Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “policy directives”

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Architecture Robustness in NASA’s Moon to Mars Capability Development – FY23 Data Results

In preparation for humanity’s return to the Moon, it is important to advance technologies and capabilities that will allow for sustainability on the lunar surface and prepare for human missions to Mars. As charged in Space Policy Directive-1, NASA’s Artemis program will advance and develop technologies on the lunar surface that can be leveraged towards a safe and successful human round-trip mission to Mars. NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate Capabilities Integration Team (ESDMD CIT) is advancing a continuous effort to identify and map gaps between capabilities and anticipated human spaceflight architecture elements. As upcoming exploration missions approach, the architectural design tradespace increasingly narrows. This paper provides an updated exploration of certain architectural and element design choices for upcoming missions to the Moon and Mars, comparing and contrasting capability gaps and classes of capability gaps that are architecture robust with those that are not. In doing so, we identify certain capabilities as relevant, and therefore robust, across varying architectural possibilities while identifying other capabilities as only applicable to specific architectural pathways. Capabilities that are applicable to multiple elements across the architecture have more architectural breadth because of their increased likelihood of remaining relevant even if changes are made to some elements they are mapped to. Correspondingly, capabilities that are applicable to specific elements across the architecture but are necessary under almost any eventuality have more architectural depth because of their increased likelihood of remaining relevant even if architecture changes are made. One of the key analyses in this paper is an exploration of architecture robustness as a function of capability area, as defined by the NASA Technology Taxonomy. These results are then evaluated and analyzed across human spaceflight architecture elements to gain a greater understanding of the relationships between exploration capabilities and the systems that will eventually be implemented. Additional insights regarding investment strategies are also considered. General conclusions about these relationships are drawn.

Gaps↗
NASA NTRS2024

Communications System Concept of Operations (ConOp) for Supporting Second Shift (SS) Operations

Wildland fires take place most often in remote areas without access to communications infrastructure. Communication during wildfire operations is crucial for safe and effective command and control of air assets, ground-based firefighters, and fire management. Without connectivity, Incident Command (IC) cannot exchange information, receive alerts or work with all parties involved in the wildfire suppression operation. Current policy directs IC to use voice radio communications, which require no prior infrastructure, to provide information needed for the command, control and safety of personnel and resources. Cellular communications are used only for logistical purposes unless no other method is available. To address some of the shortcomings of the current state of communications, the Advanced Capabilities for Emergency Response Operations (ACERO) Second Shift (SS) technical team is developing characteristics of an air-to-ground Mesh Radio System (MRS) and preparing for a future demonstration. The MRS will allow air and ground assets to automatically join a radio network without relying on existing infrastructure and exchange information critical to maintaining situation awareness and air traffic management by the onsite IC. The MRS will also give users more options for communications in addition to voice communications.

David Fuller↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 1

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0. NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Uncertainty↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 2

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0 (January 2020). NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Risk Leadership↗
NASA NTRS1972

The Public Health Service guidelines. Governing research involving human subjects: An analysis of the policy-making process

The policy making process which led to development of the Public Health Service Guidelines governing research involving human subjects is outlined. Part 1 examines the evolution of PHS Guidelines, tracing (1) evolution of thought and legal interpretation regarding research using human subjects; (2) initial involvement of the Federal government; (3) development of the government's research program; (4) the social-political environment in which formal government policy was developed; and (5) various policy statements issued by the government. Part 2 analyzes the process by which PHS Guidelines were developed and examines the values and other underlying factors which contributed to their development. It was concluded that the evolution of the Guidelines is best understood within the context of a mixed-scanning strategy. In such a strategy, policy makers make fundamental decisions regarding the basic direction of policy and subsequent decisions are made incrementally and within the contexts set by the original fundamental decisions.

