Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “REVIEWS”

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 127 records · Page 7

Reducing NPR 7120.5D to Practice: Preparing for a Life-Cycle Review

In March 2007, NASA issued revised rules for space flight project management, NPR 7120.5D, 'NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements.' Central to the new rules was the construct of Key Decision Points, maturity gates that the project team must pass in order to continue development. In order that the KDP decision be fully informed, the NPR required, as entrance criteria for the gate, the generation and delivery of specified planning, technical, and cost/schedule documents (gate products) and a life-cycle review, the Preliminary Design Review. Building on JPL experience on the Prometheus and Juno projects, the team successfully organized for and conducted these reviews on an aggressive schedule. Key actions were taken to proactively interact with the SRB, produce high-quality gate products with stakeholder review, generate review presentation materials, and handle a myriad of supporting logistical functions. A review preparation team was established, including a Review Captain and leads for documentation, information systems, and logistics, and their roles, responsibilities and task assignments were identified. Aids were produced, including a detailed review preparation schedule and a comprehensive gate products production table. Institutional support was leveraged early and often. Implementation strategy reflected the needs of a nationally-distributed team, as well as applicable export control and IT security requirements. This paper gives a brief overview of the GRAIL mission and its project management challenges, provides a detailed description of project PMSR and PDR preparation and execution activities, including positive and negative lessons learned, and identifies recommendations for future NASA (and non-NASA) project teams.

NPR 7120.5D↗

Smart manufacturing maturity models and their applicability: a review

The purpose of this paper is to review existing smart manufacturing (SM) maturity models' dimensions and maturity levels to assess their applicability and drawbacks. There are many maturity models available but many of them have not been validated or do not provide a useful guide or tool for applications. This gap creates the need for a review of the existing maturity model's applicability. Nineteen peer-reviewed maturity models related to “Digital Transformation,” “Industry 4.0” or “Smart Manufacturing” were selected based on a systematic literature review and five consulting firm models were selected based on the author's industry knowledge. The chosen models were analyzed to determine 10 categories of dimensions. Then they are assessed on a 1–5 scale for how applicable they are in the 10 categories of dimensions. The five “consulting firm” models have a first-mover advantage, are more widely used in industry and are more applicable, but some require payment, and they lack published details and validation. The 19 “peer reviewed” models are not as widely used, lack awareness in the industry and are not as easy to apply because of no web tool for self-assessment, but they are improving. The categories defined to characterize the models and facilitate comparisons for users include “Information Technology (IT) and Cyber-Physical System (CPS) and Data,” “Strategy and Organization,” “Supply Chain and Logistics,” “Products and Services,” “Culture and Employees,” “Technology and Capabilities,” “Customer and Market,” “Cybersecurity and Risk,” “Leadership and Management” and “Governance and Compliance.” The analyzed maturity models were particularly weak in the areas of cybersecurity, leadership and governance. Researchers and practitioners can use this review with consideration of their specific needs to determine if a maturity model is applicable or if a new model needs to be developed. The review can also aid in the development of maturity models through the discussion of each of the dimension categories. Finally, compared to existing reviews of SM maturity models, this research determines comprehensive dimension categories and focuses on applicability and drawbacks.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Literature Review for Sensor Impact Evaluation and Verification Use Cases - Building Controls and Fault Detection and Diagnosis (FDD)

This report summarizes a comprehensive literature review for the selected sensor suites used in building controls and fault detection and diagnostics (FDD), which is a Q2 deliverable of the Sensor Impact Evaluation and Verification project. The project’s overarching goal is to develop a framework for investigating the impact of sensor deployment and configuration for building energy optimization, fault detection and diagnosis (FDD), occupants’ thermal comfort, and potential grid efficiency. While the first phase of the literature review performed in Q1 reviewed the current methods of various sensor selection and placements and their impact, this report focuses on high impactful potential use cases for the selected sensor suites in building control and FDD. The use cases identified in this literature review will be further investigated and be included in the final sensor impact evaluation framework. For the review, the multi-laboratory team reviewed 241 research papers, technical reports, and books to identify existing technologies, the potential impact on energy savings and thermal comfort, and future research opportunities for the selected use cases in building controls and FDD. Along with the literature review, the team conducted a series of interviews with experts in sensors and controls area to identify the state-of-art sensor technologies, and the most impactful use cases in controls and FDD areas. The interview results will also be incorporated with the findings from the literature review in the next quarter, and the final use cases to be evaluated will be selected.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

I Hate Reviews!

