SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This presentation describes a distributed, data-centric collaborative information management (DDCIM) approach for project management and SE&I that was successfully implemented on two in-house NASA flight test projects.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery. Extending the reach of humanity through the human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond is key to that mission. NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives document establishes long-term goals and objectives for crewed deep space exploration; however, satisfying NASA’s Moon to Mars Objectives requires an innovative approach to the definition, management, and execution of NASA’s Moon to Mars Architecture. An architecture offers a high-level unifying structure and defines a system. It provides rules, guidelines, and constraints that define a cohesive and coherent framework that identifies constituent parts, relationships, and connections and establishes how those parts fit and work together. This Architecture Definition Document (ADD) establishes the process for the decomposition of objectives empowers the agency’s success in achieving human exploration of the cosmos. NASA updates this document annually to reflect the maturation of the architecture and the progress NASA and partners make toward achieving exploration objectives. The ADD is not a manifest or requirements document. Instead, it serves as a tool for the programs, projects, and engineers who will implement and execute NASA’s bold ambitions for crewed exploration of deep space. As established in the Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives, “Why” we explore encompasses three pillars: Science, Inspiration, and National Posture. Ensuring success in all three areas requires an architectural approach that incorporates innovation, collaboration, and partnerships that can be sustained across a multi-decadal effort. This second revision (Rev-B) of the ADD, developed to support NASA’s 2024 Architecture Concept Review (ACR), incorporates several key updates to support the continued evolution of the architecture. Since the last revision of the ADD, NASA has significantly improved the clarity of the objective decomposition, which distills exploration objectives into the characteristics and needs and use cases and functions needed to achieve them. The updated decomposition incorporates findings from internal studies and diverse stakeholder feedback. A model-based systems engineering approach ensures coherence and consistency, removing inconsistency and repetition. Revision B also incorporates advancements to NASA’s Mars architecture, including insight into initial capabilities, systems, and operations necessary to support the Humans to Mars segment. Updates to objective decomposition for Mars add significant detail to the ADD and hint at areas of forward work and future study. An appendix adds greater depth in the future decisions needed for Mars that will drive lunar needs. They are not the only decisions to be made, but they will have huge effects on subsequent decisions. NASA continues to introduce new exploration systems into the architecture. Two new elements — initial surface habitat and lunar surface cargo lander—successfully passed mission concept review in 2024 as a result of extensive analysis, concept refinement, and studies. These elements and their respective reference missions appear in this revision. NASA also continues to apply architecture processes to cross-agency efforts and coordination with external stakeholders by including definitions of architecture technology gaps — essential areas for engagement across and beyond the agency. The technology gaps appendix identifies areas that need attention and innovation to enable future exploration. In publishing this information, NASA communicates the technologies and capabilities that may benefit from partnership with industry, academia, other U.S. government agencies, and international space agencies. Ultimately, NASA established the Moon to Mars Architecture approach to communicate and facilitate humanity’s journey into the universe according to the principles and recurring tenets of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives. The NASA architecture team thanks their many stakeholders, participants, and partners for their efforts to review and provide feedback. Their support has been critical to the success of this approach.
The international space science community had recognized the importance of space weather more than a decade ago, which resulted in a number of international collaborative activities such as the Climate and Weather of the Sun Earth System (CAWSES) by SCOSTEP and the International Space Weather Initiative (ISWI). The ISWI program is a continuation of the successful International Heliophysical Year (IHY) program. These programs have brought scientists together to tackle the scientific issues behind space weather. In addition to the vast array of space instruments, ground based instruments have been deployed, which not only filled voids in data coverage, but also inducted young scientists from developing countries into the scientific community. This paper presents a summary of CAWSES and ISWI activities that promote space weather science via complementary approaches in international scientific collaborations. capacity building. and public outreach.
The Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) project team constructed an analog prototype lunar surface laboratory called the Pressurized Excursion Module (PEM). The prototype unit subsystems were integrated in a short amount of time, utilizing a rapid prototyping approach that brought together over 20 habitation-related technologies from a variety of NASA centers. This paper describes the system integration strategies and lessons learned, that allowed the PEM to be brought from paper design to working field prototype using a multi-center team. The system integration process was based on a rapid prototyping approach. Tailored design review and test and integration processes facilitated that approach. The use of collaboration tools including electronic tools as well as documentation enabled a geographically distributed team take a paper concept to an operational prototype in approximately one year. One of the major tools used in the integration strategy was a coordinated effort to accurately model all the subsystems using computer aided design (CAD), so conflicts were identified before physical components came together. A deliberate effort was made following the deployment of the HDU PEM for field operations to collect lessons learned to facilitate process improvement and inform the design of future flight or analog versions of habitat systems. Significant items within those lessons learned were limitations with the CAD integration approach and the impact of shell design on flexibility of placing systems within the HDU shell.
The international solar-terrestrial physics community had recognized the importance of space weather more than a decade ago, which resulted in a number of international collaborative activities such as the Climate and Weather of the Sun Earth System (CAWSES) by the Scientific Committee on Solar Terrestrial Physics (SCOSTEP). The CAWSES program is the current major scientific program of SCOSTEP that will continue until the end of the year 2013. The CAWSES program has brought scientists from all over the world together to tackle the scientific issues behind the Sun-Earth connected system and explore ways of helping the human society. In addition to the vast array of space instruments, ground based instruments have been deployed, which not only filled voids in data coverage, but also inducted young scientists from developing countries into the scientific community. This paper presents a summary of CAWSES and other SCOSTEP activities that promote space weather science via complementary approaches in international scientific collaborations, capacity building, and public outreach.
Contents include the following: Introduction and approach. Regulatory radar. SEA collaborative studies. Inter-agency collaborative effort. SEA technical issues. Material concerns. SEA contracts.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administr ation at Marshall Space Flight Center and the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville Alabama USA, are jointly developing a new class of science and technology mission small satellites. The Fast, Affordable, Science and Technology SATell ite (FASTSAT) was designed and developed using a new collaborative and best practices approach. The FASTSAT development, along with the new class of low cost vehicles currently being developed, would allow performance of ~ 30 kg payload mass missions for a cost of less than 10 million US dollars.
Small spacecraft (smallsats) continue to find meaningful applications in the exploration of space and the Earth. Many agencies, companies, and universities are successfully exploiting these lower cost platforms, with their associated higher flight frequencies to rapidly develop and test novel technologies, conduct robotic exploration missions, and perform a wide range of science investigations. In addition to their lower costs to develop, integrate, launch, and operate, smallsats foster alternate approaches that can be used to conduct space research. This allows non-traditional individuals, groups, and organizations to contribute to space exploration and science applying novel management approaches spanning mission design, testing, and operations. Many of these approaches are based on collaborations and networks and have origins in related industries. Over time, a smallsat community has evolved to embody a new way of doing space. NASA, through various methods supports the development and growth of these communities, both within the agency and externally. This paper describes the processes, tools, and resources that NASA has developed and deployed to enable, inform, streamline, and sustain the smallsat community for the benefit of the space agency.
Clouds play a central role in the global climate system through the modulation of Earth’s energy flows and as a mediator of precipitation. In the Arctic, clouds are also a major player; however, the processes that govern cloud evolution in the Arctic differ from most of the other regions of the globe. Thus, clouds are a key “wildcard” within the Arctic climate system that could have a substantial influence on the Arctic climate system response to anthropogenic forcing. What is the role of clouds within the phenomenon known as Arctic Amplification? This is question does not have a clear answer. Clouds seem to be a center to the important processes driving Arctic Amplification (e.g., the atmospheric response to sea ice loss and airmass transformation), however feedback analysis studies indicate that net cloud feedback in the Arctic is small. This seminar discusses the role of clouds within the Arctic Amplification processes reviewing aspects of what we know about Arctic clouds and the uncertainties that limit our ability to model them. Results from recently published and ongoing work are presented that provide an observationally-based estimate of the cloud-sea ice feedback and evaluate cloud properties within models. The goal of this presentation is to ignite a discussion and new collaborations around the best approaches to resolving uncertainties related to the role of clouds with the Arctic system and how to better represent Arctic clouds in models.
