Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CONTRACTOR”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1986

Theory of plasma contractors for electrodynamic tethered satellite systems

Recent data from ground and space experiments indicate that plasma releases from an object dramatically reduce the sheath impedance between the object and the ambient plasma surrounding it. Available data is in qualitative accord with the theory developed to quantify the flow of current in the sheath. Electron transport in the theory is based on a fluid model of a collisionless plasma with an effective collision frequency comparable to frequencies of plasma oscillations. The theory leads to low effective impedances varying inversely with the square root of the injected plasma density. To support such a low impedance mode of operation using an argon plasma source for example requires that only one argon ion be injected for each thirty electrons extracted from the ambient plasma. The required plasma flow rates are quite low; to extract one ampere of electron current requires a mass flow rate of about one gram of argon per day.

Parks, D. E.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Turbofan aft duct suppressor study. Contractor's data report of mode probe signal data

Acoustic modal distributions were measured in a fan test model having an annular exhaust duct for comparison with theoretically predicted acoustic suppression values. This report contains the amplitude and phase data of the acoustic signals sensed by the transducers of the two mode probes employed in the measurement. Each mode probe consisted of an array of 12 transducers sensing the acoustic field at three axial positions and four radial positions.

Fiske, G. H.↗
NASA NTRS1988

EG&G Florida, Inc., KSC base operations contractor Launch Readiness Assessment System

A computerized Launch Readiness Assessment System (LRAS) which compares 'current status' of readiness against the 'required status' of readiness for the Space Shuttle. The five subsystems of the LRAS are examined in detail. The LRAS Plan specifies the overall system requirements, procedures, and reports. The LRAS Manager drives the operation of the LRAS system. The Responding Units (RU) maintain support plans and procedures which specify the detail requirements for each mission or milestone. The Master Data Tables contain the milestone, responsible RU relationships, and requirements assessment categories. The LRAS Status System serves as the launch readiness assessment reporting system. The relationships between these subsystems are displayed in diagrams.

Geaslen, W. D.↗
NASA NTRS1969

Quality Program Provisions for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors

This publication sets forth quality program requirements for NASA aeronautical and space programs, systems, subsystems, and related services. These requirements provide for the effective operation of a quality program which ensures that quality criteria and requirements are recognized, definitized, and performed satisfactorily.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1987

Reliability Program Requirements for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors

General reliability program requirements for NASA contracts involving the design, development, fabrication, test, and/or use of aeronautical and space systems including critical ground support equipment are prescribed. The reliability program requirements require (1) thorough planning and effective management of the reliability effort; (2) definition of the major reliability tasks and their place as an integral part of the design and development process; (3) planning and evaluating the reliability of the system and its elements (including effects of software interfaces) through a program of analysis, review, and test; and (4) timely status indication by formal documentation and other reporting to facilitate control of the reliability program.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1994

Life test of a xenon hollow cathode for a space plasma contractor

A plasma contacting device using a hollow cathode for plasma production has been baselined for use on the Space Station. This application will require reliable, continuous operation of the cathode at electron emission currents of between 0.75 and 10 A for two years (17,500 hours). In order to validate life-time capability, a hollow cathode, operated in a diode configuration, has been tested for more than 8600 hours of stable discharge operation as of March 30, 1994. This cathode is operated at a steady-state emission current of 12.0 and a fixed xenon flow rate of 4.5 sccm. Discharge voltage and cathode temperature have remained relatively stable at approximately 12.9 V and 1260 C during the test. The test has experienced 7 shutdowns to date. In all instances, the cathode was reignited at about 42 V and resumed stable operation. This test represents the longest demonstration of stable operation of high current (greater than 1A) xenon hollow cathodes reported to date.

