach is based on the collaborative effort set forth in the VTB's integrating operations. process models, systems and environment models, and cost models as a comprehensive disciplined enterprise analysis environment. Significant emphasis is being placed on adapting root cause from existing Shuttle operations to exploration. Technical challenges include cost model validation, integration of parametric models with discrete event process and systems simulations. and large-scale simulation integration. The enterprise architecture is required for coherent integration of systems models. It will also require a plan for evolution over the life of the program. The proposed technology will produce long-term benefits in support of the NASA objectives for simulation based acquisition, will improve the ability to assess architectural options verses safety/risk for future exploration systems, and will facilitate incorporation of operability as a systems design consideration, reducing overall life cycle cost for future systems. The future of business intelligence of space exploration will focus on the intelligent system-of-systems real-time enterprise. In present business intelligence, a number of technologies that are most relevant to space exploration are experiencing the greatest change. Emerging patterns of set of processes rather than organizational units leading to end-to-end automation is becoming a major objective of enterprise information technology. The cost element is a leading factor of future exploration systems.

Bardina, Jorge E.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Shuttle Entry Imaging Using Infrared Thermography

During the Columbia Accident Investigation, imaging teams supporting debris shedding analysis were hampered by poor entry image quality and the general lack of information on optical signatures associated with a nominal Shuttle entry. After the accident, recommendations were made to NASA management to develop and maintain a state-of-the-art imagery database for Shuttle engineering performance assessments and to improve entry imaging capability to support anomaly and contingency analysis during a mission. As a result, the Space Shuttle Program sponsored an observation campaign to qualitatively characterize a nominal Shuttle entry over the widest possible Mach number range. The initial objectives focused on an assessment of capability to identify/resolve debris liberated from the Shuttle during entry, characterization of potential anomalous events associated with RCS jet firings and unusual phenomenon associated with the plasma trail. The aeroheating technical community viewed the Space Shuttle Program sponsored activity as an opportunity to influence the observation objectives and incrementally demonstrate key elements of a quantitative spatially resolved temperature measurement capability over a series of flights. One long-term desire of the Shuttle engineering community is to calibrate boundary layer transition prediction methodologies that are presently part of the Shuttle damage assessment process using flight data provided by a controlled Shuttle flight experiment. Quantitative global imaging may offer a complementary method of data collection to more traditional methods such as surface thermocouples. This paper reviews the process used by the engineering community to influence data collection methods and analysis of global infrared images of the Shuttle obtained during hypersonic entry. Emphasis is placed upon airborne imaging assets sponsored by the Shuttle program during Return to Flight. Visual and IR entry imagery were obtained with available airborne imaging platforms used within DoD along with agency assets developed and optimized for use during Shuttle ascent to demonstrate capability (i.e., tracking, acquisition of multispectral data, spatial resolution) and identify system limitations (i.e., radiance modeling, saturation) using state-of-the-art imaging instrumentation and communication systems. Global infrared intensity data have been transformed to temperature by comparison to Shuttle flight thermocouple data. Reasonable agreement is found between the flight thermography images and numerical prediction. A discussion of lessons learned and potential application to a potential Shuttle boundary layer transition flight test is presented.

