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.
The Flight Opportunities program rapidly demonstrates promising technologies for space exploration, discovery, and the expansion of space commerce through suborbital testing with industry flight providers.
Jenn Gustetic will talk about how NASA selects ideas and collaborates with the ecosystem to develop new technologies for NASA’s portfolio. She will explain how the organization encourages collaboration, co-invests to develop ideas from lab to market, and acts as the hub-and-spoke of the ecosystem. Jenn will also discuss NASA’s journey to break silos and work horizontally across programs. • Gathering and evaluating ideas internally and externally with diverse players – engaging communities, being the hub-and-spoke of the ecosystem, and encouraging collaboration through co-investments • Identify the best ideas, funding ideas from maturation to hand-off with fluctuating budgets, and managing IP and tech transfer • Balancing investments in projects that address NASA’s needs with higher risk ideas that may not have an obvious application • Transitioning ideas to the next phase – training people and teams and ensuring ownership • Developing a 3.0 innovation capacity strategy – disrupting silos, enabling the ecosystem to work seamlessly together, and taking people and leaders along
- NASA developed the Advanced Air Mobility Project (AAM) and the National Campaign (NC) series to identify and address challenges ahead for advanced air mobility concepts. - NC seeks to challenge industry as follows; - Execute progressively more difficult ecosystem-wide system-level safety and integration scenarios - Demonstrate practical and scalable system concepts - Build a knowledge base for development of requirements and standards - There are currently three focus areas within the NASA AAM NC Portfolio - Vehicle Development and Operations: test and inform capabilities that are critical enablers for AAM such as electric aircraft propulsion and increasing levels of automation - Airspace Design and Operations: develop and validate an operational concept to integrate and manage AAM traffic safely and efficiently - Community Integration: understand and address critical barriers to community integration, such as public acceptance (noise, security, privacy, etc.), supporting infrastructure, and local regulation
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
ClinicalTrials.gov is a public registry designed to fulfill ethical obligations by providing information about clinical research studies to the general public, patients, medical practitioners and the research community. In the United States, recent revisions to human subject’s regulations have prompted new criteria for what constitutes a clinical trial along with requirements not typically requested for other types of human subject’s research. Identification of investigational clinical trials is the shared responsibility of NASA, the IRB, and the scientific investigators designing and conducting the research. This talk aims to educate attendees on the history of the development of Clinicaltrials.gov, discussion of why these requirements are important to both participants and researchers, and information on how to identify clinical trials research. In addition, we will provide information on the different requirements for clinical trials conducted at NASA or aboard the International Space Station.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC) was established in October 2010 to promote collaborative problem solving and project development to advance human health and performance innovations benefiting life in space and on Earth. The NHHPC, which now boasts over 135 corporate, government, academic and non-profit members, has convened four successful workshops and engaged in multiple collaborative projects. The center is currently developing a streamlined partner engagement process to capture technical needs and opportunities of NHHPC members, facilitate partnership development, and establish and manage collaborative projects for NASA. The virtual center facilitates member engagement through a variety of vehicles, including annual inperson workshops, webcasts, quarterly electronic newsletters, web postings, and the new system for partner engagement. The most recent NHHPC workshop was conducted in November 2013 on the topic of "Accelerating Innovation: New Organizational Business Models," and focused on various collaborative approaches successfully used by organizations to achieve their goals. The powerful notion of collaboration across sectors to solve intractable problems was recently highlighted in Williams Eggers' book "The Solution Revolution,"i which provides numerous examples of how business, government and social enterprises partner to solve tough problems. Mr. Eggers was a keynote speaker at the workshop, along with Harvard Business School, Jump Associates, and the Conrad Foundation. The robust program also included an expert panel addressing collaboration across sectors, four interactive breakout sessions, and a concluding keynote on innovative ways to increase science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education by NASA Associate Administrator for Education, Leland Melvin. The NHHPC forum also provides a platform for international partners to interact on many topics. Members from around the world include ISS International Partner JAXA; the World Biomimetic Foundation in Spain who is interested in advancing the use of biomimicry to provide technical solutions in many industries; Satellite Application Catapult in London, England who interested in pursuing U.S. collaborations with the Space and Life Sciences Innovation Centre under development in Scotland; and DLR in Cologne, Germany who developed :envihab, a collaborative facility for partners to pursue research and technology projects of mutual interest. The NHHPC has sponsored two global networking forums on innovation by partners Wyle, NASA, and DLR, was featured in the 2013 Humans in Space Symposium Panel on "NHHPC and :envihab - reach out to Future Markets," and is working on an international meeting for Spring 2014 in Cologne with :envihab.