Sarver-Verhey, Timothy R.↗
NASA NTRS1997

NASA Contractor Report: Guidelines for Proof Test Analysis

These Guidelines integrate state-of-the-art Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM) and proof test implementation issues into a comprehensive proof test analysis procedure in the form of a Road Map which identifies the types of data, fracture mechanics based parameters, and calculations needed to perform flaw screening and minimum proof load analyses of fracture critical components. Worked examples are presented to illustrate the application of the Road Map to proof test analysis. The state-of-the-art fracture technology employed in these Guidelines is based on the EPFM parameter, J, and a pictorial representation of a J fracture analysis, called the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) approach. The recommended fracture technology is validated using finite element J results, and laboratory and hardware fracture test results on the nickel-based superalloy IN-718, the aluminum alloy 2024-T351 1, and ferritic pressure vessel steels. In all cases the laboratory specimens and hardware failed by ductile mechanisms. Advanced proof test analyses involving probability analysis and Multiple Cycle Proof Testing (MCPT) are addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided on to how to account for the effects of the proof test overload on subsequent service fatigue and fracture behaviors.

Chell, G. G.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Managing Challenges in a Multi Contractor Project

The presentation provides a project description, describes the integrated product team, and review project challenges. The challenges include programmatic, technical, basic drop tests, heavy drop tests, C-17 envelope expansion, and Ares I-X.

King, Ron↗
NASA NTRS2015

Contractors Road Heavy Equipment Area SWMU 055 Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Report Kennedy Space Center, Florida

This Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) Progress Report documents: (i) activities conducted as part of supplemental assessment activities completed from June 2009 through November 2014; (ii) Engineering Evaluation (EE) Advanced Data Packages (ADPs); and (iii) recommendations for future activities related to corrective measures at the Site. Applicable meeting minutes are provided as Appendix A. The following EE ADPs for CRHE are included with this CMI Progress Report: center dot Supplemental Site Characterization ADP (Step 1 EE) (Appendix B) center dot Site Characterization ADP (Step 1 EE) for Hot Spot 1 (HS1) (Appendix C) center dot Remedial Alternatives Evaluation (Step 2 EE) ADP for HS1 (Appendix D) center dot Interim Measures Work Plan (Step 3 EE) ADP for HS1 (Appendix E) center dot Site Characterization ADP (Step 1 EE) ADP for Hot Spot 2 (HS2), High Concentration Plume (HCP), and Low Concentration Plume (LCP) (Appendix F) A summary of direct-push technology (DPT) and groundwater monitoring well sampling results are provided in Appendices G and H, respectively. The Interim Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) is provided as Appendix I. Monitoring well completion reports, other applicable field forms, survey data, and analytical laboratory reports are provided as Appendices J through M, respectively, in the electronic copy of this document. Selected Site photographs are provided in Appendix N. The interim groundwater monitoring plan and document revision log are included as Appendices O and P, respectively. KSC Electronic Data Deliverable (KEDD) files are provided on the attached compact disk.

Johnson, Jill W.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Organizational Considerations for Implementing Systems Engineering and Integration in the Ares Projects Office

Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) is a critical discipline in developing new space systems. In 2005, NASA performed an internal study of 24 agency and Department of Defense (DoD) programs to evaluate methods of integrating SE&I practices and determine their effectiveness. The goal of the study was to determine the best SE&I implementation strategy for the Ares Projects Office. The study identified six SE&I organizational structures: 1. Lead systems integrator (LSI) with SE&I responsibility and government technical insight. 2a. Integration contractor with government SE&I responsibility (government insight). 2b. Integration contractor with government SE&I responsibility (government oversight). 3a. Prime contractor with SE&I responsibility (government insight). 3b. Prime contractor with SE&I responsibility (government oversight). 3c. Prime contractor with SE&I responsibility (government/industry partnership). 4a.Prime contractor with government SE&I responsibility (government insight). 4b. Prime contractor with government SE&I responsibility (government oversight). 4d.Prime contractors with total system performance responsibility (TSPR). 5. Prime contractor with government SE&I responsibility and integration products through a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). 6. Government/FFRDC in-house development with SE&I responsibility and function. The organizational structure used most often was number 4, using a prime contractor with government SE&I responsibility and government technical insight. However, data analyses did not establish a positive relationship between program development costs and specific SE&I organizational types, nor did it positively determine the relationship between successful programs or projects and their SE&I structure. The SE&I study reached the following conclusions: (1) Large, long-duration, technically complex programs or projects reach their technical goals, but rarely meet schedule or cost goals. NASA's recent successes have been smaller, short-duration development projects using heritage hardware/software, focused technology development, technical oversight and stable external factors. (2) Programs and projects have failed or been terminated due to lack of technical insight, relaxing of SE&I processes, and unstable external factors. (3) The study did not find a single, clear optimum SE&I organization type to fit all projects. However, while any organizational structure can be made to work, the fewer complexities in the program, the better the likelihood of success. (4) The most common successful SE&I organization structure type in the study was type 4b, where the government maintained integration responsibility, with the prime contractor providing SE&I products and the government providing technical oversight. This study was instrumental in helping the APO select organization structure 4, following the same SE&I and oversight process used during humanlund7s last voyages to the Moon.

