Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “concurrent”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Risk Identification and Visualization in a Concurrent Engineering Team Environment

Incorporating risk assessment into the dynamic environment of a concurrent engineering team requires rapid response and adaptation. Generating consistent risk lists with inputs from all the relevant subsystems and presenting the results clearly to the stakeholders in a concurrent engineering environment is difficult because of the speed with which decisions are made. In this paper we describe the various approaches and techniques that have been explored for the point designs of JPL's Team X and the Trade Space Studies of the Rapid Mission Architecture Team. The paper will also focus on the issues of the misuse of categorical and ordinal data that keep arising within current engineering risk approaches and also in the applied risk literature.

Risk Scoring↗
NASA NTRS2013

Domain-Specific Languages and Diagram Customization for a Concurrent Engineering Environment

A major open question for advocates of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is the question of how system and subsystem engineers will work together. The Systems Modeling Language (SysML), like any language intended for a large audience, is in tension between the desires for simplicity and for expressiveness. In order to be more expressive, many specialized language elements may be introduced, which will unfortunately make a complete understanding of the language a more daunting task. While this may be acceptable for systems modelers, it will increase the challenge of including subsystem engineers in the modeling effort. One possible answer to this situation is the use of Domain-Specific Languages (DSL), which are fully supported by the Unified Modeling Language (UML). SysML is in fact a DSL for systems engineering. The expressive power of a DSL can be enhanced through the use of diagram customization. Various domains have already developed their own schematic vocabularies. Within the space engineering community, two excellent examples are the propulsion and telecommunication subsystems. A return to simple box-and-line diagrams (e.g., the SysML Internal Block Diagram) are in many ways a step backward. In order allow subsystem engineers to contribute directly to the model, it is necessary to make a system modeling tool at least approximate in accessibility to drawing tools like Microsoft PowerPoint and Visio. The challenge is made more extreme in a concurrent engineering environment, where designs must often be drafted in an hour or two. In the case of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Team X concurrent design team, a subsystem is specified using a combination of PowerPoint for drawing and Excel for calculation. A pilot has been undertaken in order to meld the drawing portion and the production of master equipment lists (MELs) via a SysML authoring tool, MagicDraw. Team X currently interacts with its customers in a process of sharing presentations. There are several inefficiencies that arise from this situation. The first is that a customer team must wait two weeks to a month (which is 2-4 times the duration of most Team X studies themselves) for a finalized, detailed design description. Another is that this information must be re-entered by hand into the set of engineering artifacts and design tools that the mission concept team uses after a study is complete. Further, there is no persistent connection to Team X or institutionally shared formulation design tools and data after a given study, again reducing the direct reuse of designs created in a Team X study. This paper presents the underpinnings of subsystem DSLs as they were developed for this pilot. This includes specialized semantics for different domains as well as the process by which major categories of objects were derived in support of defining the DSLs. The feedback given to us by the domain experts on usability, along with a pilot study with the partial inclusion of these tools is also discussed.

Cole, Bjorn↗
NASA NTRS2015

Model-Based Systems Engineering in Concurrent Engineering Centers

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.

Iwata, Curtis↗
NASA NTRS2016

JPL's Foundry Furnace: Web-Based Concurrent Engineering for Formulation

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Innovation Foundry is an enterprise tasked with shepherding space mission concepts through the formulation lifecycle. It oversees a number of “virtual teams” for the various stages of formulation. Among these is Team X, which has had considerable success over its more than 20-year history. In a Team X study, domain experts (including engineers devoted to the various spacecraft subsystems) work concurrently and collaboratively over several days to arrive at a feasible point design with a reasonable cost estimate. They use a set of linked Excel workbooks, each developed and approved by a responsible “line organization” within JPL. This toolset has served Team X well over the years, and has evolved since its inception. At the same time, the Innovation Foundry’s portfolio of formulation teams has expanded, and so has the scope of the design challenges they face. The A-Team runs workshop-like architecture studies to focus science investigations, generate mission concepts, assess feasibility, and explore trade spaces. Team Xc performs rapid point design in the style of Team X, but for CubeSats and small spacecraft, using a different toolset. Proposal teams further mature concepts to the point where they can be proposed. Recognizing the importance of trade space modeling combined with new IT services for providing and integrating data, JPL is developing the Foundry Furnace web-based software infrastructure. It will support A-Team, Team Xc, and Team X, providing study management, a catalog of hardware components, a library of re-usable analyses, and a design environment. It is a modernization of JPL’s concurrent engineering infrastructure, embracing the core concepts of Model-Based Systems Engineering, and built with modern software design philosophies.

