Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “requirements prioritization”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5

Comparative Habitability of Transiting Exoplanets

Exoplanet habitability is traditionally assessed by comparing a planet’s semimajor axis to the location of its host star’s “habitable zone,” the shell around a star for which Earth-like planets can possess liquid surface water. The Kepler space telescope has discovered numerous planet candidates near the habitable zone, and many more are expected from missions such as K2, TESS, and PLATO. These candidates often require significant follow-up observations for validation, so prioritizing planets for habitability from transit data has become an important aspect of the search for life in the universe. We propose a method to compare transiting planets for their potential to support life based on transit data, stellar properties and previously reported limits on planetary emitted flux. For a planet in radiative equilibrium, the emitted flux increases with eccentricity, but decreases with albedo. As these parameters are often unconstrained, there is an “eccentricity-albedo degeneracy” for the habitability of transiting exoplanets. Our method mitigates this degeneracy, includes a penalty for large-radius planets, uses terrestrial mass–radius relationships, and, when available, constraints on eccentricity to compute a number we call the “habitability index for transiting exoplanets” that represents the relative probability that an exoplanet could support liquid surface water. We calculate it for Kepler objects of interest and find that planets that receive between 60% and 90% of the Earth’s incident radiation, assuming circular orbits, are most likely to be habitable. Finally, we make predictions for the upcoming TESS and James Webb Space Telescope missions.

Planet and satellite surfaces↗

Root Source Analysis/ValuStream[Trade Mark] - A Methodology for Identifying and Managing Risks

Root Source Analysis (RoSA) is a systems engineering methodology that has been developed at NASA over the past five years. It is designed to reduce costs, schedule, and technical risks by systematically examining critical assumptions and the state of the knowledge needed to bring to fruition the products that satisfy mission-driven requirements, as defined for each element of the Work (or Product) Breakdown Structure (WBS or PBS). This methodology is sometimes referred to as the ValuStream method, as inherent in the process is the linking and prioritizing of uncertainties arising from knowledge shortfalls directly to the customer's mission driven requirements. RoSA and ValuStream are synonymous terms. RoSA is not simply an alternate or improved method for identifying risks. It represents a paradigm shift. The emphasis is placed on identifying very specific knowledge shortfalls and assumptions that are the root sources of the risk (the why), rather than on assessing the WBS product(s) themselves (the what). In so doing RoSA looks forward to anticipate, identify, and prioritize knowledge shortfalls and assumptions that are likely to create significant uncertainties/ risks (as compared to Root Cause Analysis, which is most often used to look back to discover what was not known, or was assumed, that caused the failure). Experience indicates that RoSA, with its primary focus on assumptions and the state of the underlying knowledge needed to define, design, build, verify, and operate the products, can identify critical risks that historically have been missed by the usual approaches (i.e., design review process and classical risk identification methods). Further, the methodology answers four critical questions for decision makers and risk managers: 1. What s been included? 2. What's been left out? 3. How has it been validated? 4. Has the real source of the uncertainty/ risk been identified, i.e., is the perceived problem the real problem? Users of the RoSA methodology have characterized it as a true bottoms up risk assessment.

Brown, Richard Lee↗

Pointing and control system enabling technology for future automated space missions

Future automated space missions present challenging opportunities in the pointing-and-control technology disciplines. The enabling pointing-and-control system technologies for missions from 1985 to the year 2000 were identified and assessed. A generic mission set including Earth orbiter, planetary, and other missions which predominantly drive the pointing-and-control requirements was selected for detailed evaluation. Technology candidates identified were prioritized as planning options for future NASA-OAST advanced development programs. The primary technology thrusts in each candidate program were cited, and advanced development programs in pointing-and-control were recommended for the FY 80 to FY 87 period, based on these technology thrusts.

Dahlgren, J. B.↗

A Framework for Assessment of Aviation Safety Technology Portfolios

The programs within NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) conduct research and development to improve the national air transportation system so that Americans can travel as safely as possible. NASA aviation safety systems analysis personnel support various levels of ARMD management in their fulfillment of system analysis and technology prioritization as defined in the agency's program and project requirements. This paper provides a framework for the assessment of aviation safety research and technology portfolios that includes metrics such as projected impact on current and future safety, technical development risk and implementation risk. The paper also contains methods for presenting portfolio analysis and aviation safety Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) output results to management using bubble charts and quantitative decision analysis techniques.

