Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “scheduler development”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2004

Recent Developments and Status of the Langley Single Vector Balance Calibration System (SVS)

The Langley Research Center (LaRC) Single Vector Balance Calibration System (SVS) was first introduced in 2000 by Peter Parker. The SVS combines the Design of Experiments (DOE) methodology with a novel load application system. Since that time three systems have been designed and developed with different load range capabilities (ranging from 2 pounds to 3,000 pounds). Approximately fifteen balances have been calibrated and their data compared to conventional techniques. This paper will present results of these comparisons, based on the mathematical models and accuracies, and discuss differences that were observed. In addition, changes in the implementation of the initial load schedules developed using DOE will be highlighted. One of the principles behind DOE is randomization. The initial loading schedules used to date have been randomized in the traditional DOE sense but not for repeat calibrations or experiments. Implementation of this randomization within blocks and its impact on data quality will be reviewed. Areas of potential future development will be presented which include changes in the centers to include loads with the force position system in the pure error estimates.

Jones, Shirley M.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Zero-gravity atmospheric Cloud Physics Experiment Laboratory; Programmatics report

The programmatics effort included comprehensive analyses in four major areas: (1) work breakdown structure, (2) schedules, (3) costs, and (4) supporting research and technology. These analyses are discussed in detail in the following sections which identify and define the laboratory project development schedule, cost estimates, funding distributions and supporting research and technology requirements. All programmatics analyses are correlated among themselves and with the technical analyses by means of the work breakdown structure which serves as a common framework for program definition. In addition, the programmatic analyses reflect the results of analyses and plans for reliability, safety, test, and maintenance and refurbishment.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2009

A Lunar Surface System Supportability Technology Development Roadmap

This paper discusses the establishment of a Supportability Technology Development Roadmap as a guide for developing capabilities intended to allow NASA's Constellation program to enable a supportable, sustainable and affordable exploration of the Moon and Mars. Presented is a discussion of "supportability", in terms of space facility maintenance, repair and related logistics and a comparison of how lunar outpost supportability differs from the International Space Station. Supportability lessons learned from NASA and Department of Defense experience and their impact on a future lunar outpost is discussed. A supportability concept for future missions to the Moon and Mars that involves a transition from a highly logistics dependent to a logistically independent operation is discussed. Lunar outpost supportability capability needs are summarized and a supportability technology development strategy is established. The resulting Lunar Surface Systems Supportability Strategy defines general criteria that will be used to select technologies that will enable future flight crews to act effectively to respond to problems and exploit opportunities in a environment of extreme resource scarcity and isolation. This strategy also introduces the concept of exploiting flight hardware as a supportability resource. The technology roadmap involves development of three mutually supporting technology categories, Diagnostics Test & Verification, Maintenance & Repair, and Scavenging & Recycling. The technology roadmap establishes two distinct technology types, "Embedded" and "Process" technologies, with different implementation and thus different criteria and development approaches. The supportability technology roadmap addresses the technology readiness level, and estimated development schedule for technology groups that includes down-selection decision gates that correlate with the lunar program milestones. The resulting supportability technology roadmap is intended to develop a set of technologies with widest possible capability and utility with a minimum impact on crew time and training and remain within the time and cost constraints of the Constellation program

Oeftering, Richard C.↗
NASA NTRS2011

A Lunar Surface System Supportability Technology Development Roadmap

This paper discusses the establishment of a Supportability Technology Development Roadmap as a guide for developing capabilities intended to allow NASA s Constellation program to enable a supportable, sustainable and affordable exploration of the Moon and Mars. Presented is a discussion of supportability, in terms of space facility maintenance, repair and related logistics and a comparison of how lunar outpost supportability differs from the International Space Station. Supportability lessons learned from NASA and Department of Defense experience and their impact on a future lunar outpost is discussed. A supportability concept for future missions to the Moon and Mars that involves a transition from a highly logistics dependent to a logistically independent operation is discussed. Lunar outpost supportability capability needs are summarized and a supportability technology development strategy is established. The resulting Lunar Surface Systems Supportability Strategy defines general criteria that will be used to select technologies that will enable future flight crews to act effectively to respond to problems and exploit opportunities in an environment of extreme resource scarcity and isolation. This strategy also introduces the concept of exploiting flight hardware as a supportability resource. The technology roadmap involves development of three mutually supporting technology categories, Diagnostics Test and Verification, Maintenance and Repair, and Scavenging and Recycling. The technology roadmap establishes two distinct technology types, "Embedded" and "Process" technologies, with different implementation and thus different criteria and development approaches. The supportability technology roadmap addresses the technology readiness level, and estimated development schedule for technology groups that includes down-selection decision gates that correlate with the lunar program milestones. The resulting supportability technology roadmap is intended to develop a set of technologies with widest possible capability and utility with a minimum impact on crew time and training and remain within the time and cost constraints of the Constellation program.