The format of the annual report follows the same format as the quarterly report. In the annual report Elizabeth City State University (ECSU) has included responses to the items listed in the 'Critique of Quarterly Report Summary, and the 'Technical Recommendations for Consideration to NRTS/ECSU'. A budget for FY96-97 is included requesting $500,000.00 to cover the operating expenses of the Network Resources Training Site (NRTS) and its current partners as outlined in the original grant. The final attachment is a proposal to expand the partnerships and services of the NRTS at ECSU. This proposal would increase the number of predominantly minority attended secondary schools that this NRTS services and to support participation of these secondary schools in the GLOBE, ATLAS and Skymath projects. The proposal would also make Bennett College a full partner in the NRTS and it would increase the networking funds available to Virginia State University (HBCU/MI partner). Funds to increase the NRTS staff size to support the new partners and extended services is included in the extension budget. The NRTS Office Staff provides training and technical expertise to all its partners. In the appendix of the report, you will find technical soundness questionnaires and campus LAN Diagrams for the HBCU/MI Partners.
The NASA DEVELOP National Program seeks to simultaneously build capacity to use Earth observations in early career and transitioning professionals while building capacity with institutional partners to apply Earth observations in conducting operations, making decisions, or informing policy. This is done through 10-week feasibility projects, conducted by the DEVELOP teams in collaboration with decision makers. The program carries out 60-80 projects each year, engaging with over 120 partners from local, state, and federal governments to academic institutions and NGOs. To best understand project partner needs, projects begin with a thorough proposal development process in which partners share their current practices, needs, and capabilities. Throughout the project life cycle, the DEVELOP teams engage with the partners to ensure communication, feedback, and understanding. DEVELOP’s model of conducting rapid feasibility projects is an effective way to show decision maker show they can use NASA Earth science data in new ways to help them make informed decisions. Because the projects are conducted by a DEVELOP team in collaboration with end users, the partners are introduced to new data products and methodologies that they otherwise might not be able to explore within their own resource constraints. This presentation will discuss project examples, success stories, and best practices for engaging with decision makers on applied science projects.
Projected demand for transportation services in the urban environment has led to the development of several Concepts of Operation for Urban Air Mobility, or UAM. UAM is a concept for the transportation of people and goods in the metropolitan environment using small, efficient aircraft over short distances as part of an expanding multimodal transportation network. UAM will leverage emerging technologies including electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft, increasing levels of automation and a new operational paradigm in dense airspace where a set of agreed-upon rules govern the procedures and interactions defining a cooperative environment in which operators are entrusted with a range of functions typically conducted by Air Traffic Control (ATC). These rules, proposed in the FAA NextGen Office’s UAM Concept of Operations [1], were originally termed Community Based Rules or Community Business Rules (CBRs), and will in the future termed Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs); this document uses the original term, CBR. CBRs are a set of rules, developed by the UAM community and (where necessary) approved by the FAA that govern the interactions between UAM entities and limit the need for ATC services including, but not limited to, separation control by ATC, addressing a fundamental challenge to scaling UAM operations. UAM community development of CBRs is anticipated to accelerate the adoption of new practices while retaining the regulatory authority of the FAA within required domains (e.g., NAS safety, security and equal access). However, there currently exists no agreed industry forum or defined procedures for CBR development. Investigation of best practices for the development of UAM CBRs was identified by NASA and the FAA NextGen Office as a research need. In collaboration with seven industry partners, NASA participated in a series of simulations that investigated elements of the envisioned UAM operations, with a primary focus on Strategic Conflict Management (SCM). The development and conduct of cooperative UAM simulations with seven industry partners provided a unique opportunity to investigate CBR development practices. Development of CBRs for the UAM SCM simulations was conducted in parallel with simulation capability development and was closely related to requirements definition for the simulations. As such, the CBR development effort presented herein had two objectives: explore CBR development practices in collaboration with the industry partners and develop an initial set of UAM CBRs to support simulation requirements definition and development. Consensus was achieved among NASA and the industry partners on 24 CBRs that were developed to support the cooperative simulation operations across five topic areas: General (related to test requirements), Operational Intent, Conformance Monitoring, Demand Capacity Balancing, and Airspace Constraint Management. Additional topic areas and CBRs were discussed but were deemed outside the scope of the simulation; these are included in the appendices. A collaborative, iterative process was employed for developing the CBRs engaging both NASA and Industry; because CBR development is envisioned to be community-driven, opportunities were sought that provided industry partners leadership roles in developing CBRs. The following key observations and recommendations may aid the UAM industry in future CBR development efforts: - The lack of a defined process proved challenging initially. Stakeholder engagement in the early stages of CBR development was intermittent and may have been due to the lack of a clear definition of roles and responsibilities of those involved in the effort. - Industry leadership of CBR topic areas proved successful. Discussions in these topic areas were engaging, with alternate viewpoints freely discussed and detailed CBRs resulting. This points to the importance of identifying the best-suited leadership in technical areas for CBR development. - Discussions within a CBR topic area were typically dominated by only a few participants. Whereas all industry partners contributed to CBR development, within each topic area, technical leadership was evident even when not formally established. This observation may indicate that smaller, focused groups may be more effective in initial CBR development than an open forum or large standards development effort (although both maybe required prior to FAA review and approval for some CBRs). - Identifying suitable forums for initial UAM CBR development and identifying the most effective industry participants and leadership will be crucial for successful CBR development. Although the operational need for UAM CBRs may not be immediate, establishing the forums and leadership to define the processes for CBR development is a prudent early step to UAM realization.