Jones, Sharon M.↗

Health Hazard Assessment and Toxicity Clearances in the Army Acquisition Process

The United States Army Materiel Command, Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office (AAPPSO) is responsible for creating and managing the U.S. Army Wide Acquisition Pollution Prevention Program. They have established Integrated Process Teams (IPTs) within each of the Major Subordinate Commands of the Army Materiel Command. AAPPSO provides centralized integration, coordination, and oversight of the Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Program (AAPPP) , and the IPTs provide the decentralized execution of the AAPPSO program. AAPPSO issues policy and guidance, provides resources and prioritizes P2 efforts. It is the policy of the (AAPPP) to require United States Army Surgeon General approval of all materials or substances that will be used as an alternative to existing hazardous materials, toxic materials and substances, and ozone-depleting substances. The Army has a formal process established to address this effort. Army Regulation 40-10 requires a Health Hazard Assessment (HHA) during the Acquisition milestones of a new Army system. Army Regulation 40-5 addresses the Toxicity Clearance (TC) process to evaluate new chemicals and materials prior to acceptance as an alternative. U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine is the Army's matrixed medical health organization that performs the HHA and TC mission.

Macko, Joseph A., Jr.↗

New Directions for NASA's Advanced Life Support Program

Advanced Life Support (ALS), an element of Human Systems Research and Technology s (HSRT) Life Support and Habitation Program (LSH), has been NASA s primary sponsor of life support research and technology development for the agency. Over its history, ALS sponsored tasks across a diverse set of institutions, including field centers, colleges and universities, industry, and governmental laboratories, resulting in numerous publications and scientific articles, patents and new technologies, as well as education and training for primary, secondary and graduate students, including minority serving institutions. Prior to the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) announced on January 14th, 2004 by the President, ALS had been focused on research and technology development for long duration exploration missions, emphasizing closed-loop regenerative systems, including both biological and physicochemical. Taking a robust and flexible approach, ALS focused on capabilities to enable visits to multiple potential destinations beyond low Earth orbit. ALS developed requirements, reference missions, and assumptions upon which to structure and focus its development program. The VSE gave NASA a plan for steady human and robotic space exploration based on specific, achievable goals. Recently, the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) was chartered by NASA s Administrator to determine the best exploration architecture and strategy to implement the Vision. The study identified key technologies required to enable and significantly enhance the reference exploration missions and to prioritize near-term and far-term technology investments. This technology assessment resulted in a revised Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) technology investment plan. A set of new technology development projects were initiated as part of the plan s implementation, replacing tasks previously initiated under HSRT and its sister program, Exploration Systems Research and Technology (ESRT). The Exploration Life Support (ELS) Project, under the Exploration Technology Development Program, has recently been initiated to perform directed life support technology development in support of Constellation and the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). ELS) has replaced ALS, with several major differences. Thermal Control Systems have been separated into a new stand alone project (Thermal Systems for Exploration Missions). Tasks in Advanced Food Technology have been relocated to the Human Research Program. Tasks in a new discipline area, Habitation Engineering, have been added. Research and technology development for capabilities required for longer duration stays on the Moon and Mars, including bioregenerative system, have been deferred.

Barta, Daniel J.↗

OAST Technology for the Future. Volume 2 - Critical Technologies, Themes 1-4

NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) conducted a workshop on the In-Space Technology Experiments Program IN-STEP) December 6-9, 1988, in Atlanta, Georgia. The purpose of this workshop was to identify and prioritize space technologies which are critical for future national space programs and which. require validation in the space environment. A secondary objective was to review the current NASA (InReach) and Industry/University (Out-Reach) experiments. Finally, the aerospace community was requested to review and comment on the proposed plans for the continuation of the In-Space Technology Experiments Program. In particular, the review included the proposed process for focusing the next experiment selection on specific, critical technologies and the process for implementing the hardware development and integration on the Space Shuttle vehicle. The product of the workshop was a prioritized listing of the critical space technology needs in each of eight technology disciplines. These listings were the cumulative recommendations of nearly 400 participants, which included researchers, technologists, and managers from aerospace industries, universities, and government organizations.

