Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Policy options”

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.

113 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

Structural Requirements for the Space Propulsion Engine Systems

In January 2004, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was given a vision for Space Exploration by President Bush, setting our sight on a bold new path to go back to the Moon, then to Mars and beyond. As NASA gets ready to meet the vision set by President Bush, failures are not an option. Reliability of the propulsion engine systems will play an important role in establishing an overall safe and reliable operation of these new space systems. A new standard, NASA-STD-5012, Strength and Life Assessment for Space Propulsion System Engines, has been developed to provide structural requirements for assessment of the propulsion systems engine. This standard is a complement to the current NASA-wide standard NASA-STD-5001, Structural Design and Test Factors of Safety for Spaceflight Hardware, which excluded the requirement for the engine systems (rotatory structures) along with pressure vessels. As developed, this document builds on the heritage of the multiple industrial standards related to strength and life assessment of the structures. For assuring a safe and reliable operation of a product and/or mission, establishing a set of structural assessment requirements is a key ingredient. Hence, a concentrated effort was made to improve the requirements where there are known lessons learned during the design, test, and operation phases of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) and other engine development programs. Requirements delineated in this standard are also applicable for the reusable and/or human missions. It shall be noted that "reliability of a system cannot be tested and inspected but can only be achieved if it is first designed into a system." Hence, these strength and life assessment requirements for the space propulsion system engines shall be used along with other good engineering practices, requirements, and policies.

Aggarwal, Pravin K.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Prototype Spectral Water Inversion Processor and Emulator (SWIPE): Towards Global Coastal and Inland Water Quality and Algal Biodiversity Monitoring

Degradation of Earth’s inland water resources due to anthropogenic perturbations and climate anomalies at both local and global scales continues to place human health at substantial risk. There is now a growing necessity to develop pragmatic approaches that allow timely and effective extrapolation of local processes, to spatially resolved global products, and to promote operational and sustainable resource policy management. This presentation will provide updates on NASA’s prototype open-source aquatic modeling platform, Spectral Water Inversion Processor and Emulator (SWIPE), which is a comprehensive, multi-faceted modeling platform for both forward and inverse modeling of diverse aquatic ecosystems from the benthos to top-of-atmosphere (TOA). SWIPE provides a cohesive application which leverages recent advancements in particle modeling, Big Data analytics, and machine learning to develop a high-fidelity synthetic training ground for sensitivity studies and algorithm development for multispectral or upcoming hyperspectral missions. Some of the prominent features of SWIPE to be discussed include: 1. Advanced hyperspectral modeling of globally diverse algal and non-algal particles using a novel two-layer coated sphere scattering model and radiative transfer modeling, 2. Massive, highly detailed synthetic spectral libraries of Analysis-Ready-Data (ARD) which include spectral libraries of particle microphysics, water biogeophysical and optical properties, as well as surface and TOA reflectances at 1 nm resolution, 3. An ensemble of pre-built analytic, machine learning, and deep learning inversion algorithms for various water quality and biodiversity related retrieval parameters and uncertainty quantification, 4. Sensor-agnostic water quality inversion at wide ranging spatial and spectral resolutions including a codebase for seamless application in the Google Earth Engine and NASA Earth Exchange (NEX) for planetary scale analysis. SWIPE will be a fully open-source platform based in python with comprehensive documentation, tutorials, and options for distributed computing on high performance computing clusters or on single, local machines. Further, we will discuss how we envision SWIPE contributing towards a global analysis of coastal and inland water quality dynamics.