Oeftering, Richard C.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Space Flight Requirements for Fiber Optic Components; Qualification Testing and Lessons Learned

"Qualification" of fiber optic components holds a very different meaning than it did ten years ago. In the past, qualification meant extensive prolonged testing and screening that led to a programmatic method of reliability assurance. For space flight programs today, the combination of using higher performance commercial technology, with shorter development schedules and tighter mission budgets makes long term testing and reliability characterization unfeasible. In many cases space flight missions will be using technology within years of its development and an example of this is fiber laser technology. Although the technology itself is not a new product the components that comprise a fiber laser system change frequently as processes and packaging changes occur. Once a process or the materials for manufacturing a component change, even the data that existed on its predecessor can no longer provide assurance on the newer version. In order to assure reliability during a space flight mission, the component engineer must understand the requirements of the space flight environment as well as the physics of failure of the components themselves. This can be incorporated into an efficient and effective testing plan that "qualifies" a component to specific criteria defined by the program given the mission requirements and the component limitations. This requires interaction at the very initial stages of design between the system design engineer, mechanical engineer, subsystem engineer and the component hardware engineer. Although this is the desired interaction what typically occurs is that the subsystem engineer asks the components or development engineers to meet difficult requirements without knowledge of the current industry situation or the lack of qualification data. This is then passed on to the vendor who can provide little help with such a harsh set of requirements due to high cost of testing for space flight environments. This presentation is designed to guide the engineers of design, development and components, and vendors of commercial components with how to make an efficient and effective qualification test plan with some basic generic information about many space flight requirements. Issues related to the ~ physics of failure, acceptance criteria and lessons learned will also be discussed to assist with understanding how to approach a space flight mission in an ever changing commercial photonics industry.

Ott, Melanie N.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Radiological Recovery Logistics Tool - 20161

Argonne is building and testing a tool, the Radiological Recovery Logistics Tool (RRLT), that can be used during the response and recovery from a radiological or nuclear incident to effectively allocate appropriate commercial and public works equipment to mitigate, remove, and contain radiological contamination. The requirements for this tool - as well as development of the resulting software - is overseen by a steering committee of stakeholders from DHS's National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One essential requirement is for RRLT to support the efficient and appropriate allocation of resources for a radiological response. Subsequent discussions between ANL and stakeholders have solidified the nature of this support to include identification of the types of resources to be allocated. The study reported in this paper has both factored fundamental concepts and connections out of this identification process and created a Knowledge Base detailing support goals, response scenarios, and efficacy information on dozens of equipment types. In short, RRLT will dynamically apply these findings to situational conditions surrounding contamination incidents. RRLT's Domain, the model of elements, ideas and relationships with which the tool will work, draws concepts from technical reports and stakeholder vocabularies to connect response goals and scenarios to types of equipment that offer utility towards those goals in those scenarios. RRLT's Knowledge Base will contain details on dozens of equipment types and facilitate the operator's discovery and consumption of these details most pertinent to a dynamically selected subset of goals. The core of its Domain Model is based on a report authored by this team. This report [1] contains a comprehensive list of proposed equipment to accomplish various missions or scenarios that might arise after a large-scale radiological contamination incident in an urban environment or critical infrastructure. The report divides potential response and recovery efforts into five support goals: Survey and monitoring of the contaminated area; Mitigation of received dose to first responders: Decontamination (gross and final) of buildings, vehicles, roadways, parks, and other surfaces: Waste management of solid waste generated during recovery operations: and Containment of wastewater and other waste generated during the response and recovery phases. RRLT's development is driven by use cases. A use case is an intention with which a user approaches the software. Use cases are grouped into delivery increments to schedule development, testing, and presentation to stakeholders. This model partitions the system into seven increments: User Arrival and Authentication, Search and Navigation, Equipment Recommendation, Plan Management, Content Management, and Expanded Access. Once a user 15 authenticated, RRLT will present the user with a dashboard that allows them to explore or search RRLT's content. The dashboard will also include a 'Plan' panel for collecting decisions and relevant observations about an incident at hand to facilitate development of an equipment list. RRLT will offer three general modes of access to items in the knowledge base: - Keyword search for direct discovery of items, - Navigation along predetermined paths from recovery goal towards equipment types, and - Interactive guidance towards equipment types by an autonomous software agent: the Equipment Recommendation Wizard. This presentation will detail progress in the development of the RRLT and also discuss opportunities for those interested in providing feedback on its content and functionality. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS1993