Frankel, M. S.↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Education Recommendation Report - Education Design Team 2011

NASA people are passionate about their work. NASA's missions are exciting to learners of all ages. And since its creation in 1958, NASA's people have been passionate about sharing their inspiring discoveries, research and exploration with students and educators. In May 2010, NASA administration chartered an Education Design Team composed of 12 members chosen from the Office of Education, NASA's Mission Directorates and Centers for their depth of knowledge and education expertise, and directed them to evaluate the Agency's program in the context of current trends in education. By improving NASA's educational offerings, he was confident that the Agency can play a leading role in inspiring student interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) as few other organizations can. Through its unique workforce, facilities, research and innovations, NASA can expand its efforts to engage underserved and underrepresented communities in science and mathematics. Through the Agency's STEM education efforts and science and exploration missions, NASA can help the United States successfully compete, prosper and be secure in the 21st century global community. After several months of intense effort, including meeting with education experts; reviewing Administration policies, congressional direction and education research; and seeking input from those passionate about education at NASA, the Education Design Team made six recommendations to improve the impact of NASA's Education Program: (1) Focus the NASA Education Program to improve its impact on areas of greatest national need (2) Identify and strategically manage NASA Education partnerships (3) Participate in National and State STEM Education policy discussions (4) Establish a structure to allow the Office of Education, Centers and Mission Directorates to implement a strategically integrated portfolio (5) Expand the charter of the Education Coordinating Committee to enable deliberate Education Program design (6) Improve communication to inspire learners

Pengra, Trish↗
NASA NTRS1984

International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, 17th, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, May 9-13, 1983, Proceedings. Volumes 1, 2 & 3

The collection, processing, and analysis of remote-sensing data from ground-based, airborne, and spaceborne instruments for application to the monitoring and management of the earth and environment and resources are examined in reviews and reports, some in summary form. Subject areas covered include US policy and directions on remote sensing (RS); the future of terrestrial RS from space; RS of land, oceans, and atmosphere from a global perspective; RS in hydrological modeling; microprocessing technology; array processors; geobased information systems; artificial intelligence; the Shuttle imaging radar; and current results from Landsat-4. Among the specific topics discussed are RS application to hydrocarbon exploration, airborne gamma-radiation assessment of snow water equivalent, surface-vegetation-biomass modeling from AVHRR and Landsat data, Landsat imagery of Mediterranean pollution, fast two-dimensional filtering of thermal-scanner data, RS of severe convective storms, registration of rotated images by invariant moments, and the geometric accuracy of Landsat-4 Thematic-Mapper P-tapes.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

2003 NASA Faculty Fellowship Program at Glenn Research Center

The Office of Education at NASA Headquarters provides overall policy and direction for the NASA Faculty Fellowship Program (NFFP). The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the Universities Space Research Association (USRA) have joined in partnership to recruit participants, accept applications from a broad range of participants, and provide overall evaluation of the NFFP. The NASA Centers, through their University Affairs Officers, develop and operate the experiential part of the program. In concert with co-directing universities and the Centers, Fellows are selected and provided the actual research experiences. This report summarizes the 2003 session conducted at the Glenn Research Center (GRC).Research topics covered a variety of areas including, but not limited to, biological sensors, modeling of biological fluid systems, electronic circuits, ceramics and coatings, unsteady probablistic analysis and aerodynamics, gas turbines, environmental monitoring systems for water quality, air quality, gaseous and particulate emissions, bearings for flywheel energy storage, shape memory alloys,photonic interrogation and nanoprocesses,carbon nanotubes, polymer synthesis for fuel cells, aviation communications, algorithm development and RESPlan Database.

Prahl, Joseph M.↗
NASA NTRS2005

The Calibration and Characterization of Earth Remote Sensing and Environmental Monitoring Instruments