In our business we have all kinds of reviews: financial reviews, strategy reviews, technical reviews, test reviews, design reviews, baseline reviews, etc., etc. Some ways to avoid the most common pitfalls that I find specifically in these kinds of reviews are given.

Little, Terry↗

Systems Innovation: Modernization & Efficiencies for ESH&Q Reviews

Environmental compliance reviews at INL have traditionally been managed through fragmented systems, relying on multiple spreadsheets and manual processes. This inefficiency led to time-consuming status updates and redundant tasks, such as manually sending reminder emails and transferring data from Excel to the Environmental Review Process (ERP). Initial attempts to streamline these processes using Power Automate and Excel revealed significant limitations, necessitating a more comprehensive solution. To address these immediate inefficiencies, automated workflows were developed using Power Automate. These workflows were designed to send scheduled status update reminders and capture responses through standardized forms, with submitted data flowing directly into centralized Excel trackers. This automation reduced the administrative burden, improved data accuracy, and enabled faster, more consistent reporting. Specifically, email automation achieved a 65% efficiency gain, while data integration saw a 48% improvement, resulting in 91% of project statuses being updated within two months. Despite the improvements brought by Power Automate, the fragmented nature of the review processes persisted. To further enhance efficiency and accuracy, the Integrated Review Tool (IRT) was developed. The IRT aims to centralize review initiation and connect team systems, creating an interconnected data infrastructure that preserves team autonomy while enhancing overall efficiency. This tool automates email reminders, centralizes reviews, and streamlines data integration, significantly improving the accuracy and efficiency of environmental compliance reviews. The design and development of the IRT involved advanced systems methodology, process mapping, project management, and collaboration with subject matter experts. The minimum viable product design is 100% complete, and system development is currently underway, with expected outcomes including a centralized entry point for all ESH&Q reviews, automated routing, real-time tracking and analytics, AI integration, and a user-friendly interface. This project demonstrates the potential of leveraging automation and integrated systems to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and decision-making in environmental reporting and compliance processes at INL.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

2021 Annual Merit Review Report, Vehicle Technologies Office

The 2021 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 21-25, 2021, virtually, due to extenuating circumstances resulting from the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 273 individual activities were reviewed by 281 reviewers. Exactly 1,152 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a virtual forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

2022 Annual Merit Review Report, Vehicle Technologies Office: Results Report

The 2022 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 21-23, 2022, as a hybrid event with in-person and virtual attendance. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 213 individual activities were reviewed by 255 reviewers. Exactly 1,051 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a virtual forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

2019 Vehicle Technologies Office Annual Merit Review Report

The 2019 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 10-13, 2019, in Arlington, Virginia. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 287 individual activities were reviewed by 272 reviewers. Exactly 1,162 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE on the Office with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

2020 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office

The 2020 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 1-4, 2020, virtually, due to extenuating circumstances resulting from the global Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 292 individual activities were reviewed by 334 reviewers. Exactly 1,133 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a virtual forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

2023 Annual Merit Review Vehicle Technologies Office Results Report

The 2023 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 12-15, 2023, as a hybrid event with in-person and virtual attendance. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 257 individual activities were reviewed by 266 reviewers. Exactly 991 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a virtual forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Design and Implementation of Smart Buildings: A Review of Current Research Trend

The building sector is one of the largest contributors to the world’s total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Advancements in building energy technologies have played a critical role in enhancing the energy sustainability of the built environment. Extensive research and new techniques in energy and environmental systems for buildings have recently emerged to address the global challenges. This study reviews existing articles in the literature, mostly since 2000, to explore technological advancement in building energy and environmental systems that can be applied to smart homes and buildings. This review study focuses on an overview of the design and implementation of energy-related smart building technologies, including energy management systems, renewable energy applications, and current advanced smart technologies for optimal function and energy-efficient performance. To review the advancement in building energy-related technologies, a systematic review process is adopted based on available published reviews and research types of articles. Review-type articles are first assessed to explore the current literature on the relevant keywords and to capture major research scopes. Research-type papers are then examined to investigate associated keywords and work scopes, including objectives, focuses, limitations, and future needs. Throughout the comprehensive literature review, this study identifies various techniques of smart home/building applications that have provided detailed solutions or guidelines in different applications to enhance the quality of people’s daily activities and the sustainability of the built environmental system. This paper shows trends in human activities and technology advancements in digital solutions with energy management systems and practical designs. Understanding the overall energy flow between a building and its environmentally connected systems is also important for future buildings and community levels. This paper assists in understanding the pathway toward future smart homes/buildings and their technologies for researchers in related research fields.

