Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Project Life Cycle”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2004

An Approach to Tailoring Major Technical Reviews Based on Project Characteristics and Stakeholder Interests

There are numerous technical reviews that occur throughout the systems engineering process life cycle. Many are well known by project managers and stakeholders such as developers and end users, an example of much is the critical design review (CDR). This major milestone for a large, complex new project may last two or more days, include an extensive agenda of topics, and entail hundreds of hours of developer time to prepare presentation materials and associated documents. Additionally, the weeks of schedule spent on review preparation is at least partly at the expense of other work. This paper suggests an approach for tailoring technical reviews, based on the project characteristics and the project manager s identification of the key stakeholders and understanding of their most important issues and considerations. With this insight the project manager can communicate to, manage expectations oc and establish formal agreement with the stakeholders as to which reviews, and at what depth, are most appropriate to achieve project success. The authors, coming from diverse organizations and backgrounds, have drawn on their personal experiences and summarized the best practices of their own organizations to create a common framework to provide guidance on the adaptation of design reviews to other system engineers.

Richstein, Alan B.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Software life cycle methodologies and environments

Products of this project will significantly improve the quality and productivity of Space Station Freedom Program software processes by: improving software reliability and safety; and broadening the range of problems that can be solved with computational solutions. Projects brings in Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) technology for: Environments such as Engineering Script Language/Parts Composition System (ESL/PCS) application generator, Intelligent User Interface for cost avoidance in setting up operational computer runs, Framework programmable platform for defining process and software development work flow control, Process for bringing CASE technology into an organization's culture, and CLIPS/CLIPS Ada language for developing expert systems; and methodologies such as Method for developing fault tolerant, distributed systems and a method for developing systems for common sense reasoning and for solving expert systems problems when only approximate truths are known.

Fridge, Ernest↗
NASA NTRS1993

The automated ground network system

The primary goal of the Automated Ground Network System (AGNS) project is to reduce Ground Network (GN) station life-cycle costs. To accomplish this goal, the AGNS project will employ an object-oriented approach to develop a new infrastructure that will permit continuous application of new technologies and methodologies to the Ground Network's class of problems. The AGNS project is a Total Quality (TQ) project. Through use of an open collaborative development environment, developers and users will have equal input into the end-to-end design and development process. This will permit direct user input and feedback and will enable rapid prototyping for requirements clarification. This paper describes the AGNS objectives, operations concept, and proposed design.

Smith, Miles T.↗
NASA NTRS2000

SAVANT: Solar Array Verification and Analysis Tool Demonstrated

The photovoltaics (PV) industry is now being held to strict specifications, such as end-oflife power requirements, that force them to overengineer their products to avoid contractual penalties. Such overengineering has been the only reliable way to meet such specifications. Unfortunately, it also results in a more costly process than is probably necessary. In our conversations with the PV industry, the issue of cost has been raised again and again. Consequently, the Photovoltaics and Space Environment Effects branch at the NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field has been developing a software tool to address this problem. SAVANT, Glenn's tool for solar array verification and analysis is in the technology demonstration phase. Ongoing work has proven that more efficient and less costly PV designs should be possible by using SAVANT to predict the on-orbit life-cycle performance. The ultimate goal of the SAVANT project is to provide a user-friendly computer tool to predict PV on-orbit life-cycle performance. This should greatly simplify the tasks of scaling and designing the PV power component of any given flight or mission. By being able to predict how a particular PV article will perform, designers will be able to balance mission power requirements (both beginning-of-life and end-of-life) with survivability concerns such as power degradation due to radiation and/or contamination. Recent comparisons with actual flight data from the Photovoltaic Array Space Power Plus Diagnostics (PASP Plus) mission validate this approach.