Thomas, LeAnn↗
NASA NTRS1976

Comparative Evaluation of Phase 1 Results from the Energy Conversion Alternatives Study (ECAS)

Ten advanced energy conversion systems for central-station, based-load electric power generation using coal and coal-derived fuels which were studied by NASA are presented. Various contractors were selected by competitive bidding to study these systems. A comparative evaluation is provided of the contractor results on both a system-by-system and an overall basis. Ground rules specified by NASA, such as coal specifications, fuel costs, labor costs, method of cost comparison, escalation and interest during construction, fixed charges, emission standards, and environmental conditions, are presented. Each system discussion includes the potential advantages of the system, the scope of each contractor's analysis, typical schematics of systems, comparison of cost of electricity and efficiency for each contractor, identification and reconciliation of differences, identification of future improvements, and discussion of outside comments. Considerations common to all systems, such as materials and furnaces, are also discussed. Results of selected in-house analyses are presented, in addition to contractor data. The results for all systems are then compared.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1976

Payload specialist station study. Volume 3: Program study cost estimates. Part 1: Work breakdown structure

The work breakdown structure (WBS) for the Payload Specialist Station (PSS) is presented. The WBS is divided into two elements--PSS contractor and mission unique requirements. In accordance with the study ground rules, it is assumed that a single contractor, hereafter referred to as PSS Contractor will perform the following: (1) provide C and D hardware (MFDS and elements of MMSE), except for GFE; (2) identify software requirements; (3) provide GSE and ground test software; and (4) perform systems engineering and integration in support of the Aft Flight Deck (AFD) C and D concept. The PSS Contractor WBS element encompasses a core or standardized PSS concept. Payload peculiar C and D requirements identified by users will originate as a part of the WBS element mission unique requirements; these requirements will be provided to the PSS Contractor for implementation.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1982

Summary and evaluation of the conceptual design study of a potential early commercial MHD power plant (CSPEC)

The conceptual design study of a potential early commercial MHD power plant (CSPEC) is described and the results are summarized. Each of two contractors did a conceptual design of an approximtely 1000 MWe open-cycle MHD/steam plant with oxygen enriched combustion air preheated to an intermediate temperatue in a metallic heat exchanger. The contractors were close in their overall plant efficiency estimates but differed in their capital cost and cost of electricity estimates, primarily because of differences in balance-of-plant material, contingency, and operating and maintenance cost estimates. One contractor concluded that its MHD plant design compared favorably in cost of electricity with conventional coal-fired steam plants. The other contractor is making such a comparison as part of a follow-on study. Each contractor did a preliminary investigation of part-load performance and plant availability. The results of NASA studies investigating the effect of plant size and oxidizer preheat temperature on the performance of CSPEC-type MHD plants are also described. The efficiency of a 1000 MWe plant is about three points higher than of a 200 MWe plant. Preheating to 1600 F gives an efficiency about one and one-half points higher than preheating to 800 F for all plant sizes. For each plant size and preheat temperature there is an oxidizer enrichment level and MHD generator length that gives the highest plant efficiency.

