Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “system engineering system process”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Systems Integration Relationships Between Deep Space and Deepwater Exploration Challenges

NASA pursuit of human missions Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) to the moon and eventually Mars will pose many new challenges. These missions are characterized by increased risks to human performance due to stress, fatigue, radiation exposure, and isolation. Fundamental changes in spaceflight operations will be required as well. A very critical part of future missions will be assisting the crew with problem-solving and contingency resolution using next-generation smart spacecraft systems. Human Systems Integration (HSI) must be included as part of the systems engineering process. Gateway1 will serve as part of the proving ground for maturing technology such as autonomous systems and space operations procedures to help meet moon mission goals and prepare humans for missions to Mars. For deep space missions, risk factors affecting humans such as mission duration, distance, and physiological/psychological effects, must be considered. A human is not a simple component but rather a system in a systems-of-systems application-a system influenced by cognitive and biological factors that are difficult to model/analyze. System complexity will demand an integrated approach that requires multiple viewpoints, including the understanding of the astronauts' capabilities and limitations to enhance safety, performance, and satisfaction on the interaction between all system users in a variety of environments to achieve acceptable mission goals and performance. HSI will play a vital role in the development of these future missions. This paper provides a discussion of HSI used at NASA and the critical role human factors engineering will play in the HSI process for future missions along with the challenges. Industries such as oil and gas (O&G) could benefit from the content of this paper to help improve the safety and operations of deepwater/oil and gas exploration activities. NASA engineering and human systems subject-matter expert personnel reviewed challenges reported in space-related environments for long space duration missions and identified similarities with the challenges encountered in deepwater exploration. The researchers noted the space industry's current solutions and proposed a system development view to solve future deepwater exploration challenges using HSI principles. This paper discusses the results of the review.

George Salazar↗
NASA NTRS2016

Expanded Guidance for NASA Systems Engineering. Volume 1: Systems Engineering Practices

This document is intended to provide general guidance and information on systems engineering that will be useful to the NASA community. It provides a generic description of Systems Engineering (SE) as it should be applied throughout NASA. A goal of the expanded guidance is to increase awareness and consistency across the Agency and advance the practice of SE. This guidance provides perspectives relevant to NASA and data particular to NASA. This expanded guidance should be used as a companion for implementing NPR 7123.1, Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, the Rev 2 version of SP-6105, and the Center-specific handbooks and directives developed for implementing systems engineering at NASA. It provides a companion reference book for the various systems engineering-related training being offered under NASA's auspices.

Steven R Hirshorn↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Agile-Like Approach to Hardware Development: The Ejectable Data Recorder (EDR) for Orion's Ascent Abort 2 (AA-2) Test Flight

On July 2, 2019, the Ascent Abort 2 (AA-2) Flight Test Vehicle was launched from Cape Canaveral, with the goal of demonstrating the performance of Orion’s Launch Abort System (LAS) and collecting data from hundreds of sensors throughout the vehicle. The data collected during this test flight is of paramount importance, as it will be used to certify the Orion vehicle for human spaceflight. Originally, the data was to be downlinked via a single string network of antennas on the LAS, with the associated risk of potential data dropouts, as well as loss of data once the LAS was jettisoned. Thus, additional antennas were added onto the crew module (CM) to support data downlink post-LAS jettison, a buffer rebroadcast capability was added to fill in any gaps in data downlink transmissions, and an ejectable data recorder (EDR) subsystem was added to the CM as a redundant measure to collect all the instrumentation data. The EDR subsystem was added to the project about one year after the project commenced, which significantly reduced the available development time when compared with the other subsystems of the AA-2 Test Flight. The project was further accelerated by six months, around the critical design review gate. Due to the schedule compression challenge and the fact that the EDR subsystem was a backup system and not flight critical, the EDR subsystem was further challenged to find a new and more efficient way to develop hardware. Thus, the EDR subsystem experimented with different management and systems engineering processes, team sizes, communication methods, and tools. Some examples are novel uses of SharePoint as a Data-centric Project Management & Systems Engineering environment, a continuous testing approach through the lifecycle, and a Skunkworks approach to managing the team. The EDR subsystem blended Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) hardware with in-house developed hardware and software to create a novel data retrieval capability. The capability evolved rapidly through a hardware in the loop simulation environment that enabled incremental component updates for not only the EDR subsystem but across the entire Crew Module. This paper will present an overview of how the EDR subsystem was managed and compare it to an Agile approach to managing projects. The paper will further provide a recommended approach to future Agile-like hardware development that incorporates lessons learned from the EDR experience.

