Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Project Schedule”

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 NTRS2011

Project Management Using Modern Guidance, Navigation and Control Theory

Implementing guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) theory principles and applying them to the human element of project management and control is not a new concept. As both the literature on the subject and the real-world applications are neither readily available nor comprehensive with regard to how such principles might be applied, this paper has been written to educate the project manager on the "laws of physics" of his or her project (not to teach a GN&C engineer how to become a project manager) and to provide an intuitive, mathematical explanation as to the control and behavior of projects. This paper will also address how the fundamental principles of modern GN&C were applied to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Constellation Program (CxP) space suit project, ensuring the project was managed within cost, schedule, and budget. A project that is akin to a physical system can be modeled and managed using the same over arching principles of GN&C that would be used if that project were a complex vehicle, a complex system(s), or complex software with time-varying processes (at times nonlinear) containing multiple data inputs of varying accuracy and a range of operating points. The classic GN&C theory approach could thus be applied to small, well-defined projects; yet when working with larger, multiyear projects necessitating multiple organizational structures, numerous external influences, and a multitude of diverse resources, modern GN&C principles are required to model and manage the project. The fundamental principles of a GN&C system incorporate these basic concepts: State, Behavior, Feedback Control, Navigation, Guidance and Planning Logic systems. The State of a system defines the aspects of the system that can change over time; e.g., position, velocity, acceleration, coordinate-based attitude, and temperature, etc. The Behavior of the system focuses more on what changes are possible within the system; this is denoted in the state of the system. The behavior of a system, as captured in the system modeling, when properly done will aid in accurately predicting future system performance. The Feedback Control system understands the state and behavior of the system and uses feedback to adjust control inputs into the system. The feedback, which is the right arm of the Control system, allows change to be affected in the overall system; it therefore is important to not only correctly identify the system feedback inputs, but also the system response to the feedback inputs. The Navigation system takes multiple data inputs and based on a priori knowledge of the inputs, develops a statistically based weighting of the inputs and measurements to determine the system's state. Guidance and Planning Logic of the system, complete with an understanding of where the system is (provided by the Navigation system), will in turn determine where the system needs to be and how to get it there. With any system/project, it is critical that the objective of the system/project be clearly defined -- not only to plan but to measure performance and to aid in guiding the system or the project. The system principles discussed above, which can be and have been applied to the current CxP space suit development project, can also be mapped to real-world constituents, thus allowing project managers to apply systems theories that are well defined in engineering and mathematics to a discipline (i.e., Project Management) that historically has been based in personal experience and intuition. This mapping of GN&C theory to Project Management will, in turn, permit a direct, methodical approach to Project Management, planning and control providing a tool to help predict (and guide) performance and an understanding of the project constraints, how the project can be controlled, and the impacts to external influences and inputs. This approach, to a project manager, flows down to the three bottom-line variables of cost, schedule, and scope ando the needed control of these three variables to successfully perform and complete a project.

Hill, Terry R.↗
NASA NTRS2018

EoC Study Update to Examine the Cost, Schedule and Technical Changes to NASA Projects

The original National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Explanation of Change (EoC) study was conducted in 2010 to understand the underlying causes of cost and schedule growth. The first study consisted of 25 missions launched from 2000 to 2010 and looked at the events that led to growth. These events were categorized into different bins that were rolled up to quantify whether the growth was due to internal planning, or internal execution, or from external forces and found that the growth was evenly distributed among those three categories. The result of the study presented nine considerations focused at reducing growth due to project external events and internal planning events. Although no one 'magic bullet' consideration was discovered in the previous work, the nine considerations taken as a whole were postulated to help reduce cost and schedule change in future NASA missions. A recent update was conducted that included investigating 8 missions developed since the previous study to determine if the results were different. Cost, schedule, and mass increases were analyzed from the start of Phase B through Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review to Launch. As shown in this paper, the results are better with overall cost and schedule growth being reduced. The paper will show a comparison of the previous results to the updated results to show specific reductions and provide an explanation of which recommendations were followed.

growth↗
NASA NTRS1976

The Seasat-A project - An overview

Scheduled for launch in the second quarter of calendar year 1978, the Seasat-A satellite is designed to provide all-weather global monitoring of sea surface temperature, significant wave height, surface wind speed and direction and departures from the marine geoid corresponding to ocean dynamic processes. These data will be obtained from an array of microwave instruments, two active ones (short pulse radar altimeter and wind field scatterometer) and one passive (scanning multichannel microwave radiometer). An experimental L-band synthetic aperture radar, operated on a selected basis for approximately four percent of the time, will provide land and ocean images with a resolution of 25 meters and a swath width close to 100 km for the study of coastal processes, sea ice and ocean wave characteristics. The mission objectives focus on an evaluation of the performance of the instruments in terms of their capabilities to characterize the desired geophysical quantities and the utility of such measurements to the study and exploitation of the world's oceans.