Murphy, Jonathan↗
NASA NTRS2019

Land–Atmosphere Feedbacks Exacerbate Concurrent Soil Drought and Atmospheric Aridity

Compound extremes such as cooccurring soil drought (low soil moisture) and atmospheric aridity (high vapor pressure deficit) can be disastrous for natural and societal systems. Soil drought and atmospheric aridity are 2 main physiological stressors driving widespread vegetation mortality and reduced terrestrial carbon uptake. Here, we empirically demonstrate that strong negative coupling between soil moisture and vapor pressure deficit occurs globally, indicating high probability of cooccurring soil drought and atmospheric aridity. Using the Global Land Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (GLACE)-CMIP5 experiment, we further show that concurrent soil drought and atmospheric aridity are greatly exacerbated by land– atmosphere feedbacks. The feedback of soil drought on the atmosphere is largely responsible for enabling atmospheric aridity extremes. In addition, the soil moisture–precipitation feedback acts to amplify precipitation and soil moisture deficits in most regions. CMIP5 models further show that the frequency of concurrent soil drought and atmospheric aridity enhanced by land–atmosphere feedbacks is projected to increase in the 21st century. Importantly, land– atmosphere feedbacks will greatly increase the intensity of both soil drought and atmospheric aridity beyond that expected from changes in mean climate alone.

Compound extreme events↗
NASA NTRS2018

How Do You Go From a Concept Idea to a NASA Selected Mission? Formulating the Psyche Discovery Mission with JPL's Concurrent Engineering Teams

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

Ziemer, John↗
NASA NTRS2018

How Do You Go From a Concept Idea to a NASA Selected Mission? Formulating the Psyche Discovery Mission with JPL's Concurrent Engineering Teams

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.

Ziemer, John↗
NASA NTRS2021

Lessons Learned in Remote Participant Concurrent Engineering Concept Development Studies

Team-X was born from a need to perform rapid space mission design for principal investigator-led competed proposals in the mid-1990s. Throughout the last 25 years, Team-X at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has expanded its application of the collaborative, concurrent study approach into every facet necessary to win competed proposals. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 created an immediate and new constraint on these studies – the need to conduct them with remote participants, both on the client side requesting the study, but also on the provider side producing the study. This paper provides lessons learned from dozens of design studies run by Team-X at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic. These lessons span all aspects of the information infrastructure: the people, processes, procedures, methods, tools, and “facilities”. These lessons learned will have applicability post-pandemic, as they have shown how best to incorporate participants, both on the provider side, and on the client side, who cannot travel or otherwise be co-located during collaborative, concurrent study sessions.

Nash, Alfred↗
NASA NTRS1996

An Element-Based Concurrent Partitioner for Unstructured Finite Element Meshes

A concurrent partitioner for partitioning unstructured finite element meshes on distributed memory architectures is developed. The partitioner uses an element-based partitioning strategy. Its main advantage over the more conventional node-based partitioning strategy is its modular programming approach to the development of parallel applications. The partitioner first partitions element centroids using a recursive inertial bisection algorithm. Elements and nodes then migrate according to the partitioned centroids, using a data request communication template for unpredictable incoming messages. Our scalable implementation is contrasted to a non-scalable implementation which is a straightforward parallelization of a sequential partitioner.

concurrent partitioner finite element meshes distr↗
NASA NTRS2006

Next-generation concurrent engineering: developing models to complement point designs

Concurrent Engineering Design teams have made routine the rapid development of point designs for space missions. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Team X is now evolving into a next generation CED; nin addition to a point design, the team develops a model of the local trade space. The process is a balance between the power of model-developing tools and the creativity of human experts, enabling the development of a variety of trade models for any space mission.

trade space exploration↗
NASA NTRS2006

Next-generation concurrent engineering: developing models to complement point designs

Concurrent Engineering Design (CED) teams have made routine the rapid development of point designs for space missions. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Team X is now evolving into a 'next-generation CED; in addition to a point design, the Team develops a model of the local trade space. The process is a balance between the power of a model developing tools and the creativity of humal experts, enabling the development of a variety of trade models for any space mission. This paper reviews the modeling method and its practical implementation in the ED environment. Example results illustrate the benefit of this approach.

concurrent engineering↗
NASA NTRS2007

Visualization of Concurrent Program Executions

Various program analysis techniques are efficient at discovering failures and properties. However, it is often difficult to evaluate results, such as program traces. This calls for abstraction and visualization tools. We propose an approach based on UML sequence diagrams, addressing shortcomings of such diagrams for concurrency. The resulting visualization is expressive and provides all the necessary information at a glance.