Staiger, P. J.↗
NASA NTRS1979

Safety, reliability, maintainability and quality provisions for the Space Shuttle program

This publication establishes common safety, reliability, maintainability and quality provisions for the Space Shuttle Program. NASA Centers shall use this publication both as the basis for negotiating safety, reliability, maintainability and quality requirements with Shuttle Program contractors and as the guideline for conduct of program safety, reliability, maintainability and quality activities at the Centers. Centers shall assure that applicable provisions of the publication are imposed in lower tier contracts. Centers shall give due regard to other Space Shuttle Program planning in order to provide an integrated total Space Shuttle Program activity. In the implementation of safety, reliability, maintainability and quality activities, consideration shall be given to hardware complexity, supplier experience, state of hardware development, unit cost, and hardware use. The approach and methods for contractor implementation shall be described in the contractors safety, reliability, maintainability and quality plans. This publication incorporates provisions of NASA documents: NHB 1700.1 'NASA Safety Manual, Vol. 1'; NHB 5300.4(IA), 'Reliability Program Provisions for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors'; and NHB 5300.4(1B), 'Quality Program Provisions for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors'. It has been tailored from the above documents based on experience in other programs. It is intended that this publication be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect new experience and to assure continuing viability.

M S Malkin↗
NASA NTRS1989

Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts management and control requirements for NASA space flight programs

This document establishes electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) parts management and control requirements for contractors providing and maintaining space flight and mission-essential or critical ground support equipment for NASA space flight programs. Although the text is worded 'the contractor shall,' the requirements are also to be used by NASA Headquarters and field installations for developing program/project parts management and control requirements for in-house and contracted efforts. This document places increased emphasis on parts programs to ensure that reliability and quality are considered through adequate consideration of the selection, control, and application of parts. It is the intent of this document to identify disciplines that can be implemented to obtain reliable parts which meet mission needs. The parts management and control requirements described in this document are to be selectively applied, based on equipment class and mission needs. Individual equipment needs should be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement should be implemented on a procurement. Utilization of this document does not preclude the usage of other documents. The entire process of developing and implementing requirements is referred to as 'tailoring' the program for a specific project. Some factors that should be considered in this tailoring process include program phase, equipment category and criticality, equipment complexity, and mission requirements. Parts management and control requirements advocated by this document directly support the concept of 'reliability by design' and are an integral part of system reliability and maintainability. Achieving the required availability and mission success objectives during operation depends on the attention given reliability and maintainability in the design phase. Consequently, it is intended that the requirements described in this document are consistent with those of NASA publications, 'Reliability Program Requirements for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors,' NHB 5300.4(1A-l); 'Maintainability Program Requirements for Space Systems,' NHB 5300.4(1E); and 'Quality Program Provisions for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors,' NHB 5300.4(1B).

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1994

Panel to review EOSDIS plans

Formed in Jan. 1992, the Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans was charged with advising NASA on its plans for developing the Earth Observing System (EOS) Data and Information System (EOSDIS). Specifically, the panel was asked to do the following: assess the validity of the engineering and technical underpinnings of the EOSDIS; assess its potential value to scientific users; suggest how technical risk can be minimized; and assess whether current plans are sufficiently resilient to be adaptable to changing technology and requirements such as budget environments, data volumes, new users, and new databases. The panel completed an interim report (Addendum A) and transmitted it to NASA and other interested parties in the government on 9 Apr. 1992. Because of a delay in NASA's plans to select the contractor for EOSDIS, the panel was not able to complete its review of the program according to the original government request. With the issuance of a letter report (Addendum B) on 28 Sep. 1992, the panel became inactive until such time as NASA could release the details of the contractor's proposed architecture, schedule, and costs for developing EOSDIS. In early 1993, NASA awarded the contract for the EOSDIS Core System (ECS). On 20 Apr. 1993, NASA asked the panel to reconvene to do the following: ( 1) complete its review of NASA's approach to the EOSDIS architecture and implementation; (2) appraise NASA's responses to the panel's previous recommendations; and (3) review the planning for EOSDIS in the context of NASA's role in the Global Change Data and Information System (GCDIS) implementation plan. To respond to the NASA charge, the panel met three times in 1993 including sessions with NASA officials and the EOSDIS contractor. In addition, several of the panel members visited individual Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAAC's) to obtain additional views of EOSDIS. The panel has now obtained substantial information on the EOSDIS budget, contractor work program, and current baseline architecture that was not previously available, due to procurement restrictions. This report presents the panel's findings and recommendations based on this additional information.

Source record↗