Dunne, J. A.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Project Management Using Modern Guidance, Navigation and Control Theory

The idea of control theory and its application to project management is not new, however literature on the topic and real-world applications is not as readily available and comprehensive in how all the principals of Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) apply. This paper will address how the fundamental principals of modern GN&C Theory have been applied to NASA's Constellation Space Suit project and the results in the ability to manage the project within cost, schedule and budget. A s with physical systems, projects can be modeled and managed with the same guiding principles of GN&C as if it were a complex vehicle, system or software with time-varying processes, at times non-linear responses, multiple data inputs of varying accuracy and a range of operating points. With such systems the classic approach could be applied to small and well-defined projects; however with larger, multi-year projects involving multiple organizational structures, external influences and a multitude of diverse resources, then modern control theory is required to model and control the project. The fundamental principals of G N&C stated that a system is comprised of these basic core concepts: State, Behavior, Control system, Navigation system, Guidance and Planning Logic, Feedback systems. The state of a system is a definition of the aspects of the dynamics of the system that can change, such as position, velocity, acceleration, coordinate-based attitude, temperature, etc. The behavior of the system is more of what changes are possible rather than what can change, which is captured in the state of the system. The behavior of a system is captured in the system modeling and if properly done, will aid in accurate system performance prediction in the future. The Control system understands the state and behavior of the system and feedback systems to adjust the control inputs into the system. The Navigation system takes the multiple data inputs and based upon a priori knowledge of the input, will develop a statistical-based weighting of the input to determine where the system currently is located. Guidance and Planning logic of the system with the understanding of where it is (provided by the navigation system) will in turn determine where it needs to be and how to get there. Lastly, the system Feedback system is the right arm of the control system to allow it to affect change in the overall system and therefore it is critical to not only correctly identify the system feedback inputs but also the system response to the feedback inputs. And with any systems project it is critical that the objective of the system be clearly defined for not only planning but to be used to measure performance and to aid in the guidance of the system or project.

Hill, Terry↗
NASA NTRS2004

Managing Projects with KPRO

How does a Project Management Office provide: Consistent, familiar, easily used scheduling tools to Project Managers and project team members? Provide a complete list of organization resources available for use on the project? Facilitate resource tracking and visibility? Provide the myriad reports that the organization requires? Facilitate consistent budget planning and cost performance information? Provide all of this to the entire organization? Provide for the unique requirement of the organization? and get people to use it? Answer: Implementation of the Kennedy space Center Projects and Resources Online (KPRO), a modified COTS solution.

Braden, Barry M.↗
DOE OSTI2025

CRiSPPy: An advanced hydropower scheduling tool for the Colorado River Storage Project

The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) plays a vital role in delivering reliable and cost-effective hydroelectric power to millions of customers across the western United States. The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) carries out WAPA’s mission in Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming and Texas. Achieving this mission requires effective management of the Colorado River system, and depends on the use of advanced analytical tools and modeling methodologies. For many years, CRSP has relied on the Generation and Transmission Maximization Superlite (GTMax SL) model for its mid-term and long-term hydroscheduling needs. However, the evolving energy market, power system operations, environmental rules, and hydrology conditions, coupled with advancements in computational capabilities, have necessitated the development of a more modern and robust solution. This report introduces the Colorado River Storage Project Python-based (CRiSPPy) model, a new, advanced hydropower scheduling tool developed to address CRSP ever-evolving challenges. CRiSPPy represents a significant leap forward in our ability to model and optimize the operation of the Colorado River system. It incorporates state-of-the-art optimization algorithms, enhanced data management capabilities, and an advanced graphical user interface, providing WAPA CRSP personnel with unprecedented insights and decision-making support. This document details the development, capabilities, and implementation of CRiSPPy. It is intended to serve as a comprehensive resource for WAPA staff, stakeholders, and anyone interested in the future of hydropower scheduling in the Colorado River Basin. We are confident that CRiSPPy will enhance WAPA's mission while adapting to the challenges of a dynamic and increasingly complex environment. The version of CRiSPPy described in this report is the version 2.3. New versions of CRiSPPy will be developed as the tool keeps evolving to address CRSP challenges.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2000