OAST (AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY)↗

OAST Technology for the Future. Executive Summary

NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) conducted a workshop on the In-Space Technology Experiments Program (IN-STEP) December 6-9, 1988, in Atlanta, Georgia. The purpose of this workshop was to identify and prioritize space technologies which are critical for future national space programs and which require validation in the space environment. A secondary objective was to review the current NASA (In-Reach) and Industry/University (Out-Reach) experiments. Finally, the aerospace community was requested to review and comment on the proposed plans for the continuation of the In-Space Technology Experiments Program. In particular, the review included the proposed process for focusing the next experiment selection on specific, critical technologies and the process for implementing the hardware development and integration on the Space Shuttle vehicle. The product of the workshop was a prioritized listing of the critical space technology needs in each of eight technology disciplines. These listings were the cumulative recommendations of nearly 400 participants, which included researchers, technologists, and managers from aerospace industries, universities, and government organizations.

BMDO COLLECTION↗

OAST Technology for the Future. Volume 3 - Critical Technologies, Themes 5-8

NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) conducted a workshop on the In-Space Technology Experiments Program IN-STEP) December 6-9, 1988, in Atlanta, Georgia. The purpose of this workshop was to identify and prioritize space technologies which are critical for future national space programs and which require validation in the 5 ace environment. A secondary objective was to review the current NASA (In-Reach and Industry/University (Out-Reach) experiments. Finally, the aerospace community was requested to review and comment on the proposed plans for the continuation of the In-Space Technology Experiments Program. In particular, the review included the proposed process for focusing the next experiment selection on specific, critical technologies and the process for implementing the hardware development and integration on the Space Shuttle vehicle. The product of the workshop was a prioritized listing of the critical space technology needs in each of eight technology disciplines. These listings were the cumulative recommendations of nearly 400 participants, which included researchers, technologists, and managers from aerospace industries, universities, and government organizations.

U2607↗

Decision Analysis Methods Used to Make Appropriate Investments in Human Exploration Capabilities and Technologies

NASA is transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities in low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. Prudent investments in capability and technology developments, based on mission need, are critical for enabling a campaign of human exploration missions. There are a wide variety of capabilities and technologies that could enable these missions, so it is a major challenge for NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) to make knowledgeable portfolio decisions. It is critical for this pioneering initiative that these investment decisions are informed with a prioritization process that is robust and defensible. It is NASA's role to invest in targeted technologies and capabilities that would enable exploration missions even though specific requirements have not been identified. To inform these investments decisions, NASA's HEOMD has supported a variety of analysis activities that prioritize capabilities and technologies. These activities are often based on input from subject matter experts within the NASA community who understand the technical challenges of enabling human exploration missions. This paper will review a variety of processes and methods that NASA has used to prioritize and rank capabilities and technologies applicable to human space exploration. The paper will show the similarities in the various processes and showcase instances were customer specified priorities force modifications to the process. Specifically, this paper will describe the processes that the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) Technology Assessment and Integration Team (TAIT) has used for several years and how those processes have been customized to meet customer needs while staying robust and defensible. This paper will show how HEOMD uses these analyses results to assist with making informed portfolio investment decisions. The paper will also highlight which human exploration capabilities and technologies typically rank high regardless of the specific design reference mission. The paper will conclude by describing future capability and technology ranking activities that will continue o leverage subject matter experts (SME) input while also incorporating more model-based analysis.

Williams-Byrd, Julie↗

Cognitive models of pilot categorization and prioritization of flight-deck information

In the past decade, automated systems on modern commercial flight decks have increased dramatically. Pilots now regularly interact and share tasks with these systems. This interaction has led human factors research to direct more attention to the pilot's cognitive processing and mental model of the information flow occurring on the flight deck. The experiment reported herein investigated how pilots mentally represent and process information typically available during flight. Fifty-two commercial pilots participated in tasks that required them to provide similarity ratings for pairs of flight-deck information and to prioritize this information under two contextual conditions. Pilots processed the information along three cognitive dimensions. These dimensions included the flight function and the flight action that the information supported and how frequently pilots refer to the information. Pilots classified the information as aviation, navigation, communications, or systems administration information. Prioritization results indicated a high degree of consensus among pilots, while scaling results revealed two dimensions along which information is prioritized. Pilot cognitive workload for flight-deck tasks and the potential for using these findings to operationalize cognitive metrics are evaluated. Such measures may be useful additions for flight-deck human performance evaluation.