This call to action by Drs. Johnson and Wilkinson is part of a mosaic of voices sharing tangible progress within the climate movement 1,2. This call speaks to us as environmental and Earth scientists motivated by the urgency of climate change and social inequity and who contribute to finding science-driven climate solutions as part of our daily jobs. Unfortunately, we are often unable to efficiently move this critical and urgent work forward because we are impeded by cumbersome daily workflows and restrictive workplace cultures. Our workplaces have not kept pace with the modern realities of data-intensive science: increasing data volumes and storage needs, rapidly evolving technology, new skill requirements, and a growing need for extensive and diverse collaboration. Struggling with old approaches and learning new ones in isolation can fuel burnout and turnover, preventing us from working on science-driven climate solutions effectively.
This paper describes a collaborative engineering process developed by the Marshall Space Flight Center's Advanced Concepts Office for performing rapid preliminary design and mission concept definition studies for potential future NASA missions. The process has been developed and demonstrated for a broad range of mission studies including human space exploration missions, space transportation system studies and in-space science missions. The paper will describe the design team structure and specialized analytical tools that have been developed to enable a unique rapid design process. The collaborative engineering process consists of integrated analysis approach for mission definition, vehicle definition and system engineering. The relevance of the collaborative process elements to the standard NASA NPR 7120.1 system engineering process will be demonstrated. The study definition process flow for each study discipline will be will be outlined beginning with the study planning process, followed by definition of ground rules and assumptions, definition of study trades, mission analysis and subsystem analyses leading to a standardized set of mission concept study products. The flexibility of the collaborative engineering design process to accommodate a wide range of study objectives from technology definition and requirements definition to preliminary design studies will be addressed. The paper will also describe the applicability of the collaborative engineering process to include an integrated systems analysis approach for evaluating the functional requirements of evolving system technologies and capabilities needed to meet the needs of future NASA programs.
Modularizing a large optimization problem so that the solutions to the subproblems provide a good overall solution is a challenging problem. In this paper we present a multi-agent approach to this problem based on aligning the agent objectives with the system objectives, obviating the need to impose external mechanisms to achieve collaboration among the agents. This approach naturally addresses scaling and robustness issues by ensuring that the agents do not rely on the reliable operation of other agents We test this approach in the difficult distributed optimization problem of imperfect device subset selection [Challet and Johnson, 2002]. In this problem, there are n devices, each of which has a "distortion", and the task is to find the subset of those n devices that minimizes the average distortion. Our results show that in large systems (1000 agents) the proposed approach provides improvements of over an order of magnitude over both traditional optimization methods and traditional multi-agent methods. Furthermore, the results show that even in extreme cases of agent failures (i.e., half the agents fail midway through the simulation) the system remains coordinated and still outperforms a failure-free and centralized optimization algorithm.
The Fourth AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop and the Third Geometry and Mesh Generation Workshop were held collaboratively with the common goal of assessing the numerical prediction capability of current-generation computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technology for swept, medium/high-aspect-ratio wings in high-lift configurations. A key aspect of this joint endeavor was the use of Technology Focus Groups, an innovative new approach for workshops involving close collaboration between participants. These groups, which included both mesh generation and flow solver experts, worked to accelerate advancements for their particular methodologies by addressing key questions of importance {\em prior} to the workshop. The high-lift version of the NASA Common Research Model (CRM-HL) configuration was the focus of this workshop. Measured experimental wind tunnel data were available for comparison. The workshop also included a two-dimensional turbulence model verification exercise based on the CRM-HL wing shape. Altogether, 44 participants submitted a total of 184 data sets of CFD results. This paper provides a high-level summary of the results and conclusions from the workshop. Like at past workshops, fixed-grid Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes continued to be inaccurate and inconsistent for high lift. However, mesh adaptation definitively brought more consistency. Scale-resolving methods appeared most promising for predicting high-lift flow physics.