Wind Tunnel Management and Resource Optimization: A Systems Modeling Approach

Time, money, and, personnel are becoming increasingly scarce resources within government agencies due to a reduction in funding and the desire to demonstrate responsible economic efficiency. The ability of an organization to plan and schedule resources effectively can provide the necessary leverage to improve productivity, provide continuous support to all projects, and insure flexibility in a rapidly changing environment. Without adequate internal controls the organization is forced to rely on external support, waste precious resources, and risk an inefficient response to change. Management systems must be developed and applied that strive to maximize the utility of existing resources in order to achieve the goal of "faster, cheaper, better". An area of concern within NASA Langley Research Center was the scheduling, planning, and resource management of the Wind Tunnel Enterprise operations. Nine wind tunnels make up the Enterprise. Prior to this research, these wind tunnel groups did not employ a rigorous or standardized management planning system. In addition, each wind tunnel unit operated from a position of autonomy, with little coordination of clients, resources, or project control. For operating and planning purposes, each wind tunnel operating unit must balance inputs from a variety of sources. Although each unit is managed by individual Facility Operations groups, other stakeholders influence wind tunnel operations. These groups include, for example, the various researchers and clients who use the facility, the Facility System Engineering Division (FSED) tasked with wind tunnel repair and upgrade, the Langley Research Center (LaRC) Fabrication (FAB) group which fabricates repair parts and provides test model upkeep, the NASA and LARC Strategic Plans, and unscheduled use of the facilities by important clients. Expanding these influences horizontally through nine wind tunnel operations and vertically along the NASA management structure greatly increases the complexity of developing a model that can be used for successfully implementing a standardized management planning tool. The objective of this study was to implement an Integrated Wind Tunnel Planning System to improve the operations within the aeronautics testing and research group, in particular Wind Tunnel Enterprise. The study included following steps: Conducted literature search and expert discussions (NASA and Old Dominion University faculty), Performed environmental scan of NASA Langley wind tunnel operations as foundation for problem definition. Established operation requirements and evaluation methodologies. Examined windtunnel operations to map out the common characteristics, critical components, and system structure. Reviewed and evaluated various project scheduling and management systems for implementation, Evaluated and implemented "Theory of Constraints (TOC)" project scheduling methodology at NASA Langley wind tunnel operations together with NASA staff.

Jacobs, Derya, A.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Ares I-X Roll Control System Development

Project Managers often face challenging technical, schedule and budget issues. This presentation will explore how the Ares I-X Roll Control System Integrated Product Team (IPT) mitigated challenges such as concurrent engineering requirements and environments and evolving program processes, while successfully managing an aggressive project schedule and tight budget. IPT challenges also included communications and negotiations among inter- and intra-government agencies, including the US Air Force, NASA/MSFC Propulsion Engineering, LaRC, GRC, KSC, WSTF, and the Constellation Program. In order to successfully meet these challenges it was essential that the IPT define those items that most affected the schedule critical path, define early mitigation strategies to reduce technical, schedule, and budget risks, and maintain the end-product focus of an "unmanned test flight" context for the flight hardware. The makeup of the IPT and how it would function were also important considerations. The IPT consisted of NASA/MSFC (project management, engineering, and safety/quality) and contractors (Teledyne Brown Engineering and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne, who supplied heritage hardware experience). The early decision to have a small focused IPT working "badgelessly" across functional lines to eliminate functional stove-piping allowed for many more tasks to be done by fewer people. It also enhanced a sense of ownership of the products, while still being able to revert back to traditional roles in order to provide the required technical independence in design reviews and verification closures. This presentation will highlight several prominent issues and discuss how they were mitigated and the resulting Lessons Learned that might benefit other projects.

