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 viewgraph presentation addresses the question of inspection and verification and validation (V&V) effectiveness of developing computer systems. A specific question is the relation between V&V effectiveness in the early lifecycle of development and the later testing of the developed system.
The described mathematical model calculates life-cycle costs for projects with operating costs increasing or decreasing linearly with time. The cost factors involved in the life-cycle cost are considered, and the errors resulting from the assumption of constant rather than uniformly varying operating costs are examined. Parameters in the study range from 2 to 30 years, for project life; 0 to 15% per year, for interest rate; and 5 to 90% of the initial operating cost, for the operating cost gradient. A numerical example is presented.
The effect of projected interest and inflation rates on life cycle cost calculations is discussed and a method is proposed for making such calculations which replaces these rates by a single parameter. Besides simplifying the analysis, the method clarifies the roles of these rates. An analysis of historical interest and inflation rates from 1950 to 1976 shows that the proposed method can be expected to yield very good projections of life cycle cost even if the rates themselves fluctuate considerably.
This presentation will explore the results of a recent NASA Life-Cycle Cost study and how project managers can use the findings and recommendations to improve planning and coordination early in the formulation cycle and avoid common pitfalls resulting in cost overruns. The typical NASA space science mission will exceed both the initial estimated and the confirmed life-cycle costs by the end of the mission. In a fixed-budget environment, these overruns translate to delays in starting or launching future missions, or in the worst case can lead to cancelled missions. Some of these overruns are due to issues outside the control of the project; others are due to the unpredictable problems (unknown unknowns) that can affect any development project. However, a recent study of life-cycle cost growth by the Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office identified a number of areas that are within the scope of project management to address. The study also found that the majority of the underlying causes for cost overruns are embedded in the project approach during the formulation and early design phases, but the actual impacts typically are not experienced until late in the project life cycle. Thus, project management focus in key areas such as integrated schedule development, management structure and contractor communications processes, heritage and technology assumptions, and operations planning, can be used to validate initial cost assumptions and set in place management processes to avoid the common pitfalls resulting in cost overruns.
Planetary Protection Quality Management System NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection uses a quality-based process evaluation approach to verify planetary protection bioburden compliance over a project’s life cycle. The verification strategy shifts from a comparative direct assay approach validating hardware bioburden at a “moment in time,” to one that implements a continual quality assurance demonstration of the analytical process via established data requirements, laboratory operational, and management parameters throughout the mission’s entire assembly process. Laboratory quality-based systems and management strategies are standardized and implemented across government and industry. A standardized laboratory quality system approach increases transparency throughout the project’s life cycle and aligns planetary protection analytical approaches with government and industry practices to support both NASA and commercial endeavors. Strategies include the implementation of a laboratory quality management structure that documents and routinely validates parameters critical to experimental design and data collection, provides data quality assessment parameters, and ultimately validates that the collected data is of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the specified technical goals. Planetary protection can draw on these practices to provide a systematic process-based quality approach to support planetary protection validation and compliance requirements. Quality approaches including data quality objectives, method performance, data acceptance criteria and the associated laboratory quality management system are presented to provide an overview and framework for a planetary protection laboratory quality management system.
In response to NASA's goal of working faster, better and cheaper, JPL has developed extensive plans to minimize cost, maximize customer and employee satisfaction, and implement small- and moderate-size missions. These plans include improved management structures and processes, enhanced technical design processes, the incorporation of new technology, and the development of more economical space- and ground-system designs. The Laboratory's new Flight Projects Implementation Office has been chartered to oversee these innovations and the reengineering of JPL's project design process, including establishment of the Project Design Center and the Flight System Testbed. Reengineering at JPL implies a cultural change whereby the character of its design process will change from sequential to concurrent and from hierarchical to parallel. The Project Design Center will support missions offering high science return, design to cost, demonstrations of new technology, and rapid development. Its computer-supported environment will foster high-fidelity project life-cycle development and cost estimating.
For the purposes of this paper, program refers to a collection of activities or projects which must be performed according to a plan or schedule. The Space Exploration Initiative within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an example. Dimensionality refers to both the various perspectives of a program and to the components within that perspective. It is, thus, appropriate to think of dimensions of dimensionality. For example, one dimension or perspective of a program is the projects which perform the program. Within the project dimension, the individual projects are the components of that dimensionality. The number of projects defines the spatial dimensionality of the project dimension. Thus, each perspective or dimension has a dimensionality of its own. The structure and associated values of all the various perspectives of a program define the program. A project refers to the collection of activities required to conceive, sell, design, develop, evaluate, produce, operate, support, evolve, and retire a given system. A project thus effects the life cycle of given system. A project is, thus, the system to conceive, sell, design, develop, evaluate, produce, operate, support, evolve, and retire a system. A program, thus, effects the life cycle of the collection of projects required to effect the collection of systems required to implement the program.