Horvath, Thomas↗

NASA NTRS2001

Automating Trend Analysis for Spacecraft Constellations

Spacecraft trend analysis is a vital mission operations function performed by satellite controllers and engineers, who perform detailed analyses of engineering telemetry data to diagnose subsystem faults and to detect trends that may potentially lead to degraded subsystem performance or failure in the future. It is this latter function that is of greatest importance, for careful trending can often predict or detect events that may lead to a spacecraft's entry into safe-hold. Early prediction and detection of such events could result in the avoidance of, or rapid return to service from, spacecraft safing, which not only results in reduced recovery costs but also in a higher overall level of service for the satellite system. Contemporary spacecraft trending activities are manually intensive and are primarily performed diagnostically after a fault occurs, rather than proactively to predict its occurrence. They also tend to rely on information systems and software that are oudated when compared to current technologies. When coupled with the fact that flight operations teams often have limited resources, proactive trending opportunities are limited, and detailed trend analysis is often reserved for critical responses to safe holds or other on-orbit events such as maneuvers. While the contemporary trend analysis approach has sufficed for current single-spacecraft operations, it will be unfeasible for NASA's planned and proposed space science constellations. Missions such as the Dynamics, Reconnection and Configuration Observatory (DRACO), for example, are planning to launch as many as 100 'nanospacecraft' to form a homogenous constellation. A simple extrapolation of resources and manpower based on single-spacecraft operations suggests that trending for such a large spacecraft fleet will be unmanageable, unwieldy, and cost-prohibitive. It is therefore imperative that an approach to automating the spacecraft trend analysis function be studied, developed, and applied to missions such as DRACO with the intent that mission operations costs be significantly reduced. The goal of the Constellation Spacecraft Trend Analysis Toolkit (CSTAT) project is to serve as the pathfinder for a fully automated trending system to support spacecraft constellations. The development approach to be taken is evolutionary. In the first year of the project, the intent is to significantly advance the state of the art in current trending systems through improved functionality and increased automation. In the second year, the intent is to add an expert system shell, likely through the adaptation of an existing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) or government-off-the-shelf (GOTS) tool to implement some level of the trending intelligence that humans currently provide in manual operations. In the third year, the intent is to infuse the resulting technology into a near-term constellation or formation-flying mission to test it and gain experience in automated trending. The lessons learned from the real missions operations experience will then be used to improve the system, and to ultimately incorporate it into a fully autonomous, closed-loop mission operations system that is truly capable of supporting large constellations. In this paper, the process of automating trend analysis for spacecraft constellations will be addressed. First, the results of a survey on automation in spacecraft mission operations in general, and in trending systems in particular will be presented to provide an overview of the current state of the art. Next, a rule-based model for implementing intelligent spacecraft subsystem trending will be then presented, followed by a survey of existing COTS/GOTS tools that could be adapted for implementing such a model. The baseline design and architecture of the CSTAT system will be presented. Finally, some results obtained from initial software tests and demonstrations will be presented.

Davis, George↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Model-Based Systems Engineering Journey to Developing a Concept of Operations

Starting in 2017, NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element began a systems engineering transition from traditional, document-centric development to model-centric development when defining its foundation medical systems. These foundation medical systems define a Concept of Operations (ConOps) and identify the generic requirements for a medical system based on assumptions about a generic crew and mission environments and guidance from NASA standards (e.g., Medical “Levels of Care”). By making the transition, ExMC intends to improve communication among stakeholders about foundation medical system requirements and content. In addition, this transition will enable ExMC to lower both development and crew treatment risks for future, mission-specific medical systems. ExMC followed a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) paradigm when developing the foundation medical systems. A model-based approach provides several advantages over a traditional, document-centric approach. First, when Systems Engineers (SE) develop diagrams in a model using a standard modeling language, they produce information dense pictures that facilitate understanding much more efficiently with less room for misinterpretation than text. Second, due to the evolving nature of projects, documentation becomes out of date the minute it is published. This can result in people making decisions based on information that is no longer current, especially if they are referencing a locally-stored copy of a document. A model, on the other hand, is always up to date with the latest approved changes and information. It serves as a single point of truth. Third, a model-centric approach centralizes all important information in one place. Rather than having to flip through separate ConOps documents, design specifications, requirements specifications, and the like to coordinate information, a model captures the content in one, integrated spot. This integration makes tracing information from end-to-end easier with greater reliability. The ExMC Systems Engineering Lifecycle follows a well-defined process. ExMC Systems Engineers perform all major steps of the process, regardless of the development methodology. One of the first steps in the process is developing the ConOps that describes the operation of the system from the point of view of the users. It includes a list of the users and their needs, the goals of the medical system, key assumptions about the system, and definitions of the medical system’s operational environments. For this development effort, ExMC chose to replace the traditional text-based ConOps document with a model. While the decision to change the development workflow was not difficult, implementing the structural and organizational workflows were. It required showing ExMC’s users, most of whom are not Systems Engineers, how the information they require would be presented in the model and to gain their acceptance of this approach. This paper documents key lessons learned during the ConOps transformation by focusing on how the model represents information, the agile workflow used by SEs when developing the model and how it integrates into a project plan, how leadership influenced key users to accept the transformation, and how the users interact with the model information.