Chock, Ricaurte↗
DOE OSTI2025

Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity of U.S. fuel use and projection for the next 10 years-based on built capacity and expansion plans

The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 supports biofuel production expansion through the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit, replacing previous 40A and 40B credits. This follows on the Renewable Fuel Standard from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and its expansion in 2007. States like California, Oregon, and Washington also offer clean fuel credits. Meanwhile, federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, have advanced alternative fuel technologies through research and development funding. The surging interest in the biofuel industry has spurred the demand for biofuel supplies in the markets, although achieving profitability for advanced biofuels and low-carbon e-fuels remains challenging. This study aims to track U.S. alternative fuel production capacity expansion plans over the next 10 years and estimate impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By tracking built capacity and industry announcements of planned expansion, this study complements other studies which use models to predict changes in energy technologies and the associated GHG implications. Modeled projections of future technologies are often criticized for over or underestimating the cost and potential role of new technologies. The study focuses on sustainable aviation fuel, renewable diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable natural gas. Using facility-level data, we conducted a bottom-up analysis linking biofuel production pathways with corresponding pathways and parameterizations in the Argonne R&D GREET model. Results indicate that biofuel capacity could reach 3.8 exajoules in 2035, potentially reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 179 million tonnes, including the full life cycle. This corresponds to a 20% reduction in transportation and 5% in industry sector emissions by 2035, or a 3.6% reduction in economy-wide emissions. Overall, this study shows that while biofuel production capacity in the U.S. is expanding, the capacities remain limited compared to fuel demand. Uncertainty regarding the durability and extension of incentives may be dampening the pace of growth. Meanwhile, demonstrating the commercial potential for alternative fuels and climbing the learning curve for new technologies could lead to an increased pace of expansion in later years. This study offers insights for bioenergy stakeholders, highlighting biofuel technologies' contribution to U.S. energy system and emissions reduction over time based on producers' plans.

Biofuel Producers↗
DOE OSTI2026

Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Emissions Assessment Model (GLEAM) Model Documentation

The Greenhouse gas Life cycle Emissions Assessment Model (GLEAM) estimates life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from future scenarios of electricity generation considering a wide range of generation technologies. Building on the National Laboratory of the Rockies longstanding effort to quantify life cycle emissions by electricity generation technology under the LCA Harmonization Project, GLEAM streamlines the process of estimating cumulative greenhouse gas emissions on a life cycle basis. Given a set of inputs regarding annual installed and decommissioned generation capacity, as well as generation, GLEAM estimates the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by year. The model also offers optional modules to decompose carbon dioxide equivalent emissions into constituent greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) as well as estimate hydrogen leakage from relevant technologies. The results from GLEAM can be used to inform future electricity planning scenarios as well as investment or regulatory decisions.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1990

AX-5 space suit reliability model

The AX-5 is an all metal Extra-vehicular (EVA) space suit currently under consideration for use on Space Station Freedom. A reliability model was developed based on the suit's unique design and on projected joint cycle requirements. Three AX-5 space suit component joints were cycled under simulated load conditions in accordance with NASA's advanced space suit evaluation plan. This paper will describe the reliability model developed, the results of the cycle testing, and an interpretation of the model and test results in terms of projected Mean Time Between Failure for the AX-5. A discussion of the maintenance implications and life cycle for the AX-5 based on this projection is also included.

Reinhardt, AL↗
NASA NTRS2006

Advancing the practice of systems engineering at JPL

In FY 2004, JPL launched an initiative to improve the way it practices systems engineering. The Lab's senior management formed the Systems Engineering Advancement (SEA) Project in order to "significantly advance the practice and organizational capabilities of systems engineering at JPL on flight projects and ground support tasks." The scope of the SEA Project includes the systems engineering work performed in all three dimensions of a program, project, or task: 1. the full life-cycle, i.e., concept through end of operations 2. the full depth, i.e., Program, Project, System, Subsystem, Element (SE Levels 1 to 5) 3. the full technical scope, e.g., the flight, ground and launch systems, avionics, power, propulsion, telecommunications, thermal, etc. The initial focus of their efforts defined the following basic systems engineering functions at JPL: systems architecture, requirements management, interface definition, technical resource management, system design and analysis, system verification and validation, risk management, technical peer reviews, design process management and systems engineering task management, They also developed a list of highly valued personal behaviors of systems engineers, and are working to inculcate those behaviors into members of their systems engineering community. The SEA Project is developing products, services, and training to support managers and practitioners throughout the entire system lifecycle. As these are developed, each one needs to be systematically deployed. Hence, the SEA Project developed a deployment process that includes four aspects: infrastructure and operations, communication and outreach, education and training, and consulting support. In addition, the SEA Project has taken a proactive approach to organizational change management and customer relationship management - both concepts and approaches not usually invoked in an engineering environment. This paper'3 describes JPL's approach to advancing the practice of systems engineering at the Lab. It describes the general approach used and how they addressed the three key aspects of change: people, process and technology. It highlights a list of highly valued personal behaviors of systems engineers, discusses the various products, services and training that were developed, describes the deployment approach used, and concludes with several lessons learned.

