Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “portfolio management”

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

Recommendation of a More Effective Alternative to the NASA Launch Services Program Mission Integration Reporting System (MIRS) and Implementation of Updates to the Mission Plan

Over the course of my internship in the Flight Projects Office of NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP), I worked on two major projects, both of which dealt with updating current systems to make them more accurate and to allow them to operate more efficiently. The first project dealt with the Mission Integration Reporting System (MIRS), a web-accessible database application used to manage and provide mission status reporting for the LSP portfolio of awarded missions. MIRS had not gone through any major updates since its implementation in 2005, and it was my job to formulate a recommendation for the improvement of the system. The second project I worked on dealt with the Mission Plan, a document that contains an overview of the general life cycle that is followed by every LSP mission. My job on this project was to update the information currently in the mission plan and to add certain features in order to increase the accuracy and thoroughness of the document. The outcomes of these projects have implications in the orderly and efficient operation of the Flight Projects Office, and the process of Mission Management in the Launch Services Program as a whole.

recommendation↗

Human System Risk Management for Space Flight

This brief abstract reviews the development of the current day approach to human system risk management for space flight and the development of the critical components of this process over the past few years. The human system risk management process now provides a comprehensive assessment of each human system risk by design reference mission (DRM) and is evaluated not only for mission success but also for long‐term health impacts for the astronauts. The discipline of bioastronautics is the study of the biological and medical effects of space flight on humans. In 1997, the Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) initiated the Bioastronautics Roadmap (Roadmap) as the "Critical Path Roadmap", and in 1998 participation in the roadmap was expanded to include the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) and the external community. A total of 55 risks and 250 questions were identified and prioritized and in 2000, the Roadmap was base-lined and put under configuration control. The Roadmap took into account several major advisory committee reviews including the Institute of Medicine (IOM) "Safe Passage: Astronaut care for Exploration Missions", 2001. Subsequently, three collaborating organizations at NASA HQ (Chief Health and Medical Officer, Office of Space Flight and Office of Biological & Physical Research), published the Bioastronautics Strategy in 2003, that identified the human as a "critical subsystem of space flight" and noted that "tolerance limits and safe operating bands must be established" to enable human space flight. These offices also requested a review by the IOM of the Roadmap and that review was published in October 2005 as "A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Exploration of Space: A Review of NASA's Bioastronautics Roadmap", that noted several strengths and weaknesses of the Roadmap and made several recommendations. In parallel with the development of the Roadmap, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) began a process in 2004 of evaluating the tolerance limits and safe operating bands called for in the Bioastronautics Strategy. Over the next several years, the concept of the "operating bands" were turned into Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS), developed by the technical resources of the SLSD at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). These standards were developed and reviewed at the SLSD and then presented to the OCHMO for acceptance. The first set of standards was published in 2007 as the NASA‐STD‐3001, Volume 1, Crew Health that elaborated standards for several physiological areas such as cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, radiation exposure and nutrition. Volume 2, Human Factors, Habitability and Human Health was published in 2011, along with development guidance in the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH). Taken together, the SFHSS Volumes 1 and 2, and the HIDH replaced the NASA‐STD‐3000 with new standards and revisions of the older document. Three other changes were also taking place that facilitated the development of the human system risk management approach. In 2005, the life sciences research and development portfolio underwent a comprehensive review through the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) that resulted in the reformulation of the Bioastronautics Program into Human Research Program (HRP) that was focused on appropriate mitigation results for high priority human health risks. The baseline HRP budget was established in August 2005. In addition, the OCHMO formulated the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) in 2006 that established the position of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at the NASA JSC along with other key technical disciplines, and the OCHMO became the responsible office for the SFHSS as noted above. The final change was the establishment in 2008 of the Human System Risk Board (HSRB), chaired by the CMO with representation from the HRP, SLSD management and technical experts. The HSRB then began to review all human system risks, established a comprehensive risk management and configuration management plan and data sharing policy. These major developments of standards, the HRP, the HMTA and a forum for review of human system risks (HSRB) facilitated the integration of human research, medical operations, systems engineering and many other disciplines in the comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB began a comprehensive review of all potential inflight medical conditions and events and over the course of several reviews consolidated the number of human system risks to 30 where the greatest emphasis is placed for investing program dollars for risk mitigation. The HSRB considers all available evidence from human research, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit 6 and 12 months, deep space sortie for 30 days and 1 year, a one year lunar mission, and a planetary mission for 3 years) are considered as human system risks are modified by the hazards associated with space flight such as microgravity, exposure to radiation, distance from the earth, isolation and a closed environment. Each risk has a summary assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence base for that risk, the available risk mitigations, traceability to the SFHSS and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the HRP, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets. These risk assessments were completed for 6 DRMs in December of 2014 and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB will review each risk at least annually and especially when new information is available that must be considered for effective risk mitigation. The current status of each risk can be reported to program management for operations, budget reviews and general oversight of the human system risk management program.

