Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “cost risk”

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 NTRS2019

Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Handbook

The purpose of this handbook is intended to be a how-to guide to prepare for, conduct, and close-out an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR). It discusses the steps that should be considered, describes roles and responsibilities, tips for tailoring the IBR based on risk, cost, and need for management insight, and provides lessons learned from past IBRs. Appendices contain example documentation typically used in connection with an IBR. Note that these appendices are examples only, and should be tailored to meet the needs of individual projects and contracts. Following the guidance in this handbook will help customers and suppliers preparing for an IBR understand the expectations of the IBR, and ensure that the IBR meets the requirements for both in-house and contract efforts.

Project↗
NASA NTRS2013

Flight Software Math Library

The flight software (FSW) math library is a collection of reusable math components that provides typical math utilities required by spacecraft flight software. These utilities are intended to increase flight software quality reusability and maintainability by providing a set of consistent, well-documented, and tested math utilities. This library only has dependencies on ANSI C, so it is easily ported. Prior to this library, each mission typically created its own math utilities using ideas/code from previous missions. Part of the reason for this is that math libraries can be written with different strategies in areas like error handling, parameters orders, naming conventions, etc. Changing the utilities for each mission introduces risks and costs. The obvious risks and costs are that the utilities must be coded and revalidated. The hidden risks and costs arise in miscommunication between engineers. These utilities must be understood by both the flight software engineers and other subsystem engineers (primarily guidance navigation and control). The FSW math library is part of a larger goal to produce a library of reusable Guidance Navigation and Control (GN&C) FSW components. A GN&C FSW library cannot be created unless a standardized math basis is created. This library solves the standardization problem by defining a common feature set and establishing policies for the library s design. This allows the libraries to be maintained with the same strategy used in its initial development, which supports a library of reusable GN&C FSW components. The FSW math library is written for an embedded software environment in C. This places restrictions on the language features that can be used by the library. Another advantage of the FSW math library is that it can be used in the FSW as well as other environments like the GN&C analyst s simulators. This helps communication between the teams because they can use the same utilities with the same feature set and syntax.

McComas, David↗
NASA NTRS2013

Affordable Development and Qualification Strategy for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

A number of recent assessments have confirmed the results of several earlier studies that Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) is a leading technology for human exploration of Mars. It is generally acknowledged that NTP provides the best prospects for the transportation of humans to Mars in the 2030's. Its high Isp coupled with the high thrusts achievable, allow reasonable trip times, thereby alleviating concerns about space radiation and "claustrophobia" effects. NASA has embarked on the latest phase of the development of NTP systems, and is adopting an affordable approach in response to the pressure of the times. The affordable strategy is built on maximizing the use of the large NTP technology base developed in the 1950's and 60's. The fact that the NTP engines were actually demonstrated to work as planned, is a great risk reduction feature in its development. The strategy utilizes non-nuclear testing to the fullest extent possible, and uses focused nuclear tests for the essential qualification and certification tests. The perceived cost risk of conducting the ground tests is being addressed by considering novel testing approaches. This includes the use of boreholes to contain radioactive effluents, and use of fuel with very high retention capability for fission products. The use of prototype flight tests is being considered as final steps in the development prior to undertaking human flight missions. In addition to the technical issues, plans are being prepared to address the institutional and political issues that need to be considered in this major venture. While the development and deployment of NTP system is not expected to be cheap, the value of the system will be very high, and amortized over the many missions that it enables and enhances, the imputed costs will be very reasonable. Using the approach outlined, NASA and its partners, currently the DOE, and subsequently industry, have a good chance of creating a sustained development program leading to human missions to Mars within the next few decades.

Gerrish, Harold P., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Ares I-1 Flight Test--Paving the Road for the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