Traditionally, nodes in a sensor network simply collect data and then pass it on to a centralized node that archives, distributes, and possibly analyzes the data. However, analysis at the individual nodes could enable faster detection of anomalies or other interesting events, as well as faster responses such as sending out alerts or increasing the data collection rate. There is an additional opportunity for increased performance if individual nodes can communicate directly with their neighbors. Previously, a method was developed by which machine learning classification algorithms could collaborate to achieve high performance autonomously (without requiring human intervention). This method worked for supervised learning algorithms, in which labeled data is used to train models. The learners collaborated by exchanging labels describing the data. The new advance enables clustering algorithms, which do not use labeled data, to also collaborate. This is achieved by defining a new language for collaboration that uses pair-wise constraints to encode useful information for other learners. These constraints specify that two items must, or cannot, be placed into the same cluster. Previous work has shown that clustering with these constraints (in isolation) already improves performance. In the problem formulation, each learner resides at a different node in the sensor network and makes observations (collects data) independently of the other learners. Each learner clusters its data and then selects a pair of items about which it is uncertain and uses them to query its neighbors. The resulting feedback (a must and cannot constraint from each neighbor) is combined by the learner into a consensus constraint, and it then reclusters its data while incorporating the new constraint. A strategy was also proposed for cleaning the resulting constraint sets, which may contain conflicting constraints; this improves performance significantly. This approach has been applied to collaborative clustering of seismic and infrasonic data collected by the Mount Erebus Volcano Observatory in Antarctica. Previous approaches to distributed clustering cannot readily be applied in a sensor network setting, because they assume that each node has the same view of the data set. A view is the set of features used to represent each object. When a single data set is partitioned across several computational nodes, distributed clustering works; all objects have the same view. But when the data is collected from different locations, using different sensors, a more flexible approach is needed. This approach instead operates in situations where the data collected at each node has a different view (e.g., seismic vs. infrasonic sensors), but they observe the same events. This enables them to exchange information about the likely cluster membership relations between objects, even if they do not use the same features to represent the objects.
This paper describes a collaborative multiagent modeling and simulation approach for designing work systems. The Brahms environment is used to model mission operations for a semi-autonomous robot mission to the Moon at the work practice level. It shows the impact of human-decision making on the activities and energy consumption of a robot. A collaborative work systems design methodology is described that allows informal models, created with users and stakeholders, to be used as input to the development of formal computational models.
Historical evolution of engineering disciplines and the complexity of the MDO problem suggest that disciplinary autonomy is a desirable goal in formulating and solving MDO problems. We examine the notion of disciplinary autonomy and discuss the analytical properties of three approaches to formulating and solving MDO problems that achieve varying degrees of autonomy by distributing the problem along disciplinary lines. Two of the approaches-Optimization by Linear Decomposition and Collaborative Optimization-are based on bi-level optimization and reflect what we call a structural perspective. The third approach, Distributed Analysis Optimization, is a single-level approach that arises from what we call an algorithmic perspective. The main conclusion of the paper is that disciplinary autonomy may come at a price: in the bi-level approaches, the system-level constraints introduced to relax the interdisciplinary coupling and enable disciplinary autonomy can cause analytical and computational difficulties for optimization algorithms. The single-level alternative we discuss affords a more limited degree of autonomy than that of the bi-level approaches, but without the computational difficulties of the bi-level methods. Key Words: Autonomy, bi-level optimization, distributed optimization, multidisciplinary optimization, multilevel optimization, nonlinear programming, problem integration, system synthesis
Collaborating closely with commercial air carriers and related organizations, the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) regulates air traffic and ensures the safety and efficiency of air operations. Air traffic controllers make strategic decisions, such as delaying, rerouting, or canceling flights, partly based on guidance provided by the FAA’s Air TrafficControl System Command Center (ATCSCC). The guidance includes, among other things, control measures known asTraffic Management Initiatives (TMIs) designed to enhance safety and improve operational efficiency. TMIs play a crucial role in managing the demand and capacity within the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). Two major TMIs that are routinely used (primarily to mitigate the adverse effects of bad weather) are Ground Delay Programs (GDPs) andGround Stops (GSs). In a GDP, flights destined for airports facing thunderstorm activity experience delays at their origin airports. This proactive approach minimizes the risk of routing aircraft through hazardous weather conditions and also replaces (fuel burning) airborne delays with ground delays. In a GS, a temporary restriction is imposed on the departure or arrival of aircraft at a specific