Davis, Jeffrey↗

Perspectives on biorefineries in microbial production of fuels and chemicals

Microbes drive our complex biosphere by regulating the global ecosystem through cycling elements and energy. Humankind has barely begun leveraging this biotransformation capacity to impact global economies and ecologies. Advances in genetic engineering, molecular analysis, metabolic flux modeling, microbial consortia/biome mapping and engineering, cell-free bioproduction, artificial intelligence/machine learning and the ever expanding -omics frontiers have set the stage for paradigm changes to how humankind produces, uses, transforms, and recycles carbon and energy through microbes. Harnessing this enormous potential could drive a global bioeconomy and manage carbon at a planetary level but requires understanding and application at a grand scale across a broad range of science and engineering disciplines. The penultimate manifestation of these advances is the “bio-refinery”, which is often referenced, but is a long way from being fully developed as a global carbon management platform. Broadening the feed stocks, processing operations, and product portfolio to a sequential cascade optimizing the conversion as a whole instead of limited outputs could greatly advance deployment and stability of a bioeconomy.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Why Don't They Just Give Us Money? Project Cost Estimating and Cost Reporting

Successful projects require an integrated approach to managing cost, schedule, and risk. This is especially true for complex, multi-year projects involving multiple organizations. To explore solutions and leverage valuable lessons learned, NASA's Virtual Project Management Challenge will kick off a three-part series examining some of the challenges faced by project and program managers when it comes to managing these important elements. In this first session of the series, we will look at cost management, with an emphasis on the critical roles of cost estimating and cost reporting. By taking a proactive approach to both of these activities, project managers can better control life cycle costs, maintain stakeholder confidence, and protect other current and future projects in the organization's portfolio. Speakers will be Doug Comstock, Director of NASA's Cost Analysis Division, Kristin Van Wychen, Senior Analyst in the GAO Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, and Mary Beth Zimmerman, Branch Chief for NASA's Portfolio Analysis Branch, Strategic Investments Division. Moderator Ramien Pierre is from NASA's Academy for Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL).

Comstock, Douglas A.↗

Masking of photovoltaic system performance problems by inverter clipping and other design and operational practices

We describe how performance problems can be “masked,” or not readily evident by several causes: by photovoltaic (PV) system configuration (such as the size of the PV array capacity relative to the size of the inverter and the resultant clipped operating mode); by instrumentation design, installation, and maintenance (such as a misaligned or dirty pyranometer); by contract clauses (when operational availability is transformed to contractual availability, which excludes many factors); and by identified management and operational practices (such as reporting on a portfolio of plants rather than individually). A simple method based on a duration curve is introduced to overcome shortcomings of Performance Ratio based on nameplate capacity and Performance Index based on hourly simulation when quantifying masking effects, and inverter clipping and pyranometer soiling are presented as two examples of the new method. With a better understanding of the non-transparency of masking issues, stakeholders can better interpret performance data and deliver improved AC and DC plant conditions through PV system operation and maintenance (O&M) for improved performance, reduced O&M costs, and a more consistently delivered, and reduced, levelized cost of energy (LCOE).