process improvement↗
NASA NTRS2011

Systems Engineering Using Heritage Spacecraft Technology: Lessons Learned from Discovery and New Frontiers Deep Space Missions

In the design and development of complex spacecraft missions, project teams frequently assume the use of advanced technology or heritage systems to enable a mission or reduce the overall mission risk and cost. As projects proceed through the development life cycle, increasingly detailed knowledge of the advanced or heritage systems and the system environment identifies unanticipated issues that result in cost overruns or schedule impacts. The Discovery & New Frontiers (D&NF) Program Office recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays resulting from advanced technology or heritage assumptions for 6 D&NF missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that the cost and schedule growth did not result from technical hurdles requiring significant technology development. Instead, systems engineering processes did not identify critical issues early enough in the design cycle to ensure project schedules and estimated costs address the inherent risks. In general, the overruns were traceable to: inadequate understanding of the heritage system s behavior within the proposed spacecraft design and mission environment; an insufficient level of experience with the heritage system; or an inadequate scoping of the system-wide impacts necessary to implement the heritage or advanced technology. This presentation summarizes the study s findings and offers suggestions for improving the project s ability to identify and manage the risks inherent in the technology and heritage design solution.

Barley, Bryan↗
NASA NTRS2010

Heritage and Advanced Technology Systems Engineering Lessons Learned from NASA Deep Space Missions

In the design and development of complex spacecraft missions, project teams frequently assume the use of advanced technology systems or heritage systems to enable a mission or reduce the overall mission risk and cost. As projects proceed through the development life cycle, increasingly detailed knowledge of the advanced and heritage systems within the spacecraft and mission environment identifies unanticipated technical issues. Resolving these issues often results in cost overruns and schedule impacts. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery & New Frontiers (D&NF) Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays for 5 missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that optimistic hardware/software inheritance and technology readiness assumptions caused cost and schedule growth for four of the five missions studied. The cost and schedule growth was not found to result from technical hurdles requiring significant technology development. The projects institutional inheritance and technology readiness processes appear to adequately assess technology viability and prevent technical issues from impacting the final mission success. However, the processes do not appear to identify critical issues early enough in the design cycle to ensure project schedules and estimated costs address the inherent risks. In general, the overruns were traceable to: an inadequate understanding of the heritage system s behavior within the proposed spacecraft design and mission environment; an insufficient level of development experience with the heritage system; or an inadequate scoping of the system-wide impacts necessary to implement an advanced technology for space flight applications. The paper summarizes the study's lessons learned in more detail and offers suggestions for improving the project's ability to identify and manage the technology and heritage risks inherent in the design solution.