top-of-atmosphere (TOA)↗
NASA NTRS2007

NASA Hypersonic Propulsion: Overview of Progress from 1995 to 2005

Hypersonic propulsion work supported by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration had a primary focus on Space Transportation during the period from 1995 to 2005. The framework for these advances was established by policy and pursued with substantial funding. Many noteworthy advances were made, highlighted by the pinnacle flights of the X-43. This paper reviews and summarizes the programs and accomplishments of this era. The accomplishments are compared to the goals and objectives to lend an overarching perspective to what was achieved. At least dating back to the early days of the Space Shuttle program, NASA has had the objective of reducing the cost of access to space and concurrently improving safety and reliability. National Space Transportation Policy in 1994 coupled with a base of prior programs such as the National Aerospace Plane and the need to look beyond the Space Shuttle program set the stage for NASA to pursue Space Transportation Advances. Programs defined to pursue the advances represented a broad approach addressing classical rocket propulsion as well as airbreathing propulsion in various combinations and forms. The resulting portfolio of activities included systems analysis and design studies, discipline research and technology, component technology development, propulsion system ground test demonstration and flight demonstration. The types of propulsion systems that were pursued by these programs included classical rocket engines, "aerospike" rocket engines, high performance rocket engines, scram jets, rocket based combined cycles, and turbine based combined cycles. Vehicle architectures included single and two stage vehicles. Either single types of propulsion systems or combinations of the basic propulsion types were applied to both single and two stage vehicle design concepts. Some of the propulsion system design concepts were built and tested at full scale, large scale and small scale. Many flight demonstrators were conceptually defined, fewer designed and some built and one flown to demonstrate several technical advancements including propulsion. The X-43 flights were a culmination of these efforts for airbreathing propulsion. During the course of that period, there was a balance of funding and emphasis toward rocket propulsion but still very substantial airbreathing propulsion effort. The broad objectives of these programs were to both advance and test the state of the art so as to provide a basis for options to be pursued for broad space transportation needs, most importantly focused on crew carrying capability. NASA cooperated with the Department of Defense in planning and implementation of these programs to make efficient use of objectives and capabilities where appropriate. Much of the work was conducted in industry and academia as well as Government laboratories. Many test articles and data-bases now exist as a result of this work. At the conclusion of the period, the body of work made it clear that continued research and technology development was warranted, because although not ready for a NASA system development decision, results continued to support the promise of air-breathing propulsion for access to space.

Cikanek, Harry A., III↗
NASA NTRS2011

ISECG Mission Scenarios and Their Role in Informing Next Steps for Human Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit

The International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) was established in response to The Global Exploration Strategy (GES): The Framework for Coordination developed by fourteen space agencies* and released in May 2007. This GES Framework Document recognizes that preparing for human space exploration is a stepwise process, starting with basic knowledge and culminating in a sustained human presence in deep space. ISECG has developed several optional global exploration mission scenarios enabling the phased transition from human operations in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and utilization of the International Space Station (ISS) to human missions beyond LEO leading ultimately to human missions to cis-lunar space, the Moon, Near Earth Asteroids, Mars and its environs. Mission scenarios provide the opportunity for judging various exploration approaches in a manner consistent with agreed international goals and strategies. Each ISECG notional mission scenario reflects a series of coordinated human and robotic exploration missions over a 25-year horizon. Mission scenarios are intended to provide insights into next steps for agency investments, following on the success of the ISS. They also provide a framework for advancing the definition of Design Reference Missions (DRMs) and the concepts for capabilities contained within. Each of the human missions contained in the scenarios has been characterized by a DRM which is a top level definition of mission sequence and the capabilities needed to execute that mission. While DRMs are generally destination focused, they will comprise capabilities which are reused or evolved from capabilities used at other destinations. In this way, an evolutionary approach to developing a robust set of capabilities to sustainably explore our solar system is defined. Agencies also recognize that jointly planning for our next steps, building on the accomplishments of ISS, is important to ensuring the robustness and sustainability of any human exploration plan. Developing a shared long-term vision is important, but agencies recognize this is an evolutionary process and requires consideration of many strategic factors. Strategic factors such as the implications of an emerging commercial space industry in LEO, the opportunity provided by extending ISS lifetime to at least 2020, and the importance of defining a plan which is sustainable in light of inevitable domestic policy shifts are timely for agency consideration.

Culbert, Christopher J.↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study

To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.

Rarick, Heather L.↗