In accordance with the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration and the nation's desire to again send humans to explore beyond Earth orbit, NASA has been tasked to send human beings to the moon, Mars, and beyond. It has been 30 years since the United States last designed and built a human-rated launch vehicle. NASA is now building the Ares I crew launch vehicle, which will loft the Orion crew exploration vehicle into orbit, and the Ares V cargo launch vehicle, which will launch the Lunar Surface Access Module and Earth departure stage to rendezvous Orion for missions to the moon. NASA has marshaled unique resources from the government and private sectors to perform the technically and programmatically complex work of delivering astronauts to orbit early next decade, followed by heavy cargo late next decade. Our experiences with Saturn and the Shuttle have taught us the value of adhering to sound systems engineering, such as the "test as you fly" principle, while applying aerospace best practices and lessons learned. If we are to fly humans safely aboard a launch vehicle, we must employ a variety of methodologies to reduce the technical, schedule, and cost risks inherent in the complex business of space transportation. During the Saturn development effort, NASA conducted multiple demonstration and verification flight tests to prove technology in its operating environment before relying upon it for human spaceflight. Less testing on the integrated Shuttle system did not reduce cost or schedule. NASA plans a progressive series of demonstration (ascent), verification (orbital), and mission flight tests to supplement ground research and high-altitude subsystem testing with real-world data, factoring the results of each test into the next one. In this way, sophisticated analytical models and tools, many of which were not available during Saturn and Shuttle, will be calibrated and we will gain confidence in their predictions, as we gain hands-on experience in operating the first of two new launch vehicle systems. The Ares I-1 flight test vehicle (FTV) will incorporate a mix of flight and mockup hardware, reflecting a configuration similar in mass, weight, and shape (outer mold line or OML) to the operational vehicle. It will be powered by a four-segment reusable solid rocket booster (RSRB), which is currently in Shuttle inventory, and will be modified to include a fifth, inert segment that makes it approximately the same size and weight as the five segment RSRB, which will be available for the second flight test in 2012. The Ares I-1 vehicle configuration is shown. Each test flight has specific objectives appropriate to the design analysis cycle in progress. The Ares I-1 demonstration test, slated for April 2009, gives NASA its first opportunity to gather critical data about the flight dynamics of the integrated launch vehicle stack, understand how to control its roll during flight, and other characterize the severe stage separation environment that the upper stage will experience during future operational flights. NASA also will begin the process of modifying the launch infrastructure and fine-tuning ground and mission operational scenarios, as NASA transitions from the Shuttle to the Ares/Orion system.

Davis, Stephan R.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Reducing the Risk of Human Space Missions with INTEGRITY

The INTEGRITY Program will design and operate a test bed facility to help prepare for future beyond-LEO missions. The purpose of INTEGRITY is to enable future missions by developing, testing, and demonstrating advanced human space systems. INTEGRITY will also implement and validate advanced management techniques including risk analysis and mitigation. One important way INTEGRITY will help enable future missions is by reducing their risk. A risk analysis of human space missions is important in defining the steps that INTEGRITY should take to mitigate risk. This paper describes how a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) of human space missions will help support the planning and development of INTEGRITY to maximize its benefits to future missions. PRA is a systematic methodology to decompose the system into subsystems and components, to quantify the failure risk as a function of the design elements and their corresponding probability of failure. PRA provides a quantitative estimate of the probability of failure of the system, including an assessment and display of the degree of uncertainty surrounding the probability. PRA provides a basis for understanding the impacts of decisions that affect safety, reliability, performance, and cost. Risks with both high probability and high impact are identified as top priority. The PRA of human missions beyond Earth orbit will help indicate how the risk of future human space missions can be reduced by integrating and testing systems in INTEGRITY.

Jones, Harry W.↗
NASA NTRS2017

End-to-End Trade-Space Analysis for Designing Constellation

Multipoint measurement missions can provide a significant advancement in science return and this science interest coupled with as many recent technological advances are driving a growing trend in exploring distributed architectures for future NASA missions. Distributed Spacecraft Missions (DSMs) leverage multiple spacecraft to achieve one or more common goals. In particular, a constellation is the most general form of DSM with two or more spacecraft placed into specific orbit(s) for the purpose of serving a common objective (e.g., CYGNSS). Because a DSM architectural trade-space includes both monolithic and distributed design variables, DSM optimization is a large and complex problem with multiple conflicting objectives. Over the last two years, our team has been developing a Trade-space Analysis Tool for Constellations (TAT-C), implemented in common programming languages for pre-Phase A constellation mission analysis. By evaluating alternative mission architectures, TAT-C seeks to minimize cost and maximize performance for pre-defined science goals. This presentation will describe the overall architecture of TAT-C including: a User Interface (UI) at several levels of details and user expertise; Trade-space Search Requests that are created from the Science requirements gathered by the UI and validated by a Knowledge Base; a Knowledge Base to compare the current requests to prior mission concepts to potentially prune the trade-space; a Trade-space Search Iterator which, with inputs from the Knowledge Base, and, in collaboration with the Orbit & Coverage, Reduction & Metrics, and Cost& Risk modules, generates multiple potential architectures and their associated characteristics. TAT-C leverages the use of the Goddard Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) to compute coverage and ancillary data, modeling orbits to balance accuracy and performance. The current version includes uniform and non-uniform Walker constellations as well as Ad-Hoc and precessing constellations, and its cost model represents an aggregate model consisting of Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs) from widely accepted models. The current GUI automatically generates graphics representing metrics such as average revisit time or coverage as a function of cost. The end-to-end system will be demonstrated as part of the presentation.