The use of remote sensing instruments on orbiting satellite platforms in the study of Earth Science and environmental monitoring was officially inaugurated with the April 1, 1960 launch of the Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) [1]. The first TIROS accommodated two television cameras and operated for only 78 days. However, the TIROS program, in providing in excess of 22,000 pictures of the Earth, achieved its primary goal of providing Earth images from a satellite platform to aid in identifying and monitoring meteorological processes. This marked the beginning of what is now over four decades of Earth observations from satellite platforms. reflected and emitted radiation from the Earth using instruments on satellite platforms. These measurements are input to climate models, and the model results are analyzed in an effort to detect short and long-term changes and trends in the Earth's climate and environment, to identify the cause of those changes, and to predict or influence future changes. Examples of short-term climate change events include the periodic appearance of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the tropical Pacific Ocean [2] and the spectacular eruption of Mount Pinatubo on the Philippine island of Luzon in 1991. Examples of long term climate change events, which are more subtle to detect, include the destruction of coral reefs, the disappearance of glaciers, and global warming. Climatic variability can be both large and small scale and can be caused by natural or anthropogenic processes. The periodic El Nino event is an example of a natural process which induces significant climatic variability over a wide range of the Earth. A classic example of a large scale anthropogenic influence on climate is the well-documented rapid increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide occurring since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution [3]. An example of the study of a small-scale anthropogenic influence in climate variability is the Atlanta Land-use Analysis Temperature and Air-quality (ATLANTA) project [4]. This project has found that the replacement of trees and vegetation with concrete and asphalt in Atlanta, Georgia, and its environs has created a microclimate capable of producing wind and thunderstorms. A key objective of climate research is to be able to distinguish the natural versus human roles in climate change and to clearly communicate those findings to those who shape and direct environmental policy.

Butler, James J.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Designing the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle Upper Stage Element and Integrating the Stack at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

Fielding an integrated launch vehicle system entails many challenges, not the least of which is the fact that it has been over 30 years since the United States has developed a human-rated vehicle - the venerable Space Shuttle. Over time, whole generations of rocket scientists have passed through the aerospace community without the opportunity to perform such exacting, demanding, and rewarding work. However, with almost 50 years of experience leading the design, development, and end-to-end systems engineering and integration of complex launch vehicles, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center offers the in-house talent - both junior- and senior-level personnel - to shape a new national asset to meet the requirements for safe, reliable, and affordable space exploration solutions.' These personnel are housed primarily in Marshall's Engineering Directorate and are matrixed into the programs and projects that reside at the rocket center. Fortunately, many Apollo era and Shuttle engineers, as well as those who gained valuable hands-on experience in the 1990s by conducting technology demonstrator projects such as the Delta-Clipper Experimental Advanced, X-33, X-34, and X-37, as well as the short-lived Orbital Space Plane, work closely with industry partners to advance the nation's strategic capability for human access to space. Currently, only three spacefaring nations have this distinction, including the United States, Russia, and, more recently, China. The U.S. National Space Policy of2006 directs that NASA provide the means to travel to space, and the NASA Appropriations Act of2005 provided the initial funding to begin in earnest to replace the Shuttle after the International Space Station construction is complete in 20 IO? These and other strategic goals and objectives are documented in NASA's 2006 Strategic Plan.3 In 2005, a team of NASA aerospace experts conducted the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, which recommended a two-vehicle approach to America's next space transportation system for missions to the International Space Station in the next decade and to explore the Moon and establish an outpost around the 2020 timeframe.4 Based on this extensive study, NASA selected the Ares I crew launch vehicle configuration and the heavy-lift Ares V cargo launch vehicle (fig 1). This paper will give an overview of NASA's approach to integrating the Ares I vehicle stack using capabilities and assets that are resident in Marshall's Engineering Directorate, working in partnership with other NASA Centers and the U.S. aerospace industry. It also will provide top-level details on the progress of the in-house design of the Ares I vehicle's upper stage element.

Lyles, Garry↗
NASA NTRS2009

Operational Considerations and Comparisons of the Saturn, Space Shuttle and Ares Launch Vehicles

The United States (U.S.) space exploration policy has directed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to retire the Space Shuttle and to replace it with a new generation of space transportation systems for crew and cargo travel to the International Space Station, the Moon, Mars, and beyond. As part of the Constellation Program, engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama are working to design and build the Ares I, the first of two large launch vehicles to return humans to the Moon. A deliberate effort is being made to ensure a high level of operability in order to significantly increase safety and availability as well as reduce recurring costs of this new launch vehicle. It is the Ares Project's goal to instill operability as part of the requirements development, design and operations of the vehicle. This paper will identify important factors in launch vehicle design that affect the operability and availability of the system. Similarities and differences in operational constraints will also be compared between the Saturn V, Space Shuttle and current Ares I design. Finally, potential improvements in operations and operability for large launch vehicles will be addressed. From the examples presented, the paper will discuss potential improvements for operability for future launch vehicles.