Successful management of NASA Goddard Space Flight Centers portfolio of mission projects (i.e. spacecraft, spacecraft instruments / subsystems, and ground systems) depends upon numerous processes, data and information resources coming together throughout the life-cycle of the projects to enable sound decision-making, risk reduction, conformance with requirements and continual improvement. In the summer of 2012, GSFC SMA management recognized that the set of legacy data systems used to support the SMA mission and responsibilities at GSFC were not effective, integrated nor on par with best practices. Accordingly, GSFC SMA management launched a project to transform the GSFC electronic management system to create and deploy an integrated, state-of-the-market information system for process performance, data management and analytics that is currently operating in support of GSFC overall mission performance. The information system, known as Meta, provides controlled, process-based applications, integrated data management, and analytics for a robust set of integrated applications. Since the inception of the project, a lean, award-winning SMA project team has thus far designed, configured and managed the system to serve as an integrated platform for 18 applications that support key processes for GSFC and the Science Mission Directorate at NASA headquarters, such as internal Management System assessments, Supplier Assessments, Supplier Research & Analysis, Problem Reporting for in-house mission projects, On-orbit Anomaly Reporting for GSFC-operated spacecraft, GSFC Project Life-Cycle Reviews, Risk Management and Reporting, and SMA Project Team Reporting. The system has experienced steady growth in utilization with 1,917 users (NASA employees and support contractor personnel) and 44 gigabytes of data and related files managed by the system as of the end of April 2018. Overall, Meta has achieved increasing levels of process management and real-time data / information integration to enable improved process performance, richer analytics and informed decision-making. This paper will present and examine the need, goals, approach and design driving the management and operation of the Meta information system and its ongoing growth as an integrated platform for advancing NASA mission performance.
The product of research projects is information. Through the life cycle of a project, information comes from many sources and takes many forms. Traditionally, this body of information is summarized in a formal publication, typically a journal article. While formal publications enjoy the benefits of peer review and technical editing, they are also often compromises in media format and length. As such, we consider a formal publication to represent an abstract to a larger body of work: a pyramid of scientific and technical information (STI). While this abstract may be sufficient for some applications, an in-depth use or analysis is likely to require the supporting layers from the pyramid. We have developed buckets to preserve this pyramid of STI. Buckets provide an archive- and protocol-independent container construct in which all related information objects can be logically grouped together, archived, and manipulated as a single object. Furthermore, buckets are active archival objects and can communicate with each other, people, or arbitrary network services. Buckets are an implementation of the Smart Object, Dumb Archive (SODA) DL model. In SODA, data objects are more important than the archives that hold them. Much of the functionality traditionally associated with archives is pushed down into the objects, such as enforcing terms and conditions, negotiating display, and content maintenance. In this paper, we discuss the motivation, design, and implication of bucket use in DLs with respect to grey literature.
The topics discussed are the UAS-NAS project life-cycle and ARMD thrust flow down, as well as the UAS environments and how we operate in those environments. NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards, CA, is leading a project designed to help integrate unmanned air vehicles into the world around us. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System project, or UAS in the NAS, will contribute capabilities designed to reduce technical barriers related to safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS. The project falls under the Integrated Systems Research Program office managed at NASA Headquarters by the agency's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. NASA's four aeronautics research centers - Armstrong, Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, and Glenn Research Center - are part of the technology development project. With the use and diversity of unmanned aircraft growing rapidly, new uses for these vehicles are constantly being considered. Unmanned aircraft promise new ways of increasing efficiency, reducing costs, enhancing safety and saving lives 460265main_ED10-0132-16_full.jpg Unmanned aircraft systems such as NASA's Global Hawks (above) and Predator B named Ikhana (below), along with numerous other unmanned aircraft systems large and small, are the prime focus of the UAS in the NAS effort to integrate them into the national airspace. Credits: NASA Photos 710580main_ED07-0243-37_full.jpg The UAS in the NAS project envisions performance-based routine access to all segments of the national airspace for all unmanned aircraft system classes, once all safety-related and technical barriers are overcome. The project will provide critical data to such key stakeholders and customers as the Federal Aviation Administration and RTCA Special Committee 203 (formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) by conducting integrated, relevant system-level tests to adequately address safety and operational challenges of national airspace access by unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS. In the process, the project will work with other key stakeholders to define necessary deliverables and products to help enable such access. Within the project, NASA is focusing on five sub-projects. These five focus areas include assurance of safe separation of unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft when flying in the national airspace; safety-critical command and control systems and radio frequencies to enable safe operation of UAS; human factors issues for ground control stations; airworthiness certification standards for UAS avionics and integrated tests and evaluation designed to determine the viability of emerging UAS technology. Five Focus Areas