A comparison of nuclear thermal rocket development cost and schedule for piloted missions to Mars

In Fiscal Year 1992, NASA led a team, including DOE, universities, and industry, that evaluated various schedule and cost scenarios for development of nuclear thermal rocket propulsion systems for piloted Mars exploration. This paper summarizes the results of two of these studies: (1) a so-called 'Fast Track' approach, that would result in technology readiness level 6 (TRL-6-system ground testing complete) by the year 2000, and (2) a slower program that results in TRL-6 by 2006. Both scenarios included a concurrent engineering approach. Costs and schedules for the two scenarios are compared. In addition to the six-year schedule delay, the TRL-6 in 2006 scenario is estimated to increase the cost of the program from $4.7 billion to $5.8 billion (in real-year dollars). On the positive side, the technical program should be better, since nuclear testing of fuel elements may be possible prior to concept down-select, resulting in a more informed decision.

Clark, John S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Scheduling Performance

As NASA considers long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs), it is envisioned that crew will behave more autonomously as compared to low-Earth orbit missions. The necessary shift of Ops Planners’ complete management of scheduling and planning to provide flexibility for crew to manage their own schedule in real-time requires significant research and investigation in evaluation of concepts of operations, of software tools to support tasks, and of crew performance to complete scheduling tasks. Our research objective is to characterize the human performance envelope for the task of planning and scheduling (crew self-scheduling), develop countermeasures to mitigate adverse performance effects due to plan complexity, and inform performance standards and guidelines based on research results. In our efforts to understand and characterize scheduling performance of crew members, we have conducted subject matter expert interviews to obtain feedback on scheduling plan complexity drivers and plan goodness. Following the pilot study conducted last year, we designed a study and have begun remote human subject testing to evaluate non-expert human performance, workload, and situational awareness for the task of planning and scheduling. This study investigates the effects of the number and type of constraints on human performance, and the differences in scheduling metrics between scheduling and rescheduling tasks. Subject testing is currently in progress, and we aim to collect data from approximately thirty subjects. We will summarize the methods used and impacts of the number and type of scheduling constraints. We will also present lessons learned as well as relevant results of the study.

crew scheduling↗
NASA NTRS1996

Renaissance: A revolutionary approach for providing low-cost ground data systems

The NASA is changing its attention from large missions to a greater number of smaller missions with reduced development schedules and budgets. In relation to this, the Renaissance Mission Operations and Data Systems Directorate systems engineering process is presented. The aim of the Renaissance approach is to improve system performance, reduce cost and schedules and meet specific customer needs. The approach includes: the early involvement of the users to define the mission requirements and system architectures; the streamlining of management processes; the development of a flexible cost estimation capability, and the ability to insert technology. Renaissance-based systems demonstrate significant reuse of commercial off-the-shelf building blocks in an integrated system architecture.

Butler, Madeline J.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Fast Alternative Cryogenic Experiment Testbed

The end of regularly scheduled Microgravity Science Payload (MSP), shuttle mission(s), the severely limited ability to accommodate the existing low temperature flight hardware on other carriers, and the anticipated delays in the development schedule for the International Space Station (ISS) in combination have left low temperature microgravity investigations with few (if any) flight opportunities until several years into the next millennium.

International↗
NASA NTRS1998

Distribution of a Generic Mission Planning and Scheduling Toolkit for Astronomical Spacecraft

This 2-year report describes the progress made to date on the project to package and distribute the planning and scheduling toolkit for the SWAS astronomical spacecraft. SWAS was scheduled to be launched on a Pegasus XL vehicle in fall 1995. Three separate failures in the launch vehicle have delayed the SWAS launch. The researchers have used this time to continue developing scheduling algorithms and GUI design. SWAS is expected to be launched this year.