Agile↗
NASA NTRS2005

Systems Engineering and Integration for Advanced Life Support System and HST

Systems engineering (SE) discipline has revolutionized the way engineers and managers think about solving issues related to design of complex systems: With continued development of state-of-the-art technologies, systems are becoming more complex and therefore, a systematic approach is essential to control and manage their integrated design and development. This complexity is driven from integration issues. In this case, subsystems must interact with one another in order to achieve integration objectives, and also achieve the overall system's required performance. Systems engineering process addresses these issues at multiple levels. It is a technology and management process dedicated to controlling all aspects of system life cycle to assure integration at all levels. The Advanced Integration Matrix (AIM) project serves as the systems engineering and integration function for the Human Support Technology (HST) program. AIM provides means for integrated test facilities and personnel for performance trade studies, analyses, integrated models, test results, and validated requirements of the integration of HST. The goal of AIM is to address systems-level integration issues for exploration missions. It will use an incremental systems integration approach to yield technologies, baselines for further development, and possible breakthrough concepts in the areas of technological and organizational interfaces, total information flow, system wide controls, technical synergism, mission operations protocols and procedures, and human-machine interfaces.

Kamarani, Ali K.↗
NASA NTRS2012

An Altair Overview: Designing a Lunar Lander for 21st Century Human Space Exploration

Altair, the lunar lander element of NASA's Constellation program, was conducted in a different design environment than many other NASA projects of similar scope. Because of this relatively unique approach, there are a number of significant success stories that should be considered during the development of any future lunar landers or human spacecraft. This paper is divided into two separate themes; the first is the approach used during the conceptual design studies, including the systematic analysis cycles and the decision making process associated with each: and the second is a summary of the resulting lessons learned that were compiled after looking back at the lifetime of the Project. Altair was terminated before entering Phase B of its design, and was often criticized for being a very heavy and very large vehicle. While there was specific rationale for all of the decisions that led up to that configuration, future design cycles were specifically planned to re-address the mass challenge. Had the project continued, the deliberate, stepwise design process would have converged on an optimized lander design that balanced mass, risk, cost and capabilities. Some of the specific items that will be addressed in this paper include project development strategy, organizational approach and team dynamics, risk-informed design process, mission architecture constraints, mission key driving requirements, model-based systems engineering process, configuration studies, contingency considerations, subsystem overviews and key trade studies. The paper will conclude with a summary of the lessons identified during the Altair project and make suggestions for application to future studies.

Brown, Kendall K.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Methods for Developing Successful Systems Engineers

Systems Engineering (SE) is a complex and challenging field that incorporates the knowledge of systems engineering processes, the ability to synthesize a wide-range of engineering disciplines, and the ability to lead a team of people to successfully accomplish the goals of a project. It requires hard technical skills and soft-skill leadership savvy. As a result, three main development needs are identified: 1) Knowledge of SE processes, the benefits of these processes to a project and their tailored application 2) Knowledge of a wide-range of engineering disciplines, how they interrelate in a system, and the development of sound technical judgement 3) Team leadership to direct and motivate a team of subsystem and discipline experts This paper describes the establishment of a comprehensive training and development program for Systems Engineers at NASA Ames Research Center that addresses in part each of these three areas from the perspective of the implementing manager. A variety of methods have been utilized including the establishment of a SE Community of Practice, a unique and innovative web tool, on-line videos, classroom training in NASA’s 17 Common Technical Processes, guidance on the tailored application of these processes, monthly technical talks, mentoring in both technical judgment and team leadership, and NASA’s Leadership Development Programs. While much of professional SE development must come through project experience, the approaches listed above can accelerate development. The diversity of skills required of Systems Engineering demands a multi-faceted approach to successfully train and develop this critical skill.

development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Methods for Developing Successful Systems Engineers