renewable system integration↗

The NPG 7120.5A Electronic Review Process

The use of electronics to review a document is well within the technical realm of today's state-of-the-art workplace. File servers and web site interaction are common tools for many NASA employees. The electronic comment processing described here was developed for the NPG 7120.5A review to augment the existing NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS). The NODIS system is NASA's official system for formal review, approval and storage of NASA Directives. The electronic review process worked so well that NASA and other agencies may want to consider it as one of our "best practices." It was participatory decision making at its very best, a process that attracted dozens of very good ideas to improve the document as well as the way we can be managing projects far more effectively. The revision of NPG 7120.5A has significant implications for the way all elements of the Agency accomplish program and project management. Therefore, the review of NPG 7120.5A was an Agencywide effort with high visibility, heavy participation and a short schedule. The level of involvement created interest in supplementing the formal NODIS system with a system to collect comments efficiently and to allow the Centers and Codes to review and consolidate their comments into the official system in a short period of time. In addition, the Program Management Council Working Group (PMCWG), responsible for the revision of the document and the disposition of official comments, needed an electronic system to manage the disposition of comments, obtain PMCWG consensus on each disposition, and coordinate the disposition with the appropriate Headquarters Code that had submitted the official comment. The combined NASA and contractor talents and resources provided a system that supplemented the NODIS system and its operating personnel to produce a thorough review and approval of NPG 7120.5A on April 3, 1998, 7.5 months from the start of the process. The original six-month schedule is indicated. All milestones occurred on time, except for completion of comment disposition, which required an additional 30 days. Approval of the document occurred sixteen days after completion of the "Purple Package."

McBrayer, Robert↗

Stress, Cognition, and Human Performance: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

The following literature review addresses the effects of various stressors on cognition. While attempting to be as inclusive as possible, the review focuses its examination on the relationships between cognitive appraisal, attention, memory, and stress as they relate to information processing and human performance. The review begins with an overview of constructs and theoretical perspectives followed by an examination of effects across attention, memory, perceptual-motor functions, judgment and decision making, putative stressors such as workload, thermals, noise, and fatigue and closes with a discussion of moderating variables and related topics. In summation of the review, a conceptual framework for cognitive process under stress has been assembled. As one might imagine, the research literature that addresses stress, theories governing its effects on human performance, and experimental evidence that supports these notions is large and diverse. In attempting to organize and synthesize this body of work, I was guided by several earlier efforts (Bourne & Yaroush, 2003; Driskell, Mullen, Johnson, Hughes, & Batchelor, 1992; Driskell & Salas, 1996; Haridcock & Desmond, 2001; Stokes & Kite, 1994). These authors should be credited with accomplishing the monumental task of providing focused reviews in this area and their collective efforts laid the foundation for this present review. Similarly, the format of this review has been designed in accordance with these previous exemplars. However, each of these previous efforts either simply reported general findings, without sufficient experimental illustration, or narrowed their scope of investigation to the extent that the breadth of such findings remained hidden from the reader. Moreover, none of these examinations yielded an architecture that adequately describes or explains the inter-relations between information processing elements under stress conditions.