Kleiner, Steven C.↗
NASA NTRS1998

The Implementation of Satellite Control System Software Using Object Oriented Design

NASA established the Small Explorer (SMEX) program in 1988 to provide frequent opportunities for highly focused and relatively inexpensive space science missions that can be launched into low earth orbit by small expendable vehicles. The development schedule for each SMEX spacecraft was three years from start to launch. The SMEX program has produced five satellites; Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer (SAMPEX), Fast Auroral Snapshot Explorer (FAST), Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS), Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) and Wide-Field Infrared Explorer (WIRE). SAMPEX and FAST are on-orbit, TRACE is scheduled to be launched in April of 1998, WIRE is scheduled to be launched in September of 1998, and SWAS is scheduled to be launched in January of 1999. In each of these missions, the Attitude Control System (ACS) software was written using a modular procedural design. Current program goals require complete spacecraft development within 18 months. This requirement has increased pressure to write reusable flight software. Object-Oriented Design (OOD) offers the constructs for developing an application that only needs modification for mission unique requirements. This paper describes the OOD that was used to develop the SMEX-Lite ACS software. The SMEX-Lite ACS is three-axis controlled, momentum stabilized, and is capable of performing sub-arc-minute pointing. The paper first describes the high level requirements which governed the architecture of the SMEX-Lite ACS software. Next, the context in which the software resides is explained. The paper describes the benefits of encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism with respect to the implementation of an ACS software system. This paper will discuss the design of several software components that comprise the ACS software. Specifically, Object-Oriented designs are presented for sensor data processing, attitude control, attitude determination and failure detection. The paper addresses the benefits of the OOD versus a conventional procedural design. The final discussion in this paper will address the establishment of the ACS Foundation Class (AFC) Library. The AFC is a large software repository, requiring a minimal amount of code modifications to produce ACS software for future projects, saving production time and costs.

Anderson, Mark O.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Additive Manufacturing of Low Cost Upper Stage Propulsion Components

NASA is currently developing Additive Manufacturing (AM) technologies and design tools aimed at reducing the costs and manufacturing time of regeneratively cooled rocket engine components. These Low Cost Upper Stage Propulsion (LCUSP) tasks are funded through NASA's Game Changing Development Program in the Space Technology Mission Directorate. The LCUSP project will develop a copper alloy additive manufacturing design process and develop and optimize the Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication (EBF3) manufacturing process to direct deposit a nickel alloy structural jacket and manifolds onto an SLM manufactured GRCop chamber and Ni-alloy nozzle. In order to develop these processes, the project will characterize both the microstructural and mechanical properties of the SLMproduced GRCop-84, and will explore and document novel design techniques specific to AM combustion devices components. These manufacturing technologies will be used to build a 25K-class regenerative chamber and nozzle (to be used with tested DMLS injectors) that will be tested individually and as a system in hot fire tests to demonstrate the applicability of the technologies. These tasks are expected to bring costs and manufacturing time down as spacecraft propulsion systems typically comprise more than 70% of the total vehicle cost and account for a significant portion of the development schedule. Additionally, high pressure/high temperature combustion chambers and nozzles must be regeneratively cooled to survive their operating environment, causing their design to be time consuming and costly to build. LCUSP presents an opportunity to develop and demonstrate a process that can infuse these technologies into industry, build competition, and drive down costs of future engines.

Protz, Christopher↗
NASA NTRS2012

Modeling Temporal Processes in Early Spacecraft Design: Application of Discrete-Event Simulations for Darpa's F6 Program

While the ability to model the state of a space system over time is essential during spacecraft operations, the use of time-based simulations remains rare in preliminary design. The absence of the time dimension in most traditional early design tools can however become a hurdle when designing complex systems whose development and operations can be disrupted by various events, such as delays or failures. As the value delivered by a space system is highly affected by such events, exploring the trade space for designs that yield the maximum value calls for the explicit modeling of time.This paper discusses the use of discrete-event models to simulate spacecraft development schedule as well as operational scenarios and on-orbit resources in the presence of uncertainty. It illustrates how such simulations can be utilized to support trade studies, through the example of a tool developed for DARPA's F6 program to assist the design of "fractionated spacecraft".

trade space exploration↗
NASA NTRS1996

Development of a Gimballed, dual frequency, space-based, microwave antenna for volume production

A dual-frequency, two-axis Gimballed, Microwave Antenna (GMA) has been developed by COM DEV and Motorola for commercial satellites. The need for volume production of over three hundred antennas at a rate of four per week, a compressed development schedule, and the commercial nature of the effort necessitated a paradigm shift to an 'overall' cost-driven design approach. The translation of these demands into antenna requirements, a description of the resulting GMA design, and examples of development issues are detailed herein.