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report Chapter 9: Perspectives on a City in a Changing Climate 2008-2018

Cities experience multiple environmental shifts, stresses, and shocks—such as air and water pollution—and a variety of extreme events simultaneously and continuously. Current urban programs have focused on limiting the impacts of these conditions through a portfolio of multifaceted strategies, such as regulations and codes, management and restoration projects, and citizen engagement. Global climate change represents a new environmental dynamic to which cities now have to respond. While global climate change by definition has impacts world wide, residents and managers of cities, like New York, typically perceive changes in their own local environments. In most cities, temperature is warming with increasingly hotter and longer heatwaves, and heavier downpours are leading to more frequent inland flooding. In coastal cities, sea levels are rising, exacerbating coastal flooding. Analyzing and understanding the impacts of climate change on cities is important because of the dramatic growth in urban populations throughout the world. An estimated nearly 4.0 billion people reside in urban areas, accounting for 52% of the world’s population (UN, 2017). That percentage will increase dramatically in the coming decades as almost all of the growth to take place up to 2050 will be in urban areas (UN, 2017). The New York City metropolitan region (NYMR)—the five boroughs (equivalent to counties) of New York City and the adjacent 26 counties in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut—is an ideal model of an urban agglomeration. Approximately 8.6 million people live in the five boroughs and more than 15 million people live in the neighboring smaller cities, towns, and villages (City of New York, 2018a; US Census, 2017). The population of the five boroughs is projected to add 1 million people by 2030, while the total region is projected to reach 26.1 million (NYTC, 2015).

Solecki, William↗

System Health and Status Reporting is Used to Improve Infrastructure Systems at the Hanford Site - 20449

Reliable physical infrastructure systems are vital to completing the clean-up mission and the start-up and commissioning of new nuclear waste processing facilities at the Hanford Site. Key infrastructure systems at Hanford include water, sewer, and electrical utilities, roads, telecommunications/network systems, and fire systems. All of the infrastructure systems are non-nuclear, General Service systems that are being maintained under formal engineering configuration control and none are specifically credited in any documented safety analysis (DSA). Starting in calendar year 2017, the Hanford Site's infrastructure and services contractor started producing system health and status reports for a total of 15 critical infrastructure systems as means to get a better understanding of each system's health and how it could be improved to ensure better and more reliable service delivery. As the reporting, tracking, and use of the metrics has matured, the number of systems for which reports are being developed has been expanded to a total of 23. Each of the critical infrastructure systems are assigned primary and alternate design authorities that complete qualifications on each assigned system. The design authorities actively manage and maintain configuration control on each of their systems and track metrics associated with availability, maintenance (corrective and preventive), and configuration of the technical baseline. The metrics are based on the principles established in Chapter V of DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety, [1] and have been tailored as appropriate to each of the key infrastructure systems. An overall assessment of system health is performed and documented on a routine basis (e.g., quarterly). Included in this documentation is a quantitative score for each of the metrics (i.e., availability, maintenance, configuration management) along with results of system walk-downs, description of any permanent design modifications, identification of new or emerging issues and vulnerabilities affecting the system, and an assessment by the design authority of actions necessary to improve the system health score. The overall status scores are calculated using a formula and based on a pre-determined grading scale, a color is assigned for simple presentation. The information gained from developing the reports is being used to (1) assist with making timely and better informed decisions through the use of solid technical bases that are increasing the overall reliability and capabilities of the Site's infrastructure systems as new expense and capital projects in the Reliability Projects Investment Portfolio (RPIP) are prioritized and executed; (2) feed the risk management program, and (3) integrate the technical content of Master Plans that describe the Site's needs for the system and the system's capabilities to meet those future needs. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Power Supply Options for the Marpi Landfill, Saipan: Comprehensive Feasibility Study