Jeffrey Robert Cohen↗

DOE OSTI2026

Facilitating Data Collection of Maintenance Events to Populate the Hydrogen Component Reliability Database (HyCReD)

The Hydrogen Component Reliability Database (HyCReD) is a collaborative project between the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the University of Maryland, and hydrogen stakeholders to improve safety and reliability for hydrogen facilities by implementing component reliability data taxonomies that support hydrogen infrastructure failure rate analysis. The project aims to quantify failure rates of hydrogen components through high-quality data collection and analysis on root causes and maintenance needed. HyCReD provides a common database for cataloging hydrogen component failures which exists for reliability research in many other mature industries [2]. The database fills a gap for the hydrogen community by providing a scientifically rigorous approach to quantitative risk assessment (QRA), prognostic health management (PHM), and reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) analysis. High level results will be aggregated and anonymized to protect company sensitive information; detailed results will be used to help address issues of hydrogen components. These advanced analytics will support accelerated deployment of hydrogen infrastructure by enabling better: design and safety of projects (safety codes and standards development), infrastructure reliability and cost (component failure rates, maintenance protocols), and component R&D needs (robust supply chain). A key to a successful HyCReD implementation is facilitating the ease of reporting and data quality in the database that can be used for analysis. Maintenance data was a previously identified gap in initial efforts to populate and validate the database taxonomies [3]. Collection of maintenance data will be instrumental in identifying failure modes and rates, identifying incipient component failures or reduced performance, cataloging best practices for maintenance routines and methods for prognostic health management, and quantifying the risk and effect of different failure modes. Several key priorities are identified for streamlined data collection to achieve quality and detailed failure data: Applicability, Ease of Use, Accessibility, and Information Security. The HyCReD team has now begun deployment of the database to several companies and groups that have signed non-disclosure agreements to facilitate the data collection of failures in industry hydrogen refueling station infrastructure. This paper will provide an update into the process of HyCReD deployment including the development of a coding guide for facility personnel to reference and ensure data quality and consistency from one station to another as well as implementation of contextually dependent data fields of system taxonomy and formatted entries to provide ease of use. The goal is to communicate the lessons learned from the roll-out to technicians and engineers in the field, and the addition of need for high level of security to protect all stakeholders.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Development and Validation of Smart Building Technology Modules for Academic and Professional Education (Final Technical Report)

Smart building technologies can improve building energy efficiency and resilience, reduce carbon emissions, and provide load flexibility to the grid. However, in both college curricula and building professionals’ continuing education, there is a lack of systematic instruction on smart building technologies. Slipstream, partnering with Texas A&M University (TAMU), the Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE), and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), developed a semester-long smart building curriculum for college students and 16 training videos for building professionals and the general public. The education and training cover the drivers and benefits of smart building technologies, key building energy systems, the latest sensor technologies and IoT devices, and focus on topics related to smart building controls (i.e., energy management information systems, smart building control platforms, cybersecurity, grid-interactive-efficient buildings [GEBs], smart building control methods, and occupant-centric control). The smart building curriculum for college students was taught at TAMU in the Spring semester of 2024 as part of the validation process. Student feedback was collected and summarized in a validation report by TAMU. The curriculum material was also reviewed by SBSE faculty who are interested in teaching smart building technology-related courses. Suggestions on revisions and better adoption of the materials by other faculty across the architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) domains were compiled in a distinct validation report by SBSE. The SBSE validation report was used to create structured subsets of the curriculum material for adoption at different levels in different sub-disciplines. These subsets are categorized and offered on the SBSE website (https://www.sbse.org/courses/Smart-Building-Technologies). The 16 training videos for building professionals and the general public were previewed by 17 industry experts, and feedback and suggested changes were incorporated into the final version of these videos. The videos are organized into a smart building technology training course and published on the Whole Building Design Guide website (https://www.wbdg.org/ce/doe/bto/sbtt), which is hosted by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). Project team members created marketing materials to promote the awareness of these free, publicly available education and training resources. Outreach and marketing activities included creating short promotional videos, building project webpages, making project announcements on social media, conducting an email campaign, and directly reaching out to faculties and building professionals. This report describes the project approach, provides outlines of the training materials, along with links to resources, and identifies lessons learned in creating the content. We also suggest ways to scale the instruction of smart building concepts to empower the workforce to accelerate the adoption of smart building technologies in the real world.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

NASA NTRS2013

NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study

To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.

Rarick, Heather L.↗

NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