Jonsson, Jon E.↗

Cryogenic Fluid Management Flight Experiment (CFMFE)

Since its foundation, NASA has excelled in the study and development of microgravity fluid management technology. With the advent of space-based vehicles and systems, the use of and the ability to efficiently manage subcritical cryogens in the space environment has become necessary to our growing space program. The NASA Lewis Research Center is responsible for the planning and execution of a program which will provide advanced in-space cryogenic fluid management technology. A number of future space missions have been identified that will require or could benefit from this technology. These technology needs have been prioritized and the Cryogenic Fluid Management Flight Experiment (CFMFE) is being designed to provide the experimental data necessary for the technological development effort.

Defelice, David M.↗

Wireless Technology Use Case Requirement Analysis for Future Space Applications

This report presents various use case scenarios for wireless technology -including radio frequency (RF), optical, and acoustic- and studies requirements and boundary conditions in each scenario. The results of this study can be used to prioritize technology evaluation and development and in the long run help in development of a roadmap for future use of wireless technology. The presented scenarios cover the following application areas: (i) Space Vehicles (manned/unmanned), (ii) Satellites and Payloads, (iii) Surface Explorations, (iv) Ground Systems, and (v) Habitats. The requirement analysis covers two parallel set of conditions. The first set includes the environmental conditions such as temperature, radiation, noise/interference, wireless channel characteristics and accessibility. The second set of requirements are dictated by the application and may include parameters such as latency, throughput (effective data rate), error tolerance, and reliability. This report provides a comprehensive overview of all requirements from both perspectives and details their effects on wireless system reliability and network design. Application area examples are based on 2015 NASA Technology roadmap with specific focus on technology areas: TA 2.4, 3.3, 5.2, 5.5, 6.4, 7.4, and 10.4 sections that might benefit from wireless technology.

Abedi, Ali↗

Androgynous Fasteners for Robotic Structural Assembly

We describe the design and analysis of an androgynous fastener for autonomous robotic assembly of high performance structures. The design of these fasteners aims to prioritize ease of assembly through simple actuation with large driver positioning tolerance requirements, while producing a reversible mechanical connection with high strength and stiffness per mass. This can be applied to high strength to weight ratio structural systems, such as discrete building block based systems that offer reconfigurability, scalability, and system lifecycle efficiency. Such periodic structures are suitable for navigation and manipulation by relatively small mobile robots. The integration of fasteners, which are lightweight and can be robotically installed, into a high performance robotically managed structural system is of interest to reduce launch energy requirements, enable higher mission adaptivity, and decrease system life-cycle costs.

Formoso, Olivia↗

Aerocapture: An Enabling Technology for Flagship-Class Uranus Orbiter and Probe Mission