Unger, Ronald J.↗
NASA NTRS2004

An Enabling Technology for New Planning and Scheduling Paradigms

The Night Projects Directorate at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is developing a new planning and scheduling environment and a new scheduling algorithm to enable a paradigm shift in planning and scheduling concepts. Over the past 33 years Marshall has developed and evolved a paradigm for generating payload timelines for Skylab, Spacelab, various other Shuttle payloads, and the International Space Station. The current paradigm starts by collecting the requirements, called ?ask models," from the scientists and technologists for the tasks that are to be scheduled. Because of shortcomings in the current modeling schema, some requirements are entered as notes. Next, a cadre with knowledge of vehicle and hardware modifies these models to encompass and be compatible with the hardware model; again, notes are added when the modeling schema does not provide a better way to represent the requirements. Finally, the models are modified to be compatible with the scheduling engine. Then the models are submitted to the scheduling engine for automatic scheduling or, when requirements are expressed in notes, the timeline is built manually. A future paradigm would provide a scheduling engine that accepts separate science models and hardware models. The modeling schema would have the capability to represent all the requirements without resorting to notes. Furthermore, the scheduling engine would not require that the models be modified to account for the capabilities (limitations) of the scheduling engine. The enabling technology under development at Marshall has three major components: (1) A new modeling schema allows expressing all the requirements of the tasks without resorting to notes or awkward contrivances. The chosen modeling schema is both maximally expressive and easy to use. It utilizes graphical methods to show hierarchies of task constraints and networks of temporal relationships. (2) A new scheduling algorithm automatically schedules the models without the intervention of a scheduling expert. The algorithm is tuned for the constraint hierarchies and the complex temporal relationships provided by the modeling schema. It has an extensive search algorithm that can exploit timing flexibilities and constraint and relationship options. (3) An innovative architecture allows multiple remote users to simultaneously model science and technology requirements and other users to model vehicle and hardware characteristics. The architecture allows the remote users to submit scheduling requests directly to the scheduling engine and immediately see the results. These three components are integrated so that science and technology experts with no knowledge of the vehicle or hardware subsystems and no knowledge of the internal workings of the scheduling engine have the ability to build and submit scheduling requests and see the results. The immediate feedback will hone the users' modeling skills and ultimately enable them to produce the desired timeline. This paper summarizes the three components of the enabling technology and describes how this technology would make a new paradigm possible.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS2004

Enabling a New Planning and Scheduling Paradigm

The Flight Projects Directorate at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is developing a new planning and scheduling environment and a new scheduling algorithm to enable a paradigm shift in planning and scheduling concepts. Over the past 33 years Marshall has developed and evolved a paradigm for generating payload timelines for Skylab, Spacelab, various other Shuttle payloads, and the International Space Station. The current paradigm starts by collecting the requirements, called "tasks models," from the scientists and technologists for the tasks that they want to be done. Because of shortcomings in the current modeling schema, some requirements are entered as notes. Next a cadre with knowledge of vehicle and hardware modifies these models to encompass and be compatible with the hardware model; again, notes are added when the modeling schema does not provide a better way to represent the requirements. Finally, another cadre further modifies the models to be compatible with the scheduling engine. This last cadre also submits the models to the scheduling engine or builds the timeline manually to accommodate requirements that are expressed in notes. A future paradigm would provide a scheduling engine that accepts separate science models and hardware models. The modeling schema would have the capability to represent all the requirements without resorting to notes. Furthermore, the scheduling engine would not require that the models be modified to account for the capabilities (limitations) of the scheduling engine. The enabling technology under development at Marshall has three major components. (1) A new modeling schema allows expressing all the requirements of the tasks without resorting to notes or awkward contrivances. The chosen modeling schema is both maximally expressive and easy to use. It utilizes graphics methods to show hierarchies of task constraints and networks of temporal relationships. (2) A new scheduling algorithm automatically schedules the models without the intervention of a scheduling expert. The algorithm is tuned for the constraint hierarchies and the complex temporal relationships provided by the modeling schema. It has an extensive search algorithm which can exploit timing flexibilities and constraint and relationship options. (3) A web-based architecture allows multiple remote users to simultaneously model science and technology requirements and other users to model vehicle and hardware characteristics. The architecture allows the users to submit scheduling requests directly to the scheduling engine and immediately see the results. These three components are integrated so that science and technology experts with no knowledge of the vehicle or hardware subsystems and no knowledge of the internal workings of the scheduling engine have the ability to build and submit scheduling requests and see the results. The immediate feedback will hone the users' modeling skills and ultimately enable them to produce the desired timeline. This paper summarizes the three components of the enabling technology and describes how this technology would make a new paradigm possible.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS1959