Mission Desig↗
NASA NTRS2013

Probabilistic Mass Growth Uncertainties

Mass has been widely used as a variable input parameter for Cost Estimating Relationships (CER) for space systems. As these space systems progress from early concept studies and drawing boards to the launch pad, their masses tend to grow substantially, hence adversely affecting a primary input to most modeling CERs. Modeling and predicting mass uncertainty, based on historical and analogous data, is therefore critical and is an integral part of modeling cost risk. This paper presents the results of a NASA on-going effort to publish mass growth datasheet for adjusting single-point Technical Baseline Estimates (TBE) of masses of space instruments as well as spacecraft, for both earth orbiting and deep space missions at various stages of a project's lifecycle. This paper will also discusses the long term strategy of NASA Headquarters in publishing similar results, using a variety of cost driving metrics, on an annual basis. This paper provides quantitative results that show decreasing mass growth uncertainties as mass estimate maturity increases. This paper's analysis is based on historical data obtained from the NASA Cost Analysis Data Requirements (CADRe) database.

Plumer, Eric↗
NASA NTRS2010

Risk Evaluation in the Pre-Phase A Conceptual Design of Spacecraft

Typically, the most important decisions in the design of a spacecraft are made in the earliest stages of its conceptual design the Pre-Phase A stages. It is in these stages that the greatest number of design alternatives is considered, and the greatest number of alternatives is rejected. The focus of Pre-Phase A conceptual development is on the evaluation and comparison of whole concepts and the larger-scale systems comprising those concepts. This comparison typically uses general Figures of Merit (FOMs) to quantify the comparative benefits of designs and alternative design features. Along with mass, performance, and cost, risk should be one of the major FOMs in evaluating design decisions during the conceptual design phases. However, risk is often given inadequate consideration in conceptual design practice. The reasons frequently given for this lack of attention to risk include: inadequate mission definition, lack of rigorous design requirements in early concept phases, lack of fidelity in risk assessment methods, and under-evaluation of risk as a viable FOM for design evaluation. In this paper, the role of risk evaluation in early conceptual design is discussed. The various requirements of a viable risk evaluation tool at the Pre-Phase A level are considered in light of the needs of a typical spacecraft design study. A technique for risk identification and evaluation is presented. The application of the risk identification and evaluation approach to the conceptual design process is discussed. Finally, a computational tool for risk profiling is presented and applied to assess the risk for an existing Pre-Phase A proposal. The resulting profile is compared to the risks identified for the proposal by other means.

Fabisinski, Leo L., III↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recent Developments of Thermal Protection Materials to Enable Lower Cost Space Missions