Systems Engineering (SE) is a complex and challenging field that incorporates the knowledge of systems engineering processes, the ability to synthesize a wide-range of engineering disciplines, and the ability to lead a team of people to successfully accomplish the goals of a project. It requires hard technical skills and soft-skill leadership savvy. As a result, three main development needs are identified: 1. Knowledge of SE processes, the benefits of these processes to a project and their tailored application 2. Knowledge of a wide-range of engineering disciplines, how they interrelate in a system, and the development of sound technical judgement 3. Team leadership to direct and motivate a team of subsystem and discipline experts This paper describes the establishment of a comprehensive training and development program for Systems Engineers at NASA Ames Research Center that addresses in part each of these three areas from the perspective of the implementing manager. A variety of methods have been utilized including the establishment of a SE Community of Practice, a unique and innovative web tool, on-line videos, classroom training in NASA’s 17 Common Technical Processes, guidance on the tailored application of these processes, monthly technical talks, mentoring in both technical judgment and team leadership, and NASA’s Leadership Development Programs. While much of professional SE development must come through project experience, the approaches listed above can accelerate development. The diversity of skills required of Systems Engineering demands a multi-faceted approach to successfully train and develop this critical skill.

development↗
NASA NTRS1996

Renaissance: A revolutionary approach for providing low-cost ground data systems

The NASA is changing its attention from large missions to a greater number of smaller missions with reduced development schedules and budgets. In relation to this, the Renaissance Mission Operations and Data Systems Directorate systems engineering process is presented. The aim of the Renaissance approach is to improve system performance, reduce cost and schedules and meet specific customer needs. The approach includes: the early involvement of the users to define the mission requirements and system architectures; the streamlining of management processes; the development of a flexible cost estimation capability, and the ability to insert technology. Renaissance-based systems demonstrate significant reuse of commercial off-the-shelf building blocks in an integrated system architecture.

Butler, Madeline J.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Space station functional relationships analysis

A systems engineering process is developed to assist Space Station designers to understand the underlying operational system of the facility so that it can be physically arranged and configured to support crew productivity. The study analyzes the operational system proposed for the Space Station in terms of mission functions, crew activities, and functional relationships in order to develop a quantitative model for evaluation of interior layouts, configuration, and traffic analysis for any Station configuration. Development of the model involved identification of crew functions, required support equipment, criteria of assessing functional relationships, and tools for analyzing functional relationship matrices, as well as analyses of crew transition frequency, sequential dependencies, support equipment requirements, potential for noise interference, need for privacy, and overall compatability of functions. The model can be used for analyzing crew functions for the Initial Operating Capability of the Station and for detecting relationships among these functions. Note: This process (FRA) was used during Phase B design studies to test optional layouts of the Space Station habitat module. The process is now being automated as a computer model for use in layout testing of the Space Station laboratory modules during Phase C.

Tullis, Thomas S.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Development of an Accepted Medical Condition List for Exploration Medical Capability Scoping

Future NASA human spaceflight programs are on the verge of moving beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to implement missions in lunar space and ultimately Mars. The mission constraints for these types of missions are expected to be progressively challenging for integration of Human Systems requirements into the vehicle and mission architectures. Mass and volume allocations are expected to become increasingly restrictive at the same time that mission realities will drive an increasing need for crew self-sufficiency in the maintenance and repair of both vehicle systems and human systems. To meet these challenges, a systematic, traceable, and repeatable approach to identifying, defining, and prioritizing medical capabilities is required. To provide a systematic and repeatable approach to defining and prioritizing clinical capabilities for spaceflight medicine, a clear process is required for delivering a list of prioritized medical capabilities to the Systems Engineering process that will delineate the mass, power, volume, and similar needs and the trade space analysis for a given space vehicle and mission architecture.

Rebecca Blue↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probabilistic Approach to Assessing Capture System Performance Margin in Mars Sample Return's Capture, Containment, and Return System

In the aerospace industry, there are standard design principles and/or rule-of-thumb targets that define healthy levels of margins required at each developmental milestone for traditional metrics, such as mass, thermal, and power margins. When the technical resource is “non-traditional,” in the sense that guiding margin principles are non-existent, systems engineering processes are required to internally generate performance targets and methodologies to assess the system against the derived targets. This paper presents a probabilistic approach for assessing complex time-critical operations which applies global sensitivity analyses to identify input parameters that should drive the design. This approach is used to design a critical payload required for the Mars Sample Return campaign aiming at bringing back rock and atmospheric samples from Mars.