Saturn Report

Both the Department of Defense and NASA have clearly defined missions for the Saturn which cannot be performed by a lesser vehicle. In addition, many missions which can be marginally performed by less capable vehicles in the early years, will benefit greatly by use of the Saturn. Lastly, there are, no doubt, missions for the Saturn which cannot be clearly foresen at this time but which will come to light in the normal course of events. Although the Saturn need Is well established, the selection of the upper stage configurations remains to be made. Among the many factors to be considered in such a selection, the mission requirements are among the most important and caution must be exercised in compromising the potential of the Saturn to meet these requirements for such expedients as somewhat faster and less expensive vehicle development schedules. It is thus the purpose of this chapter to review for the reader the many Saturn applications of foreseeable interest to the Department of Defense and NASA. Having done this, the relative priorities of the missions will be discussed and the relatively high priority missions will be incorporated into a suggested launch schedule. Other NASA projects leading into and supporting the Saturn projects will be indicated. A funding plan based on the Saturn launch schedule will then be developed for the spacecraft and payloads involved. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the constraints placed upon the Saturn configuration by the missions and payloads.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2018

Developing a Standard Test Program for CubeSats

Developers of CubeSats and other miniaturized satellites often lack the schedule and budget to devise and implement an extensive environmental test campaign. CubeSat projects have become increasingly common at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) over the past few years, revealing the need for a standard CubeSat test program to maximize the likelihood of mission success while meeting project cost and schedule constraints. In this paper, we describe our efforts to develop a general protoflight test program for CubeSats in low-Earth orbit (LEO) and compare this test program with a typical test program for non-CubeSat LEO satellites and instruments. We investigate the effectiveness of the CubeSat test program—both as a design and workmanship screen and as a standard needing minimal project-specific tailoring—and discuss potential areas for improvement.

Seal, Gabriella L.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Assured crew return capability Crew Emergency Return Vehicle (CERV) avionics

The Crew Emergency Return Vehicle (CERV) is being defined to provide Assured Crew Return Capability (ACRC) for Space Station Freedom. The CERV, in providing the standby lifeboat capability, would remain in a dormat mode over long periods of time as would a lifeboat on a ship at sea. The vehicle must be simple, reliable, and constantly available to assure the crew's safety. The CERV must also provide this capability in a cost effective and affordable manner. The CERV Project philosophy of a simple vehicle is to maximize its useability by a physically deconditioned crew. The vehicle reliability goes unquestioned since, when needed, it is the vehicle of last resort. Therefore, its systems and subsystems must be simple, proven, state-of-the-art technology with sufficient redundancy to make it available for use as required for the life of the program. The CERV Project Phase 1'/2 Request for Proposal (RFP) is currently scheduled for release on October 2, 1989. The Phase 1'/2 effort will affirm the existing project requirements or amend and modify them based on a thorough evaluation of the contractor(s) recommendations. The system definition phase, Phase 2, will serve to define CERV systems and subsystems. The current CERV Project schedule has Phase 2 scheduled to begin October 1990. Since a firm CERV avionics design is not in place at this time, the treatment of the CERV avionics complement for the reference configuration is not intended to express a preference with regard to a system or subsystem.

Myers, Harvey Dean↗
NASA NTRS1972

Astronomy sortie missions definition study. Volume 4: Program development requirements

Program development requirements for the selected Astronomy Sortie Missions concept were generated and are presented in four parts as follows: (1)the gross planning requirements that must be considered in subsequent phases of the project; (2)the schedules and logic networks for the design, development, and operation of the overall project; (3)the supporting research and technology required to support the project; and (4)the work breakdown data, from which cost data will be generated. Data reported in each part includes the appropriate rationale with explanations of the guidelines and assumptions that were used in the analyses and estimates.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

Reducing NPR 7120.5D to Practice: Transitioning from Design Reviews to the SIR Hardware Review

The