Barley, Bryan↗
NASA NTRS2010

Heritage Systems Engineering Lessons from NASA Deep Space Missions

In the design and development of complex spacecraft missions, project teams frequently assume the use of advanced technology systems or heritage systems to enable a mission or reduce the overall mission risk and cost. As projects proceed through the development life cycle, increasingly detailed knowledge of the advanced and heritage systems within the spacecraft and mission environment identifies unanticipated technical issues. Resolving these issues often results in cost overruns and schedule impacts. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery & New Frontiers (D&NF) Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays for 5 missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that optimistic hardware/software inheritance and technology readiness assumptions caused cost and schedule growth for all five missions studied. The cost and schedule growth was not found to be the result of technical hurdles requiring significant technology development. The projects institutional inheritance and technology readiness processes appear to adequately assess technology viability and prevent technical issues from impacting the final mission success. However, the processes do not appear to identify critical issues early enough in the design cycle to ensure project schedules and estimated costs address the inherent risks. In general, the overruns were traceable to: an inadequate understanding of the heritage system s behavior within the proposed spacecraft design and mission environment; an insufficient level of development experience with the heritage system; or an inadequate scoping of the systemwide impacts necessary to implement an advanced technology for space flight applications. The paper summarizes the study s lessons learned in more detail and offers suggestions for improving the project s ability to identify and manage the technology and heritage risks inherent in the design solution.

Barley, Bryan↗
NASA NTRS2008

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↗
NASA NTRS1981

Software engineering standards and practices

Guidelines are presented for the preparation of a software development plan. The various phases of a software development project are discussed throughout its life cycle including a general description of the software engineering standards and practices to be followed during each phase.

Durachka, R. W.↗
NASA NTRS1990

IDEF4 technical report, version 1.0

A language for the representation of object oriented software designs is described. IDEF4, a methodology for object-oriented design, is being developed as a design tool for software designers who use such object-oriented languages. Such languages include the Common LISP Object System, Flavors, C++, Smalltalk, Objective C, and others. Since effective usage of the object-oriented paradigm requires a different thought process than that used with conventional procedural or database languages, standard methodologies such as structure charts, data flow diagrams, and traditional data design models (hierarchical, relational, and network) are not sufficient. IDEF4 seeks to provide the necessary facilities to support the object-oriented design decision making process. Specifically, the two primary design goals of IDEF4 are: (1) to provide support for creating object oriented designs whose implementations will exhibit desirable life cycle qualities and reduce total implementation development time; and (2) to make it easy to evaluate object oriented code to determine whether or not the delivered product both conforms to the design and exhibits the desired life cycle qualities. The application of IDEF4 in the life cycle of a software development project is intended to be focused on those activities after a decision has been made to employ object oriented programming technology, but prior to detailed code specification.

Mayer, Richard J.↗
NASA NTRS1994

The Pacor 2 expert system: A case-based reasoning approach to troubleshooting

The Packet Processor 2 (Pacor 2) Data Capture Facility (DCF) acquires, captures, and performs level-zero processing of packet telemetry for spaceflight missions that adhere to communication services recommendations established by the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). A major goal of this project is to reduce life-cycle costs. One way to achieve this goal is to increase automation. Through automation, using expert systems, and other technologies, staffing requirements will remain static, which will enable the same number of analysts to support more missions. Analysts provide packet telemetry data evaluation and analysis services for all data received. Data that passes this evaluation is forwarded to the Data Distribution Facility (DDF) and released to scientists. Through troubleshooting, data that fails this evaluation is dumped and analyzed to determine if its quality can be improved before it is released. This paper describes a proof-of-concept prototype that troubleshoots data quality problems. The Pacor 2 expert system prototype uses the case-based reasoning (CBR) approach to development, an alternative to a rule-based approach. Because Pacor 2 is not operational, the prototype has been developed using cases that describe existing troubleshooting experience from currently operating missions. Through CBR, this experience will be available to analysts when Pacor 2 becomes operational. As Pacor 2 unique experience is gained, analysts will update the case base. In essence, analysts are training the system as they learn. Once the system has learned the cases most likely to recur, it can serve as an aide to inexperienced analysts, a refresher to experienced analysts for infrequently occurring problems, or a training tool for new analysts. The Expert System Development Methodology (ESDM) is being used to guide development.

