Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “top-down”

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 NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the pyrotechnics subsystem

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter Pyrotechnics hardware. The IOA analysis process utilized available pyrotechnics hardware drawings and schematics for defining hardware assemblies, components, and hardware items. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode.

Robinson, W. W.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the mechanical actuation subsystem, volume 1

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine draft failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the proposed Post 51-L NASA FMEA/CIL baseline that was available. A resolution of each discrepancy from the comparison was provided through additional analysis as required. These discrepancies were flagged as issues, and recommendations were made based on the FMEA data available at the time. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter Mechanical Actuation System (MAS) hardware. Specifically, the MAS hardware consists of the following components: Air Data Probe (ADP); Elevon Seal Panel (ESP); External Tank Umbilical (ETU); Ku-Band Deploy (KBD); Payload Bay Doors (PBD); Payload Bay Radiators (PBR); Personnel Hatches (PH); Vent Door Mechanism (VDM); and Startracker Door Mechanism (SDM). Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode.

Bradway, M. W.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the mechanical actuation subsystem, volume 2

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine draft failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the proposed Post 51-L NASA FMEA/CIL baseline that was available. A resolution of each discrepancy from the comparison was provided through additional analysis as required. These discrepancies were flagged as issues, and recommendations were made based on the FMEA data available at the time. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter Mechanical Actuation System (MAS) hardware. Specifically, the MAS hardware consists of the following components: Air Data Probe (ADP); Elevon Seal Panel (ESP); External Tank Umbilical (ETU); Ku-Band Deploy (KBD); Payload Bay Doors (PBD); Payload Bay Radiators (PBR); Personnel Hatches (PH); Vent Door Mechanism (VDM); and Startracker Door Mechanism (SDM). Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode. Volume 2 continues the presentation of IOA analysis worksheets and contains the potential critical items list, detailed analysis, and NASA FMEA/CIL to IOA worksheet cross reference and recommendations.

Bradway, M. W.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the crew equipment subsystem

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical (PCIs) items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The independent analysis results coresponding to the Orbiter crew equipment hardware are documented. The IOA analysis process utilized available crew equipment hardware drawings and schematics for defining hardware assemblies, components, and hardware items. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode. Of the 352 failure modes analyzed, 78 were determined to be PCIs.

Sinclair, Susan↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): FMEA/CIL assessment

The McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company (MDAC) was selected to perform an Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL). Direction was given by the Orbiter and GFE Projects Office to perform the hardware analysis and assessment using the instructions and ground rules defined in NSTS 22206. The IOA analysis featured a top-down approach to determine hardware failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, the analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA and Prime Contractor FMEA/CIL documentation. The assessment process compared the independently derived failure modes and criticality assignments to the proposed NASA post 51-L FMEA/CIL documentation. When possible, assessment issues were discussed and resolved with the NASA subsystem managers. Unresolved issues were elevated to the Orbiter and GFE Projects Office manager, Configuration Control Board (CCB), or Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) for further resolution. The most important Orbiter assessment finding was the previously unknown stuck autopilot push-button criticality 1/1 failure mode. The worst case effect could cause loss of crew/vehicle when the microwave landing system is not active. It is concluded that NASA and Prime Contractor Post 51-L FMEA/CIL documentation assessed by IOA is believed to be technically accurate and complete. All CIL issues were resolved. No FMEA issues remain that have safety implications. Consideration should be given, however, to upgrading NSTS 22206 with definitive ground rules which more clearly spell out the limits of redundancy.

Hinsdale, L. W.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the Orbiter Experiment (OEX) subsystem

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter Experiments hardware. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode. The Orbiter Experiments (OEX) Program consists of a multiple set of experiments for the purpose of gathering environmental and aerodynamic data to develop more accurate ground models for Shuttle performance and to facilitate the design of future spacecraft. This assessment only addresses currently manifested experiments and their support systems. Specifically this list consists of: Shuttle Entry Air Data System (SEADS); Shuttle Upper Atmosphere Mass Spectrometer (SUMS); Forward Fuselage Support System for OEX (FFSSO); Shuttle Infrared Laced Temperature Sensor (SILTS); Aerodynamic Coefficient Identification Package (ACIP); and Support System for OEX (SSO). There are only two potential critical items for the OEX, since the experiments only gather data for analysis post mission and are totally independent systems except for power. Failure of any experiment component usually only causes a loss of experiment data and in no way jeopardizes the crew or mission.

Compton, J. M.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the communication and tracking subsystem

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter Communication and Tracking hardware. The IOA analysis process utilized available Communication and Tracking hardware drawings and schematics for defining hardware assemblies, components, and hardware items. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode.

