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 paper describes a real life case study for a web based prototype design environment to support the generation and documentation of mission concepts that will result in mission proposals to NASA.
STEP (STandard for the Exchange of Product Model Data) is an innovative software tool that allows the exchange of data between different programming systems to occur and helps speed up the designing in various process industries. This exchange occurs easily between those companies that have STEP, and many industries and government agencies are requiring that their vendors utilize STEP in their computer aided design projects, such as in the areas of mechanical, aeronautical, and electrical engineering. STEP allows the process of concurrent engineering to occur and increases the quality of the design product. One example of the STEP program is the Boeing 777, the first paperless airplane.
Thermal engineering has long been left out of the concurrent engineering environment dominated by CAD (computer aided design) and FEM (finite element method) software. Current tools attempt to force the thermal design process into an environment primarily created to support structural analysis, which results in inappropriate thermal models. As a result, many thermal engineers either build models "by hand" or use geometric user interfaces that are separate from and have little useful connection, if any, to CAD and FEM systems. This paper describes the development of a new thermal design environment called the Thermal Desktop. This system, while fully integrated into a neutral, low cost CAD system, and which utilizes both FEM and FD methods, does not compromise the needs of the thermal engineer. Rather, the features needed for concurrent thermal analysis are specifically addressed by combining traditional parametric surface based radiation and FD based conduction modeling with CAD and FEM methods. The use of flexible and familiar temperature solvers such as SINDA/FLUINT (Systems Improved Numerical Differencing Analyzer/Fluid Integrator) is retained.
In today's competitive environment, companies are under enormous pressure to reduce the time and cost of their design cycle. One method for reducing both time and cost is to develop an understanding of the flow of the design processes and the effects of the iterative subcycles that are found in complex design projects. Once these aspects are understood, the design manager can make decisions that take advantage of decomposition, concurrent engineering, and parallel processing techniques to reduce the total time and the total cost of the design cycle. One software tool that can aid in this decision-making process is the Design Manager's Aid for Intelligent Decomposition (DeMAID). The DeMAID software minimizes the feedback couplings that create iterative subcycles, groups processes into iterative subcycles, and decomposes the subcycles into a hierarchical structure. The real benefits of producing the best design in the least time and at a minimum cost are obtained from sequencing the processes in the subcycles.
While systems engineering process is a program formal management technique and contractually binding, the design process is the informal practice of achieving the design project requirements throughout all design phases of the systems engineering process. The design process and organization are systems and component dependent. Informal reviews include technical information meetings and concurrent engineering sessions, and formal technical discipline reviews are conducted through the systems engineering process. This paper discusses and references major philosophical principles in the design process, identifies its role in interacting systems and disciplines analyses and integrations, and illustrates the process application in experienced aerostructural designs.
As emphasis shifts from optimum-performance aerospace systems to least lift-cycle costs, systems designs must seek, adapt, and innovate cost improvement techniques in design through operations. The systems design process of concept, definition, and design was assessed for the types and flow of total quality management techniques that may be applicable in a launch vehicle systems design analysis. Techniques discussed are task ordering, quality leverage, concurrent engineering, Pareto's principle, robustness, quality function deployment, criteria, and others. These cost oriented techniques are as applicable to aerospace systems design analysis as to any large commercial system.
JPL’s Office of Formulation provides continuity of support and access to domain subject matter experts, as Principal Investigators mature their mission concepts from “cocktail napkin” ideas to Preliminary Design Reviews [1]. Using NASA’s Psyche mission as a case study, we describe JPL’s concurrent engineering A-Team and Team X support to the Psyche competed concept study team in the areas of 1) Initial Feasibility, 2) Trade Space Exploration, 3) Spacecraft Point Design and Cost Estimate, 4) Science, Technical, Management, and Cost Review, and 5) Strategy and Communication Development. NASA’s Psyche Discovery-class mission started as a grassroots idea from Principal Investigator L.T. ElkinsTanton. Is there a compelling Discovery mission to visit the interior of a body for the first time, by sending a mission to an iron metal asteroid? In less than five years the Psyche concept was selected as a mission under NASA’s Discovery Program. While Psyche had a dedicated concept development team [2], they utilized JPL’s concurrent engineering teams, methods, analysis tools, and subject matter experts throughout their mission concept formulation lifecycle
JPL’s Office of Formulation provides continuity of support and access to domain subject matter experts, as Principal Investigators mature their mission concepts from “cocktail napkin” ideas to Preliminary Design Reviews [1]. Using NASA’s Psyche mission as a case study, we will describe JPL’s concurrent engineering ATeam and Team X support to the Psyche competed concept study team in the areas of 1) Science Feasibility, 2) Trade Space Exploration, 3) Spacecraft Point Design and Cost Estimate, 4) Science, Technical, Management, and Cost Review, and 5) Strategy and Communication Development. NASA’s Psyche Discovery class mission started as a grassroots idea in our A-Team facility, and in less than five years was selected as a mission under NASA’s Discovery Program. While Psyche had a dedicated concept development team [2], they utilized JPL’s concurrent engineering teams, methods, analysis tools, and experts throughout their mission concept lifecycle.