Introduction: Starting with the Commercial Crew Program, a new paradigm has emerged at NASA. Rather than designing rockets and spacecrafts for every mission optimized to achieve science, NASA has begun to use a service-based model and utilizing public-private partnership in developing the vehicles that can bring broader benefits as well as lower the cost for NASA missions. Commercial companies own and operate those vehicles. This allows NASA to not design missions from the bottom up, and has cost, risk, and schedule savings implications. On the other side, the constraints require meeting the requirements in terms of mass, volume, power, etc. By leveraging NASA developed technologies, commercial companies can quickly demonstrate the commercial mission concept, and, through technology transfer, adopt needed technology to address supply chain problems. A downside is that the technology has to be sufficiently mature to be transferred by NASA, which means that it requires significant investment, expertise, and time to develop. Space entities are focused on rapid development with an emphasis on manufacturing and integration innovation with reduced cost and schedule and quick entrance into the market. Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) are mission critical, but their development takes years, and involve access to arc jets or unique test facilities. Therefore, their development is both risky and investment heavy. NASA ARC developed several new TPS materials over the last decade (C-PICA, HEEET, 3MDCP, 3DMAT, ADEPT woven TPS) and brought them to high TPS maturity, making them enablers for commercials space missions from LEO, Lunar Sample Return, Mars, and Venus missions. LEO missions are relevant to future Mars missions due to the comparable entry conditions. External Partners' Missions: C-PICA is a recent improvement on NASA’s heritage PICA lightweight TPS ablator. C-PICA is now considered an enabling technology for New Frontiers and other NASA missions. C-PICA was infused into several missions from external partners. Varda Space Industries’ Winnebago-1 spacecraft successfully returned to Earth from LEO on Feb. 21st, 2024, using a C-PICA heatshield. Inversion Space’s Ray vehicle will test both ARC’s C-PICA and SIRCA TPS materials on a LEO return mission later in 2024. The Kentucky Re-Entry Probe Experiment (KREPE) is another example of a low-cost flight experiment to demonstrate the use of small entry capsules to gather data with three instrumented Kentucky Re-entry and Universal Payload System (KRUPS) capsules. NASA Arc provided C-PICA and Soft-PICA for two of the next KRUPS capsules scheduled to re-enter Earth from the ISS later in 2024. Finally, Rocket Lab’s low-cost mission to Venus, scheduled to launch in December 2024, will search for habitable conditions in Venus’ cloud layer, making use of NASA ARC provided HEEET insulation layer heat shield, and SIRCA backshell TPS materials. Future NASA Missions: NASA’s ability to help commercial missions can lead to future low-cost missions for several reasons: Competition encourages lower cost; technology maturation is now done at an integrated system level; and a common design architecture between commercial and scientific applications requires no specialized engineering design. From an engineering perspective, both of these commercial LEO capsules aforementioned are capable of a Mars entry; the commercial payload mut be replaced with as science payload. Finally, several NASA mission concepts, that could be candidates for future SIMPLEx program calls, such as VATMOS-SR and Nephele, both proposing to target the Venusian atmosphere, would make use of the HEEET insulation layer TPS for part of their heat shield.

TPS materials↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recent Developments of Thermal Protection Materials to Enable Lower Cost Space Missions

Introduction: Starting with the Commercial Crew Program, a new paradigm has emerged at NASA. Rather than designing rockets and spacecrafts for every mission optimized to achieve science, NASA has begun to use a service-based model and utilizing public-private partnership in developing the vehicles that can bring broader benefits as well as lower the cost for NASA missions. Commercial companies own and operate those vehicles. This allows NASA to not design missions from the bottom up, and has cost, risk, and schedule savings implications. On the other side, the constraints require meeting the requirements in terms of mass, volume, power, etc. By leveraging NASA developed technologies, commercial companies can quickly demonstrate the commercial mission concept, and, through technology transfer, adopt needed technology to address supply chain problems. A downside is that the technology has to be sufficiently mature to be transferred by NASA, which means that it requires significant investment, expertise, and time to develop. Space entities are focused on rapid development with an emphasis on manufacturing and integration innovation with reduced cost and schedule and quick entrance into the market. Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) are mission critical, but their development takes years, and involve access to arc jets or unique test facilities. Therefore, their development is both risky and investment heavy. NASA ARC developed several new TPS materials over the last decade (C-PICA, HEEET, 3MDCP, 3DMAT, ADEPT woven TPS) and brought them to high TPS maturity, making them enablers for commercials space missions from LEO, Lunar Sample Return, Mars, and Venus missions. LEO missions are relevant to future Mars missions due to the comparable entry conditions. External Partners' Missions: C-PICA is a recent improvement on NASA’s heritage PICA lightweight TPS ablator. C-PICA is now considered an enabling technology for New Frontiers and other NASA missions. C-PICA was infused into several missions from external partners. Varda Space Industries’ Winnebago-1 spacecraft successfully returned to Earth from LEO on Feb. 21st, 2024, using a C-PICA heatshield. Inversion Space’s Ray vehicle will test both ARC’s C-PICA and SIRCA TPS materials on a LEO return mission later in 2024. The Kentucky Re-Entry Probe Experiment (KREPE) is another example of a low-cost flight experiment to demonstrate the use of small entry capsules to gather data with three instrumented Kentucky Re-entry and Universal Payload System (KRUPS) capsules. NASA Arc provided C-PICA and Soft-PICA for two of the next KRUPS capsules scheduled to re-enter Earth from the ISS later in 2024. Finally, Rocket Lab’s low-cost mission to Venus, scheduled to launch in December 2024, will search for habitable conditions in Venus’ cloud layer, making use of NASA ARC provided HEEET insulation layer heat shield, and SIRCA backshell TPS materials. Future NASA Missions: NASA’s ability to help commercial missions can lead to future low-cost missions for several reasons: Competition encourages lower cost; technology maturation is now done at an integrated system level; and a common design architecture between commercial and scientific applications requires no specialized engineering design. From an engineering perspective, both of these commercial LEO capsules aforementioned are capable of a Mars entry; the commercial payload mut be replaced with as science payload. Finally, several NASA mission concepts, that could be candidates for future SIMPLEx program calls, such as VATMOS-SR and Nephele, both proposing to target the Venusian atmosphere, would make use of the HEEET insulation layer TPS for part of their heat shield.