Gardner, J. R.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the purge, vent and drain subsystem

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter PV and D (Purge, Vent and Drain) Subsystem hardware. The PV and D Subsystem controls the environment of unpressurized compartments and window cavities, senses hazardous gases, and purges Orbiter/ET Disconnect. The subsystem is divided into six systems: Purge System (controls the environment of unpressurized structural compartments); Vent System (controls the pressure of unpressurized compartments); Drain System (removes water from unpressurized compartments); Hazardous Gas Detection System (HGDS) (monitors hazardous gas concentrations); Window Cavity Conditioning System (WCCS) (maintains clear windows and provides pressure control of the window cavities); and External Tank/Orbiter Disconnect Purge System (prevents cryo-pumping/icing of disconnect hardware). Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode. Four of the sixty-two failure modes analyzed were determined as single failures which could result in the loss of crew or vehicle. A possible loss of mission could result if any of twelve single failures occurred. Two of the criticality 1/1 failures are in the Window Cavity Conditioning System (WCCS) outer window cavity, where leakage and/or restricted flow will cause failure to depressurize/repressurize the window cavity. Two criticality 1/1 failures represent leakage and/or restricted flow in the Orbiter/ET disconnect purge network which prevent cryopumping/icing of disconnect hardware. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode.

Bynum, M. C., III↗
NASA NTRS1987

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the displays and controls subsystem

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter Displays and Controls (D and C) subsystem hardware. The function of the D and C hardware is to provide the crew with the monitor, command, and control capabilities required for management of all normal and contingency mission and flight operations. The D and C hardware for which failure modes analysis was performed consists of the following: Acceleration Indicator (G-METER); Head Up Display (HUD); Display Driver Unit (DDU); Alpha/Mach Indicator (AMI); Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI); Attitude Director Indicator (ADI); Propellant Quantity Indicator (PQI); Surface Position Indicator (SPI); Altitude/Vertical Velocity Indicator (AVVI); Caution and Warning Assembly (CWA); Annunciator Control Assembly (ACA); Event Timer (ET); Mission Timer (MT); Interior Lighting; and Exterior Lighting. Each hardware item was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode.

Trahan, W. H.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the active thermal control subsystem

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical (PCIs) items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter Active Thermal Control Subsystem (ATCS) are documented. The major purpose of the ATCS is to remove the heat, generated during normal Shuttle operations from the Orbiter systems and subsystems. The four major components of the ATCS contributing to the heat removal are: Freon Coolant Loops; Radiator and Flow Control Assembly; Flash Evaporator System; and Ammonia Boiler System. In order to perform the analysis, the IOA process utilized available ATCS hardware drawings and schematics for defining hardware assemblies, components, and hardware items. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode. Of the 310 failure modes analyzed, 101 were determined to be PCIs.

Sinclair, S. K.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): FMEA/CIL assessment

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. Direction was given by the Orbiter and GFE Projects Office to perform the hardware analysis and assessment using the instructions and ground rules defined in NSTS 22206. The IOA analysis features a top-down approach to determine hardware failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, the anlaysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA and prime contractor FMEA/CIL documentation. The assessment process compares the independently derived failure modes and criticality assignments to the proposed NASA Post 51-L FMEA/CIL documentation. When possible, assessment issues are discussed and resolved with the NASA subsystem managers. The assessment results for each subsystem are summarized. The most important Orbiter assessment finding was the previously unknown stuck autopilot push-button criticality 1/1 failure mode, having a worst case effect of loss of crew/vehicle when a microwave landing system is not active.

Saiidi, Mo J.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the life support and airlock support subsystems

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter Life Support System (LSS) and Airlock Support System (ALSS). Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode. The LSS provides for the management of the supply water, collection of metabolic waste, management of waste water, smoke detection, and fire suppression. The ALSS provides water, oxygen, and electricity to support an extravehicular activity in the airlock.

Arbet, Jim↗
NASA NTRS1989

Knowledge-based reusable software synthesis system

The Eli system, a knowledge-based reusable software synthesis system, is being developed for NASA Langley under a Phase 2 SBIR contract. Named after Eli Whitney, the inventor of interchangeable parts, Eli assists engineers of large-scale software systems in reusing components while they are composing their software specifications or designs. Eli will identify reuse potential, search for components, select component variants, and synthesize components into the developer's specifications. The Eli project began as a Phase 1 SBIR to define a reusable software synthesis methodology that integrates reusabilityinto the top-down development process and to develop an approach for an expert system to promote and accomplish reuse. The objectives of the Eli Phase 2 work are to integrate advanced technologies to automate the development of reusable components within the context of large system developments, to integrate with user development methodologies without significant changes in method or learning of special languages, and to make reuse the easiest operation to perform. Eli will try to address a number of reuse problems including developing software with reusable components, managing reusable components, identifying reusable components, and transitioning reuse technology. Eli is both a library facility for classifying, storing, and retrieving reusable components and a design environment that emphasizes, encourages, and supports reuse.

Donaldson, Cammie↗
NASA NTRS1990

Design of integrated pitch axis for autopilot/autothrottle and integrated lateral axis for autopilot/yaw damper for NASA TSRV airplane using integral LQG methodology

Two designs are presented for control systems for the NASA Transport System Research Vehicle (TSRV) using integral Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) methodology. The first is an integrated longitudinal autopilot/autothrottle design and the second design is an integrated lateral autopilot/yaw damper/sideslip controller design. It is shown that a systematic top-down approach to a complex design problem combined with proper application of modern control synthesis techniques yields a satisfactory solution in a reasonable period of time.