The Marpi Landfill (“Marpi” or “the landfill”), located on the northern end of the island of Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), is powered by a single on-site diesel generator that only operates when the landfill is open and staffed. The project team, composed of representatives of the Department of Public Works and the Office of Planning and Development (OPD), aspires to provide the Marpi Landfill with 24-hour power availability despite its remote location to increase the use of sustainable energy and to ensure environmentally compliant landfill operations. This is consistent with the sustainable development goals documented in the 2021–2030 Comprehensive Sustainable Development Plan (OPD 2021), including Goal #12 (ensure environmentally compliant waste management facilities) and Goal #7 (renewable energy deployment). Further, the CNMI has a 20% target for renewable energy consumption by 2030, as documented in the 2021–2030 Comprehensive Sustainable Development Plan (OPD 2021) and the renewable portfolio standard (Public Law 18-62). To accomplish these goals, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, through its Interagency Reimbursable Work Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy, funded a feasibility study and follow-up study in 2023–2024 to assess and prioritize power supply options for the landfill. This report combines the results from both feasibility studies.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

AssessCCUS: An Integrated Approach for Aggregating Resources to Enable Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon Management Technologies

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) - also sometimes known as carbon management - technologies are becoming an increasingly important part of the portfolio of technologies necessary to mitigate climate change and defossilize industrial production systems (Sick, 2021). These technologies capture carbon dioxide from industrial point sources or from the atmosphere directly and then either sequester it or use it as a carbon source in valuable products. Potential utilization pathways include, but are not limited to, concrete, fuels, and certain commodity chemicals, and sequestration pathways can include permanent geological storage or temporary storage in natural sinks ranging from forests to agricultural soil. Regardless of the pathway, assessment of the economic and environmental performance of the technologies is important for understanding their potential scalability and impact as well as developing plans to minimize life cycle costs and potential environmental trade-offs. A full discussion of potential trade-offs associated with CCUS is outside the scope of this article, but promoting assessment broadly helps to stimulate important conversations about the benefits and drawbacks of any particular technological choice.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Sensitivity Analysis of Heat Rejection and Propellant Management Technologies for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Architectures

Cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technologies are very important for enabling a wider range of missions to utilize space nuclear propulsion (SNP) concepts such as nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP). Technologies for thermal and cryogenic propellant management allow for vehicles to take full advantage of the higher efficiency NTP systems for longer duration human interplanetary and deep space robotic missions. Currently, the CFM Portfolio Project at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is developing thermal and propellant management technologies needed for SNP. When developing these technologies, it is important to understand the sensitivities of key performance parameters (KPPs) at the system and overall mission level due to the ways the technologies interact with each other, other subsystems, and influence the overall vehicle. The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA-MSFC was tasked with building an integrated system model of a human Mars NTP mission to evaluate the impacts and sensitivities of CFM technologies on the overall vehicle and mission. This paper will cover the buildup of the model and highlight major sensitivities and breakpoints encountered, as well as future work in improving the existing models and sensitivities being evaluated.

Robert J. Hetterich↗

Sensitivity Analysis of Heat Rejection and Propellant Management Technologies for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Architectures

Cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technologies are very important for enabling a wider range of missions to utilize space nuclear propulsion (SNP) concepts such as nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP). Technologies for thermal and cryogenic propellant management allow for vehicles to take full advantage of the higher efficiency NTP systems for longer duration human interplanetary and deep space robotic missions. Currently, the CFM Portfolio Project at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is developing thermal and propellant management technologies needed for SNP. When developing these technologies, it is important to understand the sensitivities of key performance parameters (KPPs) at the system and overall mission level due to the ways the technologies interact with each other, other subsystems, and influence the overall vehicle. The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA-MSFC was tasked with building an integrated system model of a human Mars NTP mission to evaluate the impacts and sensitivities of CFM technologies on the overall vehicle and mission. This paper will cover the buildup of the model and highlight major sensitivities and breakpoints encountered, as well as future work in improving the existing models and sensitivities being evaluated.