of the UAS Integration in the NAS Project Separation Assurance Provide an assessment of how planned Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) separation assurance systems, with different functional allocations, perform for UAS in mixed operations with manned aircraft Assess the applicability to UAS and the performance of NASA NextGen separation assurance systems in flight tests with realistic latencies and uncertain trajectories Assess functional allocations ranging from today's ground-based, controller-provided aircraft separation to fully autonomous airborne self-separation Communications Develop data and rationale to obtain appropriate frequency spectrum allocations to enable safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Develop and validate candidate secure safety-critical command and control system/subsystem test equipment for UAS that complies with UAS international/national frequency regulations, standards and recommended practices and minimum operational and aviation system performance standards for UAS Perform analysis to support recommendations for integration of safety-critical command and control systems and air traffic control communications to ensure safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Human Systems Integration Develop a research test bed and database to provide data and proof of concept for GCS - ground control station - operations in the NAS Coordinate with standards organizations to develop human-factors guidelines for GCS operation in the NAS Certification Define a UAS classification scheme and approach to determining Federal Aviation Regulation airworthiness requirements applicable to all UAS digital avionics Provide hazard and risk-related data to support development of type design criteria and best development practices Integrated Tests and Evaluation Integrate and test mature concepts from technical elements to demonstrate and test viability Evaluate the performance of technology development in a relevant environment (full-mission, human-in-the-loop simulations and flight tests)
Surface habitats play a centric role with respect to integration of the crew operations and supporting surface systems for external operations on the moon and Mars. Up to now the only planetary surface habitat NASA has ever developed is the 2-person, 3-day duration Lunar Module from the 1960 s-era Apollo Program. Today s National Vision for Space Exploration pushes far beyond the safety, performance and operational requirements of the Lunar Module, and NASA needs to develop a basis for making habitat design decisions Experience has shown that using mockups very early in a project s life cycle is extremely beneficial, providing data that influences requirements for human design, volumetrics, functionality, systems hardware and operations. Evaluating and comparing a variety of habitat configurations will provide NASA with a cost-effective basis for trades to support lunar and Martian habitat design selection. This paper describes the NASA project that recently has been created to undertake the development and evaluation of a series of planetary surface habitat mockups. This project is in direct response to the Advanced Space Platforms and Systems (ASPS) Element Program s request for novel systems approaches for robust and reconfigurable habitation systems.
Large, complex projects face significant barriers to coordination and communication due to continuous, rapid changes during a project's life cycle. Such changes must be tracked, analyzed, and reconciled to ensure high quality in the end product, otherwise problems may get lost or ignored in the overall complexity. We report on 'work-in-progress' in the study of coordination problems between two independent, separate groups: software development and software analysis. We have begun to construct a taxonomy of coordination problems, which we illustrate with two scenarios. We briefly describe current attempts to introduce incremental improvements to coordination problems in such projects via World Wide Web tools. Based on actual project experiences, we plan to deploy such tools in a non-intrusive fashion to improve coordination and communication between software development groups.
The human factors design process in developing a shuttle orbiter aft flight deck workstation testbed is described. In developing an operator workstation to control various laboratory telerobots, strong elements of human factors engineering and ergonomics are integrated into the design process. The integration of human factors is performed by incorporating user feedback at key stages in the project life-cycle. An operator centered design approach helps insure the system users are working with the system designer in the design and operation of the system. The design methodology is presented along with the results of the design and the solutions regarding human factors design principles.
The issues of how to avoid future surprise growth in Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) costs and how to minimize total MO&DA costs for planetary missions are discussed within the context of JPL mission operations support. It is argued that there is no simple, single solution: the entire Project life-cycle must be addressed. It is concluded that cost models that can predict both MO&DA cost as well as Ground System development costs are needed. The first year MO&DA budget plotted against the total of ground and flight systems developments is shown. In order to better recognize changes and control costs in general, a modified funding line item breakdown is recommended to distinguish between development costs (prelaunch and postlaunch) and MO&DA costs.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Space Launch System (SLS) will launch NASA's Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). This launch vehicle will provide American launch capability for human exploration and travelling beyond Earth orbit. SLS is designed to be flexible for crew or cargo missions. The first test flight is scheduled for December 2017. The SLS SRR/SDR provided insight into the project development life cycle. NASA IV&V ran the standard Risk Based Assessment and Portfolio Based Risk Assessment to identify analysis tasking for the SLS program. This presentation examines the SLS System Requirements Review/System Definition Review (SRR/SDR), IV&V findings for IV&V process validation correlation to/from the selected IV&V tasking and capabilities. It also provides a reusable IEEE 1012 scorecard for programmatic completeness across the software development life cycle.