Kaminer, Isaac↗
NASA NTRS1990

Adaptive pattern recognition by mini-max neural networks as a part of an intelligent processor

In this decade and progressing into 21st Century, NASA will have missions including Space Station and the Earth related Planet Sciences. To support these missions, a high degree of sophistication in machine automation and an increasing amount of data processing throughput rate are necessary. Meeting these challenges requires intelligent machines, designed to support the necessary automations in a remote space and hazardous environment. There are two approaches to designing these intelligent machines. One of these is the knowledge-based expert system approach, namely AI. The other is a non-rule approach based on parallel and distributed computing for adaptive fault-tolerances, namely Neural or Natural Intelligence (NI). The union of AI and NI is the solution to the problem stated above. The NI segment of this unit extracts features automatically by applying Cauchy simulated annealing to a mini-max cost energy function. The feature discovered by NI can then be passed to the AI system for future processing, and vice versa. This passing increases reliability, for AI can follow the NI formulated algorithm exactly, and can provide the context knowledge base as the constraints of neurocomputing. The mini-max cost function that solves the unknown feature can furthermore give us a top-down architectural design of neural networks by means of Taylor series expansion of the cost function. A typical mini-max cost function consists of the sample variance of each class in the numerator, and separation of the center of each class in the denominator. Thus, when the total cost energy is minimized, the conflicting goals of intraclass clustering and interclass segregation are achieved simultaneously.

Szu, Harold H.↗
NASA NTRS1989

A systematic approach to training: A training needs assessment

In an effort to determine the gap between the actual performance and the necessary performance of employees for the effective and efficient accomplishment of an organization's mission and goals, an organization-wide Training Needs Assessment must be conducted. The purpose of this work was to conduct a training needs analysis and prepare a NASA Langley Catalog of On-Site Training programs. The work included developing a Training Needs Assessment Survey, implementing the survey, analyzing and researching the training needs, identifying the courses to meet the needs, and preparing and designing an On-Site Training Catalog. This needs analysis attempted to identify performance weaknesses and deficits; seek out and provide opportunities for improved performance; anticipate and avoid future problems; enhance and create new strengths. The end product is a user-friendly catalog of on-site training available. The results include: top-down approach to needs assessment; improved communication with training coordinators; 98 percent return rate of the Training Needs Assessment survey; complete, newly designed, user-friendly catalog; 167 catalog descriptions advertised; 82 new courses advertised; training logo; and request for the training application form.

Manning, Margaret H.↗
NASA NTRS1990

A function-based approach to cockpit procedure aids

The objective of this research is to develop and test a cockpit procedural aid that can compose and present procedures that are appropriate for the given flight situation. The procedure would indicate the status of the aircraft engineering systems, and the environmental conditions. Prescribed procedures already exist for normal as well as for a number of non-normal and emergency situations, and can be presented to the crew using an interactive cockpit display. However, no procedures are prescribed or recommended for a host of plausible flight situations involving multiple malfunctions compounded by adverse environmental conditions. Under these circumstances, the cockpit procedural aid must review the prescribed procedures for the individual malfunction (when available), evaluate the alternatives or options, and present one or more composite procedures (prioritized or unprioritized) in response to the given situation. A top-down function-based conceptual approach towards composing and presenting cockpit procedures is being investigated. This approach is based upon the thought process that an operating crew must go through while attempting to meet the flight objectives given the current flight situation. In order to accomplish the flight objectives, certain critical functions must be maintained during each phase of the flight, using the appropriate procedures or success paths. The viability of these procedures depends upon the availability of required resources. If resources available are not sufficient to meet the requirements, alternative procedures (success paths) using the available resources must be constructed to maintain the critical functions and the corresponding objectives. If no success path exists that can satisfy the critical functions/objectives, then the next level of critical functions/objectives must be selected and the process repeated. Information is given in viewgraph form.

Phatak, Anil V.↗
NASA NTRS1990

An integrated approach to system design, reliability, and diagnosis

The requirement for ultradependability of computer systems in future avionics and space applications necessitates a top-down, integrated systems engineering approach for design, implementation, testing, and operation. The functional analyses of hardware and software systems must be combined by models that are flexible enough to represent their interactions and behavior. The information contained in these models must be accessible throughout all phases of the system life cycle in order to maintain consistency and accuracy in design and operational decisions. One approach being taken by researchers at Ames Research Center is the creation of an object-oriented environment that integrates information about system components required in the reliability evaluation with behavioral information useful for diagnostic algorithms. Procedures have been developed at Ames that perform reliability evaluations during design and failure diagnoses during system operation. These procedures utilize information from a central source, structured as object-oriented fault trees. Fault trees were selected because they are a flexible model widely used in aerospace applications and because they give a concise, structured representation of system behavior. The utility of this integrated environment for aerospace applications in light of our experiences during its development and use is described. The techniques for reliability evaluation and failure diagnosis are discussed, and current extensions of the environment and areas requiring further development are summarized.

Patterson-Hine, F. A.↗