Cruzen, Craig↗
NASA NTRS2016

EDL Pathfinder Missions

NASA is developing a long‐term strategy for achieving extended human missions to Mars in support of the policies outlined in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act and National Space Policy. The Authorization Act states that "A long term objective for human exploration of space should be the eventual international exploration of Mars." Echoing this is the National Space Policy, which directs that NASA should, "By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid‐2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth." Further defining this goal, NASA's 2014 Strategic Plan identifies that "Our long‐term goal is to send humans to Mars. Over the next two decades, we will develop and demonstrate the technologies and capabilities needed to send humans to explore the red planet and safely return them to Earth." Over the past several decades numerous assessments regarding human exploration of Mars have indicated that landing humans on the surface of Mars remains one of the key critical challenges. In 2015 NASA initiated an Agency‐wide assessment of the challenges associated with Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) of large payloads necessary for supporting human exploration of Mars. Due to the criticality and long‐lead nature of advancing EDL techniques, it is necessary to determine an appropriate strategy to improve the capability to land large payloads. This paper provides an overview of NASA's 2015 EDL assessment on understanding the key EDL risks with a focus on determining what "must" be tested at Mars. This process identified the various risks and potential risk mitigation strategies, that is, benefits of flight demonstration at Mars relative to terrestrial test, modeling, and analysis. The goal of the activity was to determine if a subscale demonstrator is necessary, or if NASA should take a direct path to a human‐scale lander. This assessment also provided insight into how EDL advancements align with other Agency Mars lander activities such as the technology portfolio investments and post‐2020 robotic Mars Exploration Program missions.

Drake, Bret G.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Optimal Fragmentation and Dispersion of Hazardous Near-Earth Objects

The complex problem of protecting the Earth from the possibility of a catastrophic impact by a hazardous near-Earth object (NEO) has been recently reassessed in [1]. In a letter on NEOs from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to the U.S. Senate and Congress in 2010, the White House OSTP strongly recommended that NASA take the lead in conducting research activities for NEO detection, characterization, and deflection technologies. Furthermore, President Obama's new National Space Policy specifically directs NASA to "pursue capabilities, in cooperation with other departments, agencies, and commercial partners, to detect, track, catalog, and characterize NEOs to reduce the risk of harm to humans from an unexpected impact on our planet." The Planetary Defense Task Force of the NASA Advisory Council also recommended that the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) begin efforts to investigate asteroid deflection techniques. With national interest growing in the United States, the NEO threat detection and mitigation problem was recently identified as one of NASA's Space Technology Grand Challenges. An innovative solution to NASA's NEO Impact Threat Mitigation Grand Challenge problem was developed through a NIAC Phase I study (9/16/11 - 9/15/12), and it will be further investigated for a NIAC Phase II study (9/10/12 - 9/9/14). Various NEO deflection technologies, including nuclear explosions, kinetic impactors, and slow-pull gravity tractors, have been proposed and examined during the past two decades. Still, there is no consensus on how to reliably deflect or disrupt hazardous NEOs in a timely manner. It is expected that the most probable mission scenarios will have a mission lead time much shorter than 10 years, so the use of nuclear explosives becomes the most feasible method for planetary defense. Direct intercept missions with a short warning time will result in arrival closing velocities of 10-30 kilometers per second with respect to the target asteroid. Given such a large arrival delta V requirement, a rendezvous mission to the target asteroid is infeasible with existing launch vehicles. Furthermore, state-of-the-art penetrating subsurface nuclear explosion technology limits the penetrator's impact velocity to less than approximately 300 meters per second because higher impact velocities prematurely destroy the nuclear fuzing mechanisms. Therefore, significant advances in hypervelocity nuclear interceptor/ penetrator technology must be achieved to enable a last-minute nuclear disruption mission with intercept velocities as high as 30 kilometers per second. Consequently, a HAIV (Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle) mission architecture (Figure 1.1), which blends a hypervelocity kinetic impactor with a subsurface nuclear explosion for optimal fragmentation and dispersion of hazardous NEOs, has been developed through a Phase I study, and it will be further developed and validated through a Phase II study.