Performance Margins↗
NASA NTRS2012

On Using SysML, DoDAF 2.0 and UPDM to Model the Architecture for the NOAA's Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Ground System (GS)

The JPSS Ground System is a lIexible system of systems responsible for telemetry, tracking & command (TT &C), data acquisition, routing and data processing services for a varied lIeet of satellites to support weather prediction, modeling and climate modeling. To assist in this engineering effort, architecture modeling tools are being employed to translate the former NPOESS baseline to the new JPSS baseline, The paper will focus on the methodology for the system engineering process and the use of these architecture modeling tools within that process, The Department of Defense Architecture Framework version 2,0 (DoDAF 2.0) viewpoints and views that are being used to describe the JPSS GS architecture are discussed. The Unified Profile for DoOAF and MODAF (UPDM) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), as ' provided by extensions to the MagicDraw UML modeling tool, are used to develop the diagrams and tables that make up the architecture model. The model development process and structure are discussed, examples are shown, and details of handling the complexities of a large System of Systems (SoS), such as the JPSS GS, with an equally complex modeling tool, are described

Hayden, Jeffrey L.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Space Transportation System Liftoff Debris Mitigation Process Overview

Liftoff debris is a top risk to the Space Shuttle Vehicle. To manage the Liftoff debris risk, the Space Shuttle Program created a team with in the Propulsion Systems Engineering & Integration Office. The Shutt le Liftoff Debris Team harnesses the Systems Engineering process to i dentify, assess, mitigate, and communicate the Liftoff debris risk. T he Liftoff Debris Team leverages off the technical knowledge and expe rtise of engineering groups across multiple NASA centers to integrate total system solutions. These solutions connect the hardware and ana lyses to identify and characterize debris sources and zones contribut ing to the Liftoff debris risk. The solutions incorporate analyses sp anning: the definition and modeling of natural and induced environmen ts; material characterizations; statistical trending analyses, imager y based trajectory analyses; debris transport analyses, and risk asse ssments. The verification and validation of these analyses are bound by conservative assumptions and anchored by testing and flight data. The Liftoff debris risk mitigation is managed through vigilant collab orative work between the Liftoff Debris Team and Launch Pad Operation s personnel and through the management of requirements, interfaces, r isk documentation, configurations, and technical data. Furthermore, o n day of launch, decision analysis is used to apply the wealth of ana lyses to case specific identified risks. This presentation describes how the Liftoff Debris Team applies Systems Engineering in their proce sses to mitigate risk and improve the safety of the Space Shuttle Veh icle.

Mitchell, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2006

From Zero to Integration in Eight Months, the Dawn Ground Data System Engineering Challenge

The Dawn GDS Team met the SC Sim integration challenge in eight months. The GDS System Engineering approach in response to the SC Simintegration challenge, focused on a set of key practices: decomposition of project request into manageable requirements; integration of multiple ground disciplines and experts into a focused team effort; risk management thru management of expectations; and aggregation of intermediate products into a final product. By maintaining a a system-level focus, the overall systems engineering process unified team GDS Team members with a common goal: the success of the ground system as a whole and not just the success of their individual expert contributions. Incorporation of Agile-type development efforts were aligned with a risk strategy based on team-oriented principles and expectations management, thus achieving a more stable baseline solution without compromising the integrity of the GDS design.

Dawn Mission↗
NASA NTRS2018

A New Approach to Mission Classification and Risk Management for NASA Space Flight Missions

The NASA risk classification system is meant to uide space mission development from formulation through completion of implementation. It is also meant to be the basis on which program and project managers develop and implement appropriate mission assurance and risk management strategies for the mission. In order to be useful, the risk classification system needs to provide consistent and reproducible classification results so that missions may be designed with the appropriate components, subsystems, and testing philosophy, all of which impacts mission schedule and cost. In a cost-constrained environment, a clear, robust, and reproducible approach to mission implementation becomes more critical than ever before. Once a project's risk classification level is established, the managers can define the appropriate management controls, systems engineering processes, mission assurance requirements, safety, and testing for that mission. The current NASA mission classification system will be reviewed before a new system is proposed.NASA manages space flight missions according to a four-tiered classification which assumes increasing levels of risk. We argue that risk does not change between classes. What changes are the means available to reduce risk. In performance-driven missions, the project will spend money in order to maintain performance without reducing margins. In cost-constrained missions, performance will be reduced in order to stay within budget or to maintain schedule: measurement requirements may be traded, design life may be reduced, or both. We then propose a new approach to the classification of NASA space flight missions, based on an assessment of how flexible the requirements, how exquisite the measurements, how long the lifetime, and how rigid the budget.Our proposed approach makes possible a clearer differentiation between classification levels and more effective guidance to program and project managers.