Computing architectures are being assembled that extend concurrent engineering practices by providing more efficient execution and collaboration on distributed, heterogeneous computing networks. Built on the successes of initial architectures, requirements for a next-generation design computing infrastructure can be developed. These requirements concentrate on those needed by a designer in decision-making processes from product conception to recycling and can be categorized in two areas: design process and design information management. A designer both designs and executes design processes throughout design time to achieve better product and process capabilities while expanding fewer resources. In order to accomplish this, information, or more appropriately design knowledge, needs to be adequately managed during product and process decomposition as well as recomposition. A foundation has been laid that captures these requirements in a design architecture called DREAMS (Developing Robust Engineering Analysis Models and Specifications). In addition, a computing infrastructure, called IMAGE (Intelligent Multidisciplinary Aircraft Generation Environment), is being developed that satisfies design requirements defined in DREAMS and incorporates enabling computational technologies.
The 'computational test-cell' will enable the incorporation of new methodologies, such as concurrent engineering and probabilistic methods, into the propulsion design process. This will provide the capability to conduct credible, interdisciplinary analyses of new propulsion concepts and designs. Probabilistic methods can be used as the basis for reliability-based design. Recently methods have been devised that provide the capability of simulating the performance of propulsion systems at several levels of resolution. These methods make it possible to quantify uncertainty and to establish confidence bounds for the calculated values. The introduction of reliability-based design methodology along with probabilistic analyses will provide a tool to reduce the design space for new systems and to reduce our dependence on hardware testing for proof-of-concept and system integration demonstrations. The resulting simulations will reduce the need for testing and identify potential operational problems early in the design process. This capability will make it possible to compute the expected performance, stability, reliability, and life of propulsion components, subsystems, and systems at design and off-design conditions, to bring life cycle cost trade-offs early into the design process and to determine optimum designs to satisfy specified mission requirements.
Until recently, NASA did not consider allowing computers total control of flight systems. Human operators, via hardware, have constituted the ultimate safety control. In an attempt to reduce costs, NASA has come to rely more and more heavily on computers and software to control space missions. (For example. software is now planned to control most of the operational functions of the International Space Station.) Thus the need for systematic software safety programs has become crucial for mission success. Concurrent engineering principles dictate that safety should be designed into software up front, not tested into the software after the fact. 'Cost of Quality' studies have statistics and metrics to prove the value of building quality and safety into the development cycle. Unfortunately, most software engineers are not familiar with designing for safety, and most safety engineers are not software experts. Software written to specifications which have not been safety analyzed is a major source of computer related accidents. Safer software is achieved step by step throughout the system and software life cycle. It is a process that includes requirements definition, hazard analyses, formal software inspections, safety analyses, testing, and maintenance. The greatest emphasis is placed on clearly and completely defining system and software requirements, including safety and reliability requirements. Unfortunately, development and review of requirements are the weakest link in the process. While some of the more academic methods, e.g. mathematical models, may help bring about safer software, this paper proposes the use of currently approved software methodologies, and sound software and assurance practices to show how, to a large degree, safety can be designed into software from the start. NASA's approach today is to first conduct a preliminary system hazard analysis (PHA) during the concept and planning phase of a project. This determines the overall hazard potential of the system to be built. Shortly thereafter, as the system requirements are being defined, the second iteration of hazard analyses takes place, the systems hazard analysis (SHA). During the systems requirements phase, decisions are made as to what functions of the system will be the responsibility of software. This is the most critical time to affect the safety of the software. From this point, software safety analyses as well as software engineering practices are the main focus for assuring safe software. While many of the steps proposed in this paper seem like just sound engineering practices, they are the best technical and most cost effective means to assure safe software within a safe system.
The review effort identified research opportunities related to the use of nondeterministic, nontraditional methods to support aerospace design. The scope of the study was restricted to structural design rather than other areas such as control system design. Thus, the observations and conclusions are limited by that scope. The review identified a number of key results. The results include the potential for NASA/AF collaboration in the area of a design environment for advanced space access vehicles. The following key points set the context and delineate the key results. The Principal Investigator's (PI's) context for this study derived from participation as a Panel Member in the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (AF/SAB) Summer Study Panel on 'Whither Hypersonics?' A key message from the Summer Study effort was a perceived need for a national program for a space access vehicle whose operating characteristics of cost, availability, deployability, and reliability most closely match the NASA 3rd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV). The Panel urged the AF to make a significant joint commitment to such a program just as soon as the AF defined specific requirements for space access consistent with the AF Aerospace Vision 2020. The review brought home a concurrent need for a national vehicle design environment. Engineering design system technology is at a time point from which a revolution as significant as that brought about by the finite element method is possible, this one focusing on information integration on a scale that far surpasses current design environments. The study therefore fully supported the concept, if not some of the details of the Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE). It became abundantly clear during this study that the government (AF, NASA) and industry are not moving in the same direction in this regard, in fact each is moving in its own direction. NASA/ISE is not yet in an effective leadership position in this regard. However, NASA does have complementary software interoperability efforts that should be a part of any major ISE program. Software standards that assure interoperability of data systems and modeling representations are enabling for the proposed research advocated herein and should be a major element in the ISE initiative. The international standard for data interchange is known by the acronym 'STEP.' The NASA participation and lead for that effort is at the Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA/GRC is leading an effort to define CAD geometry standards through the Object Management Group (OMG). To enable the design environment so necessary to the above national vision for a unique space vehicle will require an integrating software environment with interoperability standards that allow the development and widespread deployment of tools and toolsets, rather than traditional "shrink-wrapped" software used by engineers today.
NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) has developed and tested two facilities dedicated to increasing efficiency in key mission design processes, including payload design, mission planning, and implementation plan development, among others. The Integrated Design Center (IDC) is a state-of-the-art concurrent design facility which allows scientists and spaceflight engineers to produce project designs and mission plans in a real-time collaborative environment, using industry-standard physics-based development tools and the latest communication technology. The Mission Simulation Lab (MiSL), a virtual reality (VR) facility focused on payload and project design, permits engineers to quickly translate their design and modeling output into enhanced three-dimensional models and then examine them in a realistic full-scale virtual environment. The authors were responsible for envisioning both facilities and turning those visions into fully operational mission design resources at LaRC with multiple advanced capabilities and applications. In addition, the authors have created a synergistic interface between these two facilities. This combined functionality is the Interactive Design and Simulation Center (IDSC), a meta-facility which offers project teams a powerful array of highly advanced tools, permitting them to rapidly produce project designs while maintaining the integrity of the input from every discipline expert on the project. The concept-to-flight mission support provided by IDSC has shown improved inter- and intra-team communication and a reduction in the resources required for proposal development, requirements definition, and design effort.
Development of a prototype advanced main combustion chamber is underway at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The Advanced Main Combustion Chamber (AMCC) project is being approached utilizing a 'concurrent engineering' concept where groups from materials, manufacturing, stress, quality, and design are involved from the initiation of the project. The AMCC design has been tailored to be compatible with the investment casting process. Jacket, inlet/outlet manifolds, inlet/outlet neck coolant flow splitters, support ribs, actuator lugs, and engine controller mounting bracket will all be a part of the one-piece AMCC casting. Casting of the AMCC in a one-piece configuration necessitated a method of forming a liner in its structural jacket. A method of vacuum plasma spraying the liner is being developed. In 1994, the AMCC will be hot-fired on the Technology Test Bed Space Shuttle Main Engine.
Concurrent Engineering Centers (CECs) are specialized facilities with a goal of generating and maturing engineering designs by enabling rapid design iterations. This is accomplished by co-locating a team of experts (either physically or virtually) in a room with a focused design goal and a limited timeline of a week or less. The systems engineer uses a model of the system to capture the relevant interfaces and manage the overall architecture. A single model that integrates other design information and modeling allows the entire team to visualize the concurrent activity and identify conflicts more efficiently, potentially resulting in a systems model that will continue to be used throughout the project lifecycle. Performing systems engineering using such a system model is the definition of model-based systems engineering (MBSE); therefore, CECs evolving their approach to incorporate advances in MBSE are more successful in reducing time and cost needed to meet study goals. This paper surveys space mission CECs that are in the middle of this evolution, and the authors share their experiences in order to promote discussion within the community.
Concurrent Engineering Centers (CECs) are specialized facilities with a goal of generating and maturing engineering designs by enabling rapid design iterations. This is accomplished by co-locating a team of experts (either physically or virtually) in a room with a narrow design goal and a limited timeline of a week or less. The systems engineer uses a model of the system to capture the relevant interfaces and manage the overall architecture. A single model that integrates other design information and modeling allows the entire team to visualize the concurrent activity and identify conflicts more efficiently, potentially resulting in a systems model that will continue to be used throughout the project lifecycle. Performing systems engineering using such a system model is the definition of model-based systems engineering (MBSE); therefore, CECs evolving their approach to incorporate advances in MBSE are more successful in reducing time and cost needed to meet study goals. This paper surveys space mission CECs that are in the middle of this evolution, and the authors share their experiences in order to promote discussion within the community.
Concurrent Engineering Centers (CECs) are specialized facilities with a goal of generating and maturing engineering designs by enabling rapid design iterations. This is accomplished by co-locating a team of experts (either physically or virtually) in a room with a narrow design goal and a limited timeline of a week or less. The systems engineer uses a model of the system to capture the relevant interfaces and manage the overall architecture. A single model that integrates other design information and modeling allows the entire team to visualize the concurrent activity and identify conflicts more efficiently, potentially resulting in a systems model that will continue to be used throughout the project lifecycle. Performing systems engineering using such a system model is the definition of model-based systems engineering (MBSE); therefore, CECs evolving their approach to incorporate advances in MBSE are more successful in reducing time and cost needed to meet study goals. This paper surveys space mission CECs that are in the middle of this evolution, and the authors share their experiences in order to promote discussion within the community.
This paper presents a summary of the successfully concluded phase 1 of the two-phase Design and Manufacture of Advanced Thermoplastic Structures (DMATS) program. It addresses the design, manufacture, and validation testing of a thermoplastic F-15E forward engine access door and includes lessons learned during the concurrent product and process design development phases of the program.