concurrent programs↗
NASA NTRS2015

Microgravity Flammability of PMMA Rods in Concurrent Flow

Microgravity experiments burning cast PMMA cylindrical rods in axial flow have been conducted aboard the International Space Station in the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) facility using the Burning and Suppression of Solids (BASS) flow duct, as part of the BASS-II experiment. Twenty-four concurrent-flow tests were performed, focusing on finding flammability limits as a function of oxygen and flow speed. The oxygen was varied by using gaseous nitrogen to vitiate the working volume of the MSG. The speed of the flow parallel to the rod was varied using a fan at the entrance to the duct. Both blowoff and quenching limits were obtained at several oxygen concentrations. Each experiment ignited the rod at the initially hemispherical stagnation tip of the rod, and allowed the flame to develop and heat the rod at a sufficient flow to sustain burning. For blowoff limit tests, the astronaut quickly turned up the flow to obtain extinction. Complementary 5.18-second Zero Gravity Facility drop tests were conducted to compare blowoff limits in short and long duration microgravity. For quenching tests, the flow was incrementally turned down and the flame allowed to stabilize at the new flow condition for at least the solid-phase response time before changing it again. Quenching was observed when the flow became sufficiently weak that the flame could no longer provide adequate heat flux to compensate for the heat losses (conduction into the rod and radiation). A surface energy balance is presented that shows the surface radiative loss exceeds the conductive loss into the rod near the limit. The flammability boundary is shown to represent a critical Damkohler number, expressed in terms of the reaction rate divided by the stretch rate. For the blowoff branch, the boundary exhibits a linear dependence on oxygen concentration and stretch rate, indicating that the temperature at blowoff must be fairly constant. For the quenching branch, the dominance of the exponential nature of the Arrhenius kinetics reaction rate indicates that the temperature is critical.

flammability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lessons Learned in Concurrent Mission and Systems Design at NASA Glenn Research Center: Almost Fifteen Years of the Compass Team

This paper is a retrospective of the lessons learned during the almost 15-year history of the Compass concurrent mission and systems design team at NASA’s Glenn Research Center (GRC). It examines the key factors in the team’s evolution from a temporary group gathered to perform a single study to the successful, sustainable team it is today. Compass is a matrixed team of experts with various technical backgrounds and personalities. They collaborate over a two-week period either physically in a dedicated meeting space, or virtually to design a space system (Spacecraft, stage, science package, etc). Over the years, because of the rapid nature of the design studies, the team leadership has iterated on the optimal team member personality makeup, facility elements and tools as well as NASA GRC management support necessary to lead to sustained success.

systems engineering↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Compass Concurrent Engineering Lessons Learned in Remote and Hybrid Environments

The Compass Team at NASA’s Glenn Research Center (GRC) is a concurrent engineering team which specializes in conceptual spacecraft mission designs. Detailed descriptions of the team, its history, and its operating model can be found in [1] and [2]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the team was required to move to remote (virtual) operation from their in-person model for approximately 22 months. As the restrictions began to lift and team members were able to return in-person to the Compass Lab, the team moved into a hybrid mode of operation, with some participants still tying in remotely some or all of the time. This paper discusses many of the lessons learned from these experiences, highlighting improvements, outstanding challenges and the tools and methodologies used to address both. Throughout this discussion the terms “in-person”, “hybrid”, “virtual” and “remote” will be used. For the purposes of this paper, “in-person” will be understood to mean when team members are interacting simultaneously, physically within the Compass Lab. “Remote” or “virtual” will refer to when interactions are happening between people who are not co-located using only technology to interface. “Hybrid” will refer to when two or more participants are physically located in the Compass Lab and one or more participant(s) is participating remotely. Media richness is described as “a medium’s ability to communicate effectively based of four factors. They are the capacity for immediate feedback, the number of cues and channels it utilizes, the degree of personalization it affords, and its ability to communicate using natural language” [3]. This theory will be referenced and discussed in multiple of the following sections due to its relevance when choosing how to operate in remote and hybrid modes, as well as in making tool selections. The key to selecting the best mode of communication lays in how complicated the discussion is and the level of ambiguity involved. Not all conversations or interactions require media rich mediums. For example, providing information about which there is little to no ambiguity can easily be done in less rich methods - such as email. A conversation including high levels of ambiguity and/or complex information is better suited to a richer medium, such as in-person or a video call with shared screens.

Concurrent Engineering↗