Asteroid↗
NASA NTRS2017

The NASA Ames Life Sciences Data Archive: Biobanking for the Final Frontier

The NASA Ames Institutional Scientific Collection involves the Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA) and a biospecimen repository, which are responsible for archiving information and non-human biospecimens collected from spaceflight and matching ground control experiments. The ALSDA also manages a biospecimen sharing program, performs curation and long-term storage operations, and facilitates distribution of biospecimens for research purposes via a public website (https:lsda.jsc.nasa.gov). As part of our best practices, a tissue viability testing plan has been developed for the repository, which will assess the quality of samples subjected to long-term storage. We expect that the test results will confirm usability of the samples, enable broader science community interest, and verify operational efficiency of the archives. This work will also support NASA open science initiatives and guides development of NASA directives and policy for curation of biological collections.

Biobank↗
NASA NTRS2017

The NASA Ames Research Center Institutional Scientific Collection: History, Best Practices and Scientific Opportunities

The NASA Ames Life Sciences Institutional Scientific Collection (ISC), which is composed of the Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA) and the Biospecimen Storage Facility (BSF), is managed by the Space Biosciences Division and has been operational since 1993. The ALSDA is responsible for archiving information and animal biospecimens collected from life science spaceflight experiments and matching ground control experiments. Both fixed and frozen spaceflight and ground tissues are stored in the BSF within the ISC. The ALSDA also manages a Biospecimen Sharing Program, performs curation and long-term storage operations, and makes biospecimens available to the scientific community for research purposes via the Life Science Data Archive public website (https:lsda.jsc.nasa.gov). As part of our best practices, a viability testing plan has been developed for the ISC, which will assess the quality of archived samples. We expect that results from the viability testing will catalyze sample use, enable broader science community interest, and improve operational efficiency of the ISC. The current viability test plan focuses on generating disposition recommendations and is based on using ribonucleic acid (RNA) integrity number (RIN) scores as a criteria for measurement of biospecimen viablity for downstream functional analysis. The plan includes (1) sorting and identification of candidate samples, (2) conducting a statiscally-based power analysis to generate representaive cohorts from the population of stored biospecimens, (3) completion of RIN analysis on select samples, and (4) development of disposition recommendations based on the RIN scores. Results of this work will also support NASA open science initiatives and guides development of the NASA Scientific Collections Directive (a policy on best practices for curation of biological collections). Our RIN-based methodology for characterizing the quality of tissues stored in the ISC since the 1980s also creates unique scientific opportunities for temporal assessment across historical missions. Support from the NASA Space Biology Program and the NASA Human Research Program is gratefully acknowledged.

ALSDA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evolution of NASA’s Nuclear Flight Safety Program to Meet Changing Needs

Over the past 4 years, the United States (U.S.) Government has issued several new National policies that fundamentally change the approach to nuclear flight safety for aerospace applications, including the complete revision of the Federal policy for handling launch of spacecraft containing space nuclear systems. In response, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is updating its nuclear flight safety program while still maintaining consistency with other Federal policies, international conventions, and NASA’s own policies. To achieve this evolution, NASA is factoring in an objectives-driven and assurance case mindset to develop a risk-informed and performance-based program. NASA and others have successfully applied this mindset in other disciplines and contexts and it is being pursued here via broad cooperation within NASA and with external stakeholders. This paper will briefly describe how the NASA nuclear flight safety program is evolving to meet these changing needs.

NASA↗