Stress↗

Proposal for Ground Safety Review Coordination at ISS Launch Sites

As the transportation of ISS payloads and cargo shifts from KSC to other launch sites, close coordination of ground safety review processes would be of benefit to all parties. The benefit would have the launch sites receiving consistent data that would require less effort to review while still meeting their needs. Until recently, ground safety focus for the ISS program has been almost exclusively for prelaunch processing at KSC/post-landing processing at KSC/DFRC Each launch site, used by the ISS Program, has a ground safety review process. Ground safety viewed as local prerogative. Up till now, ground processing has consisted of low risk/low hazard items; but this will not always be the case. Recent coordination issues associated with the ground safety review of ORU's to be processed at Tanegashima for HTV-2, illustrate that IP ground safety review processes are not well understood by the ISS community at large. Confusion for data providers (US only?). Lack of internal review process for data being submitted to launch sites can lead to inconsistent submittals. NCRs/HRs. Majority of IP ground safety requirements are based upon old KHB 1700.7 (now KNPR 8715.3, Chapter 20). Proposals include: Establish a ground safety working group as part of the MS&MAP. Search for efficiencies in requirements and data submittal processes. Document processes in NSTS 13830/SSP 30599. Each launch site report out its payload ground safety status at the F2F (Monthly's as required). Completions/due dates/NCRs/issues/changes. Establish internal processes for review of ground safety submittals.

Kirkpatrick, Paul D.↗

Automated Assignment of Proposals to Reviewers

A computer program automates the process of selecting unbiased peer reviewers of research proposals submitted to NASA. Heretofore, such selection has been performed by manual searching of two large databases subject to a set of assignment rules. One database lists proposals and proposers; the other database lists potential reviewers. The manual search takes an average of several weeks per proposal. In contrast, the present software can perform the selection in seconds. The program begins by selecting one entry from each database, then applying the assignment rules to this pair of entries. If and only if all the assignment rules are satisfied, the chosen reviewer is assigned to the chosen proposal. The assignment rules enforced by the program are (1) a maximum allowable number of proposals assigned to a single reviewer; (2) a maximum allowable number of reviewers assigned to a single proposal; (3) if the proposing team includes a member affiliated with an industry, then the reviewer must not be affiliated with any industry; and (4) the reviewer must not be a member of the proposing team or affiliated with the same institution as that of a member of the proposing team.

Kantak, Anil↗

NASA Standing Review Board Handbook: Revision B

This SRB Handbook provides review guidance for the program and project communities and for the SRBs regarding the expectations, processes, products, timelines, and working interfaces with review organizations, Centers, Mission Directorates, Mission Support Organizations, and Management Councils. It provides guidelines for membership selection, review implementation, review products, and reporting of results. The SRB Handbook guidance may be tailored, with the Convening Authorities' approval, to meet the needs of the Agency, Mission Directorates, Centers, and the programs and projects being reviewed. The final review agreement of the SRB, program and project, and Convening Authorities for program and project Life-Cycle Reviews (LCRs) is documented in the terms of reference, as described in Section 4.1 and Appendix H.

Tahani R Amer↗

Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

The Editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics are deeply indebted to the many people among the research community that serve this journal through peer review. The journal could not exist without the time and effort invested by the community through this voluntary activity, providing expert evaluations and thoughtful assessments of the work of others. In 2015, the journal had 1506 scientists contribute to the process with at least one peer review, for a total of 3575 reviews completed, including additional reviews of resubmitted manuscripts. There were 277 reviewers that contributed four or more reports in 2015. The average number of reviews per referee in 2015 was, therefore, 2.4. Note that the total number of manuscript final decisions (i.e., accept or reject) for Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) Space Physics was 1147 in 2015. Of this, 774 were accepted and 373 were declined, for an acceptance rate of 67% last year. If the 1334 "revision" decisions are included in the tally, then the total number of decisions made in 2015 was 2481. Working out the arithmetic, it means that on average, a manuscript gets about 1.2 revision decisions before a final accept-or-reject decision. This explains the ~3.1 average number of reviews per manuscript throughout each paper's lifetime in the submission-revision editorial process. We are pleased and happy that the research community is willing and able to devote their resources toward this service endeavor. We appreciate each and every one of you that helped maintain the high quality of papers in JGR Space Physics last year. We look forward to another excellent year working with all of you through the year ahead.

Liemohn, Michael W.↗

Water Power Technologies Office: 2022 Project Peer Review

The Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO), part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), held a virtual peer review on July 18–29, 2022. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate DOE-funded projects for their contributions to the mission and goals of the office, progress made against stated objectives, and the office’s overall management and performance. The peer review process enables external stakeholders to provide feedback on the most impactful use of taxpayer funding and develop recommendations for the most efficient and effective ways to accelerate industry development in power technologies. This report includes the results of WPTO’s 2022 Peer Review.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