Bordi, Francesco↗
NASA NTRS2019

Appreciative Methods Applied to the Assessment of Complex Systems

Complex systems have characteristics that challenge traditional systems engineering processes and methods. These characteristics have been defined in various ways. INCOSE has previously identified characteristics of complex systems and potential methods to deal with complexity in system development. The purpose of this paper is to provide definitions and describe distinguishing characteristics of complexity using example systems to illustrate approaches to assessing the extent of complexity. The paper applies Appreciative Inquiry to identify and assess complex system characteristics. The characteristics are used to examine several different examples of systems to illuminate areas of complexity. These examples range from seemingly simple systems to complicated systems to complex systems. Different tiers of complexity are identified as a result of the assessment. The paper also identified and introduces topics on managing complexity and the integrating system perspective that represent new directions for the engineering of complex systems. The Appreciative Inquiry approach provides a method for systems engineering practitioners to more readily identify complexity when they encounter it, and to deal more effectively with this complexity once it has been identified.

Watson, Michael↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

2024 Nasa Lunabotics University Competition: Site Preparation With Bulk Regolith

Introduction: Lunabotics provides accredited institutions of higher learning students (vocational-technical, college, university) an opportunity to apply the NASA systems engineering process to design and build a prototype robot. This robot would be capable of performing the proposed operations on the Lunar surface in support of future Artemis mission goals. Lunabotics features a systems engineering design challenge to engage students in the next phase of hu-man space exploration supporting the Artemis missions. This two-semester event encourages students to design and build an autonomous or telerobotic robot designed to traverse the simulated Lunar surface and complete the assigned construction tasks. The number of teams accepted into this challenge is not predetermined but is based on the scores and overall quality of the Project Management Plans received and other factors. The culmination of the Lunabotics virtual challenge will be the design, build and operation of a functional prototype Lunar robot. Teams are required to submit the following: (1) Project Management Plan, (2) Systems Engineering Paper, a (3) STEM Engage-ment Report, and a (4) Proof of Life Video. This is an optional item, but to qualify for the grand prize a team must also submit a: (5) Presentation and Demonstration. Background: The NASA Lunabotics University Competition was first held in 2010 as a follow on to the NASA Regolith Excavation Challenge [1]. The high level of interest and participation from over 50 universities each year has led to a sustained annual competi-ion cadence: it has been held every May for the past 14 years [2,3]. Over 6,000 students have participated and been inspired to pursue Science, Technology, En-gineering and Mathematics careers (STEM). 2024 Competition: The necessary lunar surface tasks are evolving to meet the NASA Artemis Mission requirements. In the past Lunabotics challenges we gathered data to support Lunar mining for consuma-bles in the Lunar regolith. Now, in 2024, the task is to gather data on Lunar site preparation and construction by designing and building a robot that will traverse the chaotic Lunar terrain and construct a regolith-based berm. The goal is to build a berm structure which would be useful to the Artemis Mission for blast and ejecta protection during lunar landings and launches, shading cryogenic propellant tank farms, providing radiation protection around a nuclear power plant and other mission critical uses. Lunabotics will consist of three separate events this year. The first event is NASA’s Lunabotics Project Development Challenge, where teams submit various deliverables to be scored by judges. The second event will be the University of Central Florida (UCF) Lunabotics Qualification challenge, in the Exolith laboratory, where teams will put their de-signs to the test. The top ten scoring teams from the Qualification challenge are then invited to the third and final event, NASA’s Lunabotics On-Site Challenge at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This presentation will summarize the results and lessons learned from the NASA Lunabotics University Competition held in May 2024.

Lunabotics↗