Robert J Hetterich↗

Computational Support for Technology- Investment Decisions

Strategic Assessment of Risk and Technology (START) is a user-friendly computer program that assists human managers in making decisions regarding research-and-development investment portfolios in the presence of uncertainties and of non-technological constraints that include budgetary and time limits, restrictions related to infrastructure, and programmatic and institutional priorities. START facilitates quantitative analysis of technologies, capabilities, missions, scenarios and programs, and thereby enables the selection and scheduling of value-optimal development efforts. START incorporates features that, variously, perform or support a unique combination of functions, most of which are not systematically performed or supported by prior decision- support software. These functions include the following: Optimal portfolio selection using an expected-utility-based assessment of capabilities and technologies; Temporal investment recommendations; Distinctions between enhancing and enabling capabilities; Analysis of partial funding for enhancing capabilities; and Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. START can run on almost any computing hardware, within Linux and related operating systems that include Mac OS X versions 10.3 and later, and can run in Windows under the Cygwin environment. START can be distributed in binary code form. START calls, as external libraries, several open-source software packages. Output is in Excel (.xls) file format.

Adumitroaie, Virgil↗

Reference Guide for Project-Control Account Managers

The purpose of this guide is intended to be a quick reference for a Project-Control Account Manager (P-CAM) or technical manager empowered with a project’s cost, schedule, and technical responsibilities of a control account(s) when Earned Value Management (EVM) is required. The overall objective is to support the P-CAM in performing their responsibilities as they relate to EVM. In addition, the reference guide describes at a summary level how the scope, schedule, and budget of a project integrate for optimal planning and control of prime contracts and in-house projects. Because NASA implements a diverse and unique portfolio of projects, those projects have traditionally created project-specific systems to manage planning and performance analysis. However, establishment and implementation of a project management system that is common across all centers and mission directorates will facilitate the adoption of best business practices. In addition, the application of timely and predictive analysis, as well as, providing all stakeholders with greater insight into project performance will enhance opportunities for project success. For more detailed information, refer to the NASA EVM System Description; Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Handbook; EVM Implementation Handbook; Schedule Management Handbook; Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Handbook; and other agency/industry documentation. In addition, you may contact your local center’s EVM Focal Points. All this information and more can be found at and/or the NASA Engineering Network located at https://nen.nasa.gov/web/pm.

Christopher Lewis Sadler↗

Identification of Crew-Systems Interactions and Decision Related Trends

NASA Vehicle System Safety Technology (VSST) project management uses systems analysis to identify key issues and maintain a portfolio of research leading to potential solutions to its three identified technical challenges. Statistical data and published safety priority lists from academic, industry and other government agencies were reviewed and analyzed by NASA Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) systems analysis personnel to identify issues and future research needs related to one of VSST's technical challenges, Crew Decision Making (CDM). The data examined in the study were obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Aviation Accident and Incident Data System, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Accident/Incident Data System and the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). In addition, this report contains the results of a review of safety priority lists, information databases and other documented references pertaining to aviation crew systems issues and future research needs. The specific sources examined were: Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) Safety Enhancements Reserved for Future Implementation (SERFIs), Flight Deck Automation Issues (FDAI) and NTSB Most Wanted List and Open Recommendations. Various automation issues taxonomies and priority lists pertaining to human factors, automation and flight design were combined to create a list of automation issues related to CDM.