Sary, Charisse↗
NASA NTRS2010

The ICARE Method

The ICARE method is a flexible, widely applicable method for systems engineers to solve problems and resolve issues in a complete and comprehensive manner. The method can be tailored by diverse users for direct application to their function (e.g. system integrators, design engineers, technical discipline leads, analysts, etc.). The clever acronym, ICARE, instills the attitude of accountability, safety, technical rigor and engagement in the problem resolution: Identify, Communicate, Assess, Report, Execute (ICARE). This method was developed through observation of Space Shuttle Propulsion Systems Engineering and Integration (PSE&I) office personnel approach in an attempt to succinctly describe the actions of an effective systems engineer. Additionally it evolved from an effort to make a broadly-defined checklist for a PSE&I worker to perform their responsibilities in an iterative and recursive manner. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Systems Engineering Handbook states, engineering of NASA systems requires a systematic and disciplined set of processes that are applied recursively and iteratively for the design, development, operation, maintenance, and closeout of systems throughout the life cycle of the programs and projects. ICARE is a method that can be applied within the boundaries and requirements of NASA s systems engineering set of processes to provide an elevated sense of duty and responsibility to crew and vehicle safety. The importance of a disciplined set of processes and a safety-conscious mindset increases with the complexity of the system. Moreover, the larger the system and the larger the workforce, the more important it is to encourage the usage of the ICARE method as widely as possible. According to the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, elements of a system can include people, hardware, software, facilities, policies and documents; all things required to produce system-level results, qualities, properties, characteristics, functions, behavior and performance. The ICARE method can be used to improve all elements of a system and, consequently, the system-level functional, physical and operational performance. Even though ICARE was specifically designed for a systems engineer, any person whose job is to examine another person, product, or process can use the ICARE method to improve effectiveness, implementation, usefulness, value, capability, efficiency, integration, design, and/or marketability. This paper provides the details of the ICARE method, emphasizing the method s application to systems engineering. In addition, a sample of other, non-systems engineering applications are briefly discussed to demonstrate how ICARE can be tailored to a variety of diverse jobs (from project management to parenting).

Henke, Luke↗
NASA NTRS1991

Portable Common Execution Environment (PCEE) project review: Peer review

The purpose of the review was to conduct an independent, in-depth analysis of the PCEE project and to provide the results of said review. The review team was tasked with evaluating the potential contribution of the PCEE project to the improvement of the life cycle support of mission and safety critical (MASC) computing components for large, complex, non-stop, distributed systems similar to those planned for such NASA programs as the space station, lunar outpost, and manned missions to Mars. Some conclusions of the review team are as follow: The PCEE project was given high marks for its breath of vision on the overall problem with MASC software; Correlated with the sweeping vision, the Review Team is very skeptical that any research project can successfully attack such a broad range of problems; and several recommendations are made such as to identify the components of the broad solution envisioned, prioritizing them with respect to their impact and the likely ability of the PCEE or others to attack them successfully, and to rewrite its Concept Document differentiating the problem description, objectives, approach, and results so that the project vision becomes assessible to others.

Locke, C. Douglass↗
NASA NTRS2004

An Exploratory Study of Cost Engineering in Axiomatic Design: Creation of the Cost Model Based on an FR-DP Map

Large complex projects cost large sums of money throughout their life cycle for a variety of reasons and causes. For such large programs, the credible estimation of the project cost, a quick assessment of the cost of making changes, and the management of the project budget with effective cost reduction determine the viability of the project. Cost engineering that deals with these issues requires a rigorous method and systematic processes. This paper introduces a logical framework to a&e effective cost engineering. The framework is built upon Axiomatic Design process. The structure in the Axiomatic Design process provides a good foundation to closely tie engineering design and cost information together. The cost framework presented in this paper is a systematic link between the functional domain (FRs), physical domain (DPs), cost domain (CUs), and a task/process-based model. The FR-DP map relates a system s functional requirements to design solutions across all levels and branches of the decomposition hierarchy. DPs are mapped into CUs, which provides a means to estimate the cost of design solutions - DPs - from the cost of the physical entities in the system - CUs. The task/process model describes the iterative process ot-developing each of the CUs, and is used to estimate the cost of CUs. By linking the four domains, this framework provides a superior traceability from requirements to cost information.

Lee, Taesik↗