airport or within a designated airspace. Although other TMIs (e.g., miles-in-trail) are also implemented as part of (air) traffic flow management in the NAS, the focus of this work is on GDPs and GSs. Since TMIs, by design, lead to flight delays or cancellations, it is crucial to put in place the right set of parameters(e.g., scope and duration of the GDP). For example, when the end time of a GDP extends beyond what is necessary, it imposes unnecessary delays on departing flights. This situation could occur as a result of inaccurate prediction of the(required) duration of the GDP based on the weather forecast. On the other hand, if a GDP ends prematurely before the underlying capacity constraints are resolved at the destination airport, it may result in airborne holding. The delicate balance lies in matching the termination of the GDP precisely with the resolution of capacity constraints, avoiding both the imposition of unnecessary ground delays and the need for airborne holding due to premature program termination.Failing to specify the right parameters for TMIs also leads to flight delays, creating a significant obstacle in managing the increasing traffic volumes causing increased work load for the controllers. To address this issue, we propose the integration of Machine Learning (ML) models in the traffic flow management(TFM) pipeline. In current operations, decisions are made by human experts based on extensive training, historical patterns, available traffic and weather data. Since we have an abundance of data from past events that tell us the likely impact of various TMIs, by ingesting historical data, properly trained ML models can offer valuable insights and aid human decision-making. With the FAA increasingly exploring advanced analytics, ML emerges as a focal point for enhancing TFM within the National Airspace System (NAS). As a first step, this study aims to provide traffic controllers with decision-making support for the issuance and adjustment of TMIs. Data analytics and machine learning have been previously employed to address some of the challenges associated with TMIs. Numerous studies have concentrated on various facets of TMI issuance, exploring factors influencing TMI parameters, including arrival rate, airport capacity, and delay prediction. For example, using weather forecasts, several statistical methods were used to produce probabilistic capacity profiles which in conjunction with deterministic models provided insights into the GDP planning process [1–4]. The downside of using deterministic models is that they rely on fixed inputs and predetermined rules, which lack the ability to account for the inherent uncertainty and variability present in real-world scenarios. In a separate series of studies, researchers aimed to predict the occurrences of GDPs and GSs. The majority of these studies utilized various supervised learning methods, including Decision Trees, Naive Bayes, Support VectorMachines, and Random Forests to analyze the influence of weather conditions and arrival demand on TMI incidents[5–8]. However, these studies primarily focused on predicting the incidence of TMIs without explicitly addressing the scope of TMIs, including their duration and their geographical coverage. Furthermore, the emphasis of these studies was largely on GDPs, given their higher frequency and longer duration when compared to GSs. A limited number of studies focused on predicting the parameters of TMIs, specifically addressing their duration and extent. In one such study focusing on optimizing the TMI parameters at San Francisco International Airport (SFO),the authors utilized a probabilistic forecast of fog [9]. They simulated various capacity scenarios based on the (fog)burn-off forecasts, selecting GDP parameters that minimized airborne and overall ground delays. However, this approach exclusively emphasizes stratus (fog) burn-off as the primary determinant of GDP and GS, neglecting other influential factors like severe weather events, runway closures, lower capacity than traffic demand, and other important variables. Given the complexity of predicting the TMI and determining its scope, we seek a more holistic approach. We aim to consider all significant factors that could impact TMIs and their parameters. What sets this research apart is the fusion of all data sources relevant to the issuance and adjustment of TMIs and it represents the first comprehensive attempt to optimize TMIs in this manner. Since this comprehensive solution involves various aspects, we break down the problem into smaller components and input all parameters into a unified model called the “TMI Adjuster”. Figure 1 shows the overall framework and the list of datasets used in each model. The objective of the TMI Adjuster module is to deliver reliable, consistent and expedited recommendations for the progression, adjustment, and termination of TMIs. The ML solution entails developing a pipeline capable of predicting the necessity of a TMI (e.g., GS or GDP) along with its various parameters. For example, in the case of a GS, this includes the scope of the GS either in terms of distance from the destination airport or based on pre-defined airspace sectors. Here, scope refers to those regions and departing airports that are subject to the GS. In this paper, we concentrate on the issuance of GSs in the three major airports in the New York area — LaGuardia(LGA), John F. Kennedy International (JFK), and Newark Liberty International (EWR). We fuse traffic, weather and other relevant aviation data from years 2017 to 2019 to train and validate the ML models. In particular, we use the following datasets: •Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF): meteorological forecasts specific to each airport, issued four times a day, covering predefined time periods. •TMI data: includes all GSs and GDPs along with their respective parameters. •Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM): includes traffic related data such as aircraft delays, arrival, and departure rates. •Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs): utilized to extract