One of the principal goals of the participants in the International Space Station program is to provide a management support structure which is equitable and fair to all participants, responsive to the needs of users, responsible to other partners, and mutually supportive to the participation of other partners. Shared-utilization, shared-cost, and shared-operations policies considerations are discussed. Special attention is given to the methodology for identifying costs and benefits of this program, in which each partner should be provided with benefits in proportion to his contribution, and no partner would be forced to share in cost the inefficiencies introduced by other partners. The Space Station hierarchy of operations functions are identified, and the recommended framework planning and control hierarchy is presented.
The International Space Station (ISS) is a multinational orbiting space laboratory that is built in cooperation with 16 nations. The design and sustaining engineering expertise is spread worldwide. As the number of Partners with orbiting elements on the ISS grows, the challenge NASA is facing as the ISS integrator is to ensure that engineering expertise and data are accessible in a timely fashion to ensure ongoing operations and mission success. Integrating international engineering teams requires definition and agreement on common processes and responsibilities, joint training and the emergence of a unique engineering team culture. ISS engineers face daunting logistical and political challenges regarding data sharing requirements. To assure systematic information sharing and anomaly resolution of integrated anomalies, the ISS Partners are developing multi-lateral engineering interface procedures. Data sharing and individual responsibility are key aspects of this plan. This paper describes several examples of successful multilateral anomaly resolution. These successes were used to form the framework of the Partner to Partner engineering interface procedures, and this paper describes those currently documented multilateral engineering processes. Furthermore, it addresses the challenges experienced to date, and the forward work expected in establishing a successful working relationship with Partners as their hardware is launched.
The NASA DEVELOP National Program occupies a unique niche in the capacity development ecosystem. It is not a traditional training or educational program primarily focused on individual capacity, nor is it a full-scale co-development program focused on institutional capacity. NASA DEVELOP conducts 10-week feasibility studies that bring together teams of participants and decision making partners. The participants are competitively selected students and emerging or transitioning professionals, who build their STEM and professional skillsets. The partners are groups that have decision making requirements that may benefit from insights that Earth observations can provide. The interaction of the participants and partners over the intense 10-week time period is especially well adapted to building capacity at smaller scales. DEVELOP projects have shown good results when working at municipal and smaller administrative levels like U.S. counties. Even when working with higher administrative levels like provinces, U.S states, or even national or federal levels, DEVELOP has shown most success when working with more localized institutions like state forests or national parks. This presentation will recount case studies of how DEVELOP projects worked with more local or “localized” partners and compare with outcomes with partners at other scales: state/provincial and federal/national levels.
The NASA DEVELOP National Program occupies a unique niche in the capacity development ecosystem. It is not a traditional training or educational program primarily focused on individual capacity, nor is it a full-scale co-development program focused on institutional capacity. NASA DEVELOP conducts 10-week feasibility studies that bring together teams of participants and decision making partners. The participants are competitively selected students and emerging or transitioning professionals, who build their STEM and professional skillsets. The partners are groups that have decision making requirements that may benefit from insights that Earth observations can provide. The interaction of the participants and partners over the intense 10-week time period is especially well adapted to building capacity at smaller scales. DEVELOP projects have shown good results when working at municipal and smaller administrative levels like U.S. counties. Even when working with higher administrative levels like provinces, U.S states, or even national or federal levels, DEVELOP has shown most success when working with more localized institutions like state forests or national parks. This presentation will recount case studies of how DEVELOP projects worked with more local or “localized” partners and compare with outcomes with partners at other scales: state/provincial and federal/national levels.
After several years of research into Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Command and Control (C2) systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) UAS Integration into the National Airspace System project initiated a focused two-year effort along with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and three industry partners to investigate remaining issues in the specification, test, certification and airspace integration to allow UAS operations in non-segregated airspace. The approach taken had the industry partners propose a flight demonstration approximating a commercial operation, while NASA helped, as needed, the partners through design and test phases and NASA observed interactions with the FAA. During this effort NASA collected best practices intended to be of value to similar UAS endeavors. These best practices can be divided into different sets, including practices that describe the relationship between business considerations to UAS design or describe several UAS development challenges. Another set includes best practices focused on navigating the UAS design and type certification processes. A third set includes best practices that relate to the design of the DAA system. Deploying DAA systems in this timeframe posed unique challenges. Commercial off-the-shelf DAA systems do not exist, necessitating custom development and, for two of the partners, the use of low-size, -weight, and -power (SWaP) sensors not completely specified for DAA. A fourth set of best practices relates to lost-link contingency planning. The final set of best practices relates to the design and testing of C2 systems and obtaining spectrum licenses. The UAS demonstrations were piloted remotely, and for all aspects of flight safety, a C2 system was required to communicate DAA and other UAS subsystem data to the remote pilot and to allow the pilot to issue commands to the vehicle. Throughout the course of this effort, the partners integrated prototype DAA and C2 systems into unmanned aircraft, tested those systems, and laid the groundwork for type certification programs that are expected to continue.