Leckie, Martin↗
NASA NTRS2006

NASA's J-2X Engine Builds on the Apollo Program for Lunar Return Missions

In January 2006, NASA streamlined its U.S. Vision for Space Exploration hardware development approach for replacing the Space Shuttle after it is retired in 2010. The revised CLV upper stage will use the J-2X engine, a derivative of NASA s Apollo Program Saturn V s S-II and S-IVB main propulsion, which will also serve as the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) engine. This paper gives details of how the J- 2X engine effort mitigates risk by building on the Apollo Program and other lessons learned to deliver a human-rated engine that is on an aggressive development schedule, with first demonstration flight in 2010 and human test flights in 2012. It is well documented that propulsion is historically a high-risk area. NASA s risk reduction strategy for the J-2X engine design, development, test, and evaluation is to build upon heritage hardware and apply valuable experience gained from past development efforts. In addition, NASA and its industry partner, Rocketdyne, which originally built the J-2, have tapped into their extensive databases and are applying lessons conveyed firsthand by Apollo-era veterans of America s first round of Moon missions in the 1960s and 1970s. NASA s development approach for the J-2X engine includes early requirements definition and management; designing-in lessons learned from the 5-2 heritage programs; initiating long-lead procurement items before Preliminary Desi& Review; incorporating design features for anticipated EDS requirements; identifying facilities for sea-level and altitude testing; and starting ground support equipment and logistics planning at an early stage. Other risk reduction strategies include utilizing a proven gas generator cycle with recent development experience; utilizing existing turbomachinery ; applying current and recent main combustion chamber (Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator) and channel wall nozzle (COBRA) advances; and performing rigorous development, qualification, and certification testing of the engine system, with a philosophy of "test what you fly, and fly what you test". These and other active risk management strategies are in place to deliver the J-2X engine for LEO and lunar return missions as outlined in the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration.

Snoddy, Jimmy R.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Multi-Mission Suitability of the NASA Ames Modular Common Bus

The obvious advantages of small spacecraft - their lower cost structure and the rapid development schedule - have enabled a large number of missions in the past. However, most of these missions have been focused on Earth observation from low Earth orbits. In 2006, the Small Spacecraft Division at the NASA Ames Research Center began the development of the Modular Common Bus, a spacecraft capable of delivering scientifically and technically useful payloads to a variety of destinations within 0.1 AU around the Earth. The core technologies used in the Common Bus design are a composite structure with body-mounted solar cells, an integrated avionics unit, and a high performance bipropellant propulsion system. Due to its modular approach, the Common Bus can be adapted to fit specific mission needs while still using a standardized and qualified set of components. Additionally a number of low cost launch vehicles are supported, resulting in overall mission costs of around $150M including the launch vehicle but excluding the science payloads. This significant reduction in cost and the shorter development time would enable NASA to conduct more frequent exploration missions within its budget and timeframe constraints, compared to the status quo. In this paper the suitability of the Common Spacecraft Bus for four different exploration scenarios is analyzed. These scenarios include a lunar orbiter, a lunar lander, a mission to a Sun-Earth Libration Point, and a rendezvous mission to a Near Earth Object. For each scenario, a preliminary design reference mission is developed and key design parameters for the spacecraft are determined.

Tietz, Sascha↗
NASA NTRS2006

A Process for Technology Prioritization in a Competitive Environment

This slide presentation reviews NASA's process for prioritizing technology requirements where there is a competitive environment. The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) project is used to exemplify the process. The ISPT project focuses on the mid level Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for development. These are TRL's 4 through 6, (i.e. Technology Development and Technology Demonstration. The objective of the planning activity is to identify the current most likely date each technology is needed and create ISPT technology development schedules based on these dates. There is a minimum of 4 years between flight and pacing mission. The ISPT Project needed to identify the "pacing mission" for each technology in order to provide funding for each area. Graphic representations show the development of the process. A matrix shows which missions are currently receiving pull from the both the Solar System Exploration and the Sun-Solar System Connection Roadmaps. The timeframes of the pacing missions technologies are shown for various types of propulsion. A pacing mission that was in the near future serves to increase the priority for funding. Adaptations were made when budget reductions precluded the total implementation of the plan.

Stephens, Karen↗