Jones, Sharon Monica↗

Capacity Investment under Bayesian Information Updates at Reporting Periods: Model and Application

We consider capacity addition decisions by a new product manufacturer faced with uncertain technology alternatives. The manufacturing capacity addition and technology development occurs in parallel, with preliminary results from a technology project's success providing valuable information to the manufacturer in adding capacity. We solve a stochastic dynamic program with Bayesian updates to obtain the manufacturer's expected profit‐maximizing capacity investment decision. Our model and applications are motivated by the Critical Materials Institute (CMI) (funded by the Department of Energy), which manages research projects focused on mitigating critical material constraints, vital to renewable energy technologies such as direct‐drive wind turbines, electric vehicles, and energy‐efficient lighting. We capture three unique aspects of the problem: first, the learning from project progress depends on task‐based stochastic outcomes and a project's percent‐done. Second, the underlying technology's profitability is based on a model of competition. Third, we evaluate the impact of progress across a portfolio of projects based on a manufacturer's capacity addition. We develop a heuristic that produces results that are close to optimal and can thus be used for large problem sizes. The managerial insights from an application of our model to CMI projects include: (i) technology projects that report the percent‐done of a project earlier increase expected manufacturer profit; (ii) careful choice of “safe bets,” that is, technologies with low profitability but a high probability of success, can increase expected manufacturer profit; (iii) a portfolio of projects can increase profits significantly over separate project evaluation; and (iv) dynamic management of project resources can increase overall profit.

Vedantam, Aditya↗

A Framework for Assessment of Aviation Safety Technology Portfolios

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

Jones, Sharon M.↗

Wabash CarbonSAFE Subtask 4.1 - Application of Policy Frameworks for Improved Carbon Capture and Storage Social Site Characterization & Stakeholder Engagement

Anthropogenic climate change threatens environmental and human health globally. Limiting these threats requires large-scale and innovative greenhouse gas mitigation responses across carbon-intensive energy and industrial sectors. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies present potential opportunities for mitigating climate change while maintaining a diverse energy resource portfolio. Successful development of CCS physical sites requires effective and efficient project management solutions that elicit and incorporate the concerns and perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Due to the urgency of climate change mitigation technology implementation and the costs of CCS development, CCS project developers cannot risk setbacks by poor stakeholder assessment that concern management processes. Thus, this report presents four prominent policy frameworks and associated case studies as opportunities to improve CCS social site characterization and stakeholder engagement. After comparing the relative effectiveness and efficiencies of each framework with regard to CCS, this report concludes that the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Narrative Policy Framework, and Policy Conflict Framework can improve the CCS social site characterization process, while the Collaborative Governance Framework paired with the Q-Methodology provides an ideal framework for direct stakeholder engagement. Overall, this report finds that the Narrative Policy Framework and the Collaborative Governance Framework are most ideally suited for the purposes of CCS social site characterization and stakeholder engagement.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

A Study of Future Communications Concepts and Technologies for the National Airspace System-Part III

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Research Center (GRC) is investigating current and anticipated wireless communications concepts and technologies that the National Airspace System (NAS) may need in the next 50 years. NASA has awarded three NASA Research Announcements (NAR) studies with the objective to determine the most promising candidate technologies for air-to-air and air-to-ground data exchange and analyze their suitability in a post-NextGen NAS environment. This paper will present progress made in the studies and describe the communications challenges and opportunities that have been identified as part of the study. NASA's NextGen Concepts and Technology Development (CTD) Project integrates solutions for a safe, efficient and high-capacity airspace system through joint research efforts and partnerships with other government agencies. The CTD Project is one of two within NASA's Airspace Systems Program and is managed by the NASA Ames Research Center. Research within the CTD Project is in support the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan Sub-Goal 4.1: Develop innovative solutions and advanced technologies, through a balanced research portfolio, to improve current and future air transportation. The focus of CTD is on developing capabilities in traffic flow management, dynamic airspace configuration, separation assurance, super density operations and airport surface operations. Important to its research is the development of human/automation information requirements and decisionmaking guidelines for human-human and human-machine airportal decision-making. Airborne separation, oceanic intrail climb/descent and interval management applications depend on location and intent information of surrounding aircraft. ADS-B has been proposed to provide the information exchange, but other candidates such as satellite-based receivers, broadband or airborne internet, and cellular communications are possible candidate's.

Navigation↗