runway closure data and manage interdependencies between terminals in close proximity. •Flight cancellation data •Airspace Flow Programs (AFP): includes information on flight airborne holdings caused by TMIs. The data preprocessing entails transforming ASPM, TMI, AFP, NOTAMs, and weather data into an hourly format and consolidating all datasets by merging them based on date and time as the primary key. The TMI Adjuster framework comprises two parallel models: one dedicated to GS and a second model focused on GDP. As previously mentioned, our specific focus is on the GS model as a multi-classification problem. In this framework, each data point of the GS model input summarizes ten hours of data. Specifically, the data loader for the GS model generates the input and output of the model as follows: at a given time step, the input includes the actual traffic, weather, and TMI data from the two-hour window before the time step, alongside the weather forecast and scheduled traffic for the next 8 hours starting from the time step. Based on this information, the output of the GS model for each time interval consists of three dimensions. The first dimension represents a binary decision on whether there should be a GS in place for the next hour or not. The second dimension is related to the scope of the GS in the United States, and the third dimension is related to the scope of the GS in Canada (i.e., to determine if the GS impacts airports in Canada).One of the challenges with TMI modeling is the sparsity of TMI events, particularly regarding its scope. To address this challenge in the scope of the GS model output, we implement grouping. The GS scope for the US region is defined based on a list of centers that should be included when the GS is in place. With 20 centers in the US, we utilized historical data to group them into 4 categories. In particular, we summarized our historical data in a graph format where nodes represent centers, and link weights are defined based on the co-occurrence of centers in the scope parameter ofTMIs. By identified strongly connected components in this graph, we were able to partition the centers into four groups. We consider two model structures for the GS Model. Firstly, a hierarchical classification model [10], where the human decision-making for a GS is of hierarchical nature. The decision-maker first decides whether there is a need fora GS, and if the answer is yes, determines the scope. A hierarchical classification model organizes the problem into a class hierarchy, typically a tree or a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure, and considers the dependency of the decision in the previous step to the next component [10]. Here, we employ the local classifier per level approach, which involves training one multi-class classifier for each level of the class hierarchy. The second structure is the independent structure. In this setting, as the name suggests, we do not consider the dependency of the decisions in the different dimensions of the output of the model. Instead, for each dimension, we train a multi-class classifier independently. Table 1 summarizes GS model statistics for training, validation and testing. The table documents the effect of limiting data to the time steps when there was actually a TMI in place or when a TMI had just terminated. This resulted in a more balanced distribution of the GS class(GS positive class)versus “No GS”(GS negative class), which might help the training process. While JFK and LGA follow very similar distributions, with 40% and 42% GS positive class respectively, EWR has proportionally fewer GS incidents at 28%. Our subsequent phase involves evaluating the performance of both hierarchical structure and independent structure using different state-of-the-art multi-class classifier models such as Random Forest, Decision Trees, K-nearest Neighbors, and Logistic Regression and forecast the duration and scope of the GSs.
The application of human factors in aviation has grown to cover a wide range of disciplines and methods capable of assessing human-systems integration at many levels. For example, at the individual level, pilot workload may be studied while at the team level, coordinated workload distribution may be the focal point. At the organizational level, the way in which individuals and teams are supported by training and standards, policies and procedures may introduce additional, relevant topics. A consideration of human factors at each level contributes to our understanding of successes and failures in pilot performance, but this system focused on the flight deck alone -- is only one part of the airspace system. In the FAA's NextGen plan to overhaul the National Airspace System (NAS), new capabilities will enhance flightdeck systems (pilots), flight operations centers (dispatchers) and air traffic control systems (controllers and air traffic managers). At a minimum, the current roles and responsibilities of these three systems are likely to change. Since increased automation will be central to many of the enhancements, the role of automation is also likely to change. Using NextGen examples, a human factors approach for bridging complex airspace systems will be the main focus of this presentation. It is still crucial to consider the human factors within each system, but the successful implementation of new technologies in the NAS requires an understanding of the collaborations that occur when these systems intersect. This human factors approach to studying collaborative systems begins with detailed task descriptions within each system to establish a baseline of the current operations. The collaborative content and context are delineated through the review of regulatory and advisory materials, letters of agreement, policies, procedures and documented practices. Field observations and interviews also help to fill out the picture. Key collaborative functions across systems are identified and placed on a phase-of-flight timeline including information requirements, decision authority and use of automation, as well as level of frequency and criticality.