Introduction: The current decadal survey published by the National Academies of Sciences has informed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to prioritize the study of the Ice Giants, especially Uranus. To gather the required data that addresses the science questions raised in this survey, a mission to Uranus with an orbiter and atmospheric probe must be designed. The Uranus Orbiter and Probe (UOP) study, which the survey identified as the flagship mission of this decade, proposes a 2031 launch to take advantage of a Jupiter fly-by and utilizes a fully propulsive orbit insertion design with an Earth-to-Uranus transit times ranging from 13 to 15 years. This fully propulsive orbit insertion at Uranus will be very fuel expensive (wet mass percentages of around 60-70\%) thereby leaving less mass for the scientific payload and additional planetary probes. In addition, scientists are more interested in visiting Uranus before 2049, when the Spring Equinox will occur, as it allows studying Uranus seasons not seen during Voyager 2's flyby in 1987. A NASA Flagship-Class mission would require at least 10 years of lead time prior to launch thereby making the 2031 launch to take advantage of the Jupiter fly-by extremely challenging. The consequence of missing the Jupiter fly-by and launching in the late 2030s is the challenge of a fully-propulsive mission like UOP to have a feasible alternative interplanetary trajectory that reaches Uranus before 2050. As an alternative, to address the shortcomings of the fully propulsive mission, one can design a mission to Uranus using aerocapture. What is aerocapture: Aerocapture is an atmospheric maneuver that uses aerodynamic forces generated by flight within a planetary atmosphere to decelerate and achieve orbit insertion. Using aerocapture allows one to provide the change in velocity (Delta V) needed to slow down from the approach hyperbolic trajectory to achieve the desired captured orbit around the target planet using aerodynamic forces of the vehicle (lift and drag). Using aerodynamic forces instead of fully-propulsive maneuvers results in significant savings in the fuel. Furthermore, aerocapture can also allow one to consider interplanetary trajectories with higher approach hyperbolic velocities, thus reducing the mission transit times. Aerocapture as an enabling technology: To use aerocapture as an enabling technology for the Uranus exploration mission, one would require an integrated system-level design, including a Thermal Protection System (TPS), hardware needed for aerodynamic modulation, and autonomous Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) systems. Aerocapture has yet to be demonstrated, despite considering it for several past missions. Recent advancements in TPS and GNC capabilities show the potential for using rigid, heritage entry vehicle configurations already flown at other planetary bodies for Uranus aerocapture. Aerocapture can be a robust technology that can deliver spacecraft to Uranus science orbits while substantially increasing on-orbit payload mass (more than 40\%) that can enable robust atmospheric entry probes. Additionally, the aerocapture maneuver would reduce the interplanetary transit time by 2–5 years (15-30\%) relative to fully-propulsive orbit insertion. Recent work has shown that one can conduct a flagship-class mission in a shorter period than fully-propulsive missions if using aerocapture. What does aerocapture bring in for a Uranus Mission: Using aerocapture for a Uranus orbiter and atmospheric probe mission can provide one with considerable propellant savings. Spacecraft in interplanetary trajectories to Uranus typically need an Delta V in orders of kilometers per second to insert into science orbit. One would require thousands of kilograms of fuel to achieve such a Delta V using a traditional fully propulsive maneuver, leaving less mass for payload during the mission launch. Aerocapture can reduce the propulsion needs by dissipating energy in the sizable atmosphere of Uranus without a significant mass increase due to the need for an aeroshell. One can use the mass savings achieved using the aerocapture to reduce the launch vehicle requirements. In addition, one can also have additional science instruments on the orbiter or create a robust instrumentation suite on an atmospheric probe that can significantly increase the science outcome of the Uranus exploration mission. Furthermore, since aerocapture performance is relatively insensitive to increases in hyperbolic excess velocity, one can design the interplanetary trajectory to arrive at Uranus faster, reducing the interplanetary transit time and operations cost. All these savings, achieved using aerocapture, could help fit a larger class mission, such as the Uranus mission within a smaller capital, e.g., a Flagship-class orbiter mission in a New Frontiers class capital. Summary: This talk will provide an overview of how aerocapture can enable the Uranus exploration mission. Specifically, this talk will discuss the latest advancements made in the Uranus aerocapture study, such as investigating interplanetary trajectories with higher hyperbolic approach velocities and their implications on the aero heating and the TPS design, incorporating FNPAG (an advanced numerical-predictor guidance) and comparison of multiple navigation approaches. In addition, this talk will focus on mechanical design that can house more than one atmospheric probe and the six degrees of freedom simulation of aerocapture at Uranus. Findings from a recent NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD)-funded activity studying the aerocapture as an enabling technology for a Uranus orbiter will be presented. Using the science payload recommended by the Decadal Survey for Uranus exploration, this work shows many improvements over the baseline fully-propulsive mission. These improvements include a shorter cruise phase, flexibility in launch opportunities late into the 2030s while reaching Uranus before the 2050 equinox for the desired science opportunities, and lower propellant mass needs. This talk will highlight how aerocapture can be utilized for Uranus science orbit insertion using a lower-risk, heritage entry vehicle configuration used extensively as a Mars entry, descent, and landing vehicle. Furthermore, this talk will explore how the demonstration of aerocapture at Earth can benefit the aerocapture-enabled Uranus mission.

Aerocapture↗

Technology requirements to be addressed by the NASA Lewis Research Center Cryogenic Fluid Management Facility program

The NASA Lewis Research Center is responsible for the planning and execution of a scientific program which will provide advance in space cryogenic fluid management technology. A number of future space missions were identified that require or could benefit from this technology. These fluid management technology needs were prioritized and a shuttle attached reuseable test bed, the cryogenic fluid management facility (CFMF), is being designed to provide the experimental data necessary for the technology development effort.

Aydelott, J. C.↗

Technology requirements to be addressed by the NASA Lewis Research Center Cryogenic Fluid Management Facility program

The NASA Lewis Research Center is responsible for the planning and execution of a scientific program which will provide advance in space cryogenic fluid management technology. A number of future space missions were identified that require or could benefit from this technology. These fluid management technology needs were prioritized and a shuttle attached reuseable test bed, the cryogenic fluid management facility (CFMF), is being designed to provide the experimental data necessary for the technology development effort.

Aydelott, J. C.↗