TPS materials↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Envisioned Future Priorities

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States of America (US) has initiated the Artemis Moon to Mars program to send astronauts (the first woman and person of color) back to the lunar surface, create a sustainable human lunar exploration program, and lead the first human exploration mission to the Mars surface in the 2030’s. A major objective of this program is to characterize the resources that exist on the Moon and Mars, and learn how to utilize them for sustained and affordable exploration. Commonly known as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), the search for, acquisition, and processing of resources in space has the potential to greatly reduce the dependency on transporting mission consumables and infrastructure from Earth, thereby reducing mission costs, risks, and dependency on Earth. Through the extraction and processing of resources into mission commodities such as rocket propellants, life support consumables, and fuel cell reactants, ISRU enhances and evolves the cis-lunar, lander, and surface transportation systems required for human exploration; expanding and ehancing HOW humans get to, explore, and return from the Moon. Through the extraction and processing of resources into metals, silicon, and other manufacturing and construction feedstock, ISRU enhances and allows for the expansion of critical infrastructure through in situ manufacturing and construction capabilities needed for WHAT humans do on the Moon and in cis-lunar space. Because of this, ISRU supports and enables commercial involvement beyond NASA and governmental agencies by both lowering the cost of sustained transportation to/from/on the Moon as well as supporting the market required for needing these transportation systems. To achieve this vision, NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) ensures the coordinated development of ISRU and other critical space and surface infrastructure elements such as propulsion, power, manufacturing, construction, and robotics through the Strategic Technology Architecture Roundtable (STAR) process. Through STAR, an integrated framework and process has been created allowing for capabilities and technologies to be linked and assessed, gaps to be identified, specifications and metrics to be established, and provide a means to prioritize and implement technology development and missions. For lunar ISRU, three primary areas of development have been initiated, (1) understanding, mapping, extracting, and processing water and other volatiles found in polar permanently shadowed regions (PSRs), (2) methods, technologies to extract oxygen from regolith, and (3) methods, technologies, and use cases for metals, silicon, and other feedstock commodities extracted and produced from lunar resources. This presentation will briefly discuss the STAR process and elaborate on the current status and future plans for ISRU development, demonstration, and architecture implementation of NASA’s Envisioned Future Priorities plan for ISRU.

In Situ Resource Utilization↗
NASA NTRS2008

Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Testing of Manned Spacecraft: Historical Precedent

For the first time in nearly 30 years, NASA is developing a new manned space flight launch system. The Ares I will carry crew and cargo to not only the International Space Station, but onward for the future exploration of the Moon and Mars. The Ares I control system and structural designs use complex computer models for their development. An Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Test (IVGVT) will validate the efficacy of these computer models. The IVGVT will reduce the technical risk of unexpected conditions that could place the vehicle or crew in jeopardy. The Ares Project Office's Flight and Integrated Test Office commissioned a study to determine how historical programs, such as Saturn and Space Shuttle, validated the structural dynamics of an integrated flight vehicle. The study methodology was to examine the historical record and seek out members of the engineering community who recall the development of historic manned launch vehicles. These records and interviews provided insight into the best practices and lessons learned from these historic development programs. The information that was gathered allowed the creation of timelines of the historic development programs. The timelines trace the programs from the development of test articles through test preparation, test operations, and test data reduction efforts. These timelines also demonstrate how the historical tests fit within their overall vehicle development programs. Finally, the study was able to quantify approximate staffing levels during historic development programs. Using this study, the Flight and Integrated Test Office was able to evaluate the Ares I Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Test schedule and workforce budgets in light of the historical precedents to determine if the test had schedule or cost risks associated with it.

Lemke, Paul R.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Leading Your Leaders

Even though working on a problem has been your primary effort for the past year, your leadership may have heard about this once in a briefing a decade ago. Now they are basically clueless. Pretend that you are talking to your daughter's fifth-grade class. Explain how your complicated gizmo works. If possible, do not use acronyms. Define your terms. Put your work in context. Assume your leader has no idea what you do, who you work for, or what your gizmo does. That is a good place to start. Remember, taking the next century to study the problem or spending the Gross National Product to invent a new solution are probably not going to be acceptable solutions. Real engineers and technicians build real hardware that works in the real world in a reasonable manner within a reasonable time at a reasonable cost. True, skimping on time or money can cause mistakes, but folks whose gizmos are delayed unreasonably or cost more than is practical get their programs canceled, force the business into bankruptcy, or give the market over to the competition. Real engineers and technicians always consider cost and schedule in their work. Raising questions is important. However, we are in the business of doing things. Engineers and technicians are paid to get things done. Yes, you have to identify the problem, frame the design, identify the tests, perform the analysis, and assemble the hardware. But the goal is to solve the problem. Nobody ever said flying in space was easy. We make it look easy the same way that an Olympic champion makes her sport look easy: by working hard at improving performance every day. Better are the results of a well-defined test. Remember that a test on a laboratory bench is always an approximation of reality, and rules similar to those for good analysis also apply. One should always be mindful of Mechelay's rule: "It is better to be stupid than to run a stupid test." Often we try to overtest. If a piece of hardware passes an unbelievably difficult test, then life is good. More often when an unbelievably difficult test fails, we are left with a very long discussion of why and what was wrong in the design or execution of the test. Make sure that the test is well defined. Even then, it is important to explain to your leaders what inherent accuracy (or error) the test conditions or equipment have and what the assumptions or initial conditions were for the test. Test results without a good understanding of the test's accuracy or the pedigree of the test assumptions are worth very little. Finally, there is flight test data. Always limited, never at the edge of the envelope, it still shows how the real hardware works in a combined environment. Flight experience is dangerous because it typically doesn't show how close to the edge of the cliff the equipment is operating, but it does demonstrate how the hardware really works. A flight test is the ultimate test, again taken with the knowledge that it is probably not the extreme but something more like the middle of the environmental and systems performance. Good understanding of a problem and its solution always relies on a combination of all these methods. Be sure to lead your leaders by using all the tools you have at your disposal. At the end of the day, decisions in space flight always come down to a risk trade. Our business is not remotely safe, not in the sense that the public, the media, or our legislators use the term. Everything we do has a risk, cost, schedule, or performance trade-off. For your leaders to make an appropriate decision, you need to educate them, lead them, talk with them, and engage them in the discussion until full understanding takes place. It's your job. *

Hale, Wayne N.↗
NASA NTRS1971

Generalized safety equation - A concept

Concept provides definition of relationship between safety and reliability, personnel safety measurement, and equipment safety evaluation. Safety systems cope with single or combined risks. Cost and effectiveness of alternate hypothetical safety systems are estimated and used as basis for final system design.

Hano, G.↗
NASA NTRS1970

A space shuttle design consideration

Earth-to-orbit space shuttle booster and orbiter unit design considerations including low development cost, risk and time, weight and payloads

Peterson, C. B.↗
NASA NTRS1973

Long range view of materials research for civil transport aircraft

The impact of various material technology advancements on the economics of civil transport aircraft is investigated. Benefits of advances in both airframe and engine materials are considered. Benefits are measured primarily by improvements in return on investment for an operator. Materials research and development programs which lead to the greatest benefits are assessed with regards to cost, risk, and commonality with other programs. Emphasis of the paper is on advanced technology subsonic/transonic transports (ATT type aircraft) since these are likely to be the next generation of commercial transports.

Ardema, M. D.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Long range view of materials research for civil transport aircraft

The impact of various material technology advancements on the economics of civil transport aircraft is investigated. Benefits of advances in both airframe and engine materials are considered. Benefits are measured primarily by improvements in return on investment for an operator. Materials research and development programs which lead to the greatest benefits are assessed with regards to cost, risk, and commonality with other programs. Emphasis of the paper is on advanced technology subsonic/transonic transports (ATT type aircraft) since these are likely to be the next generation of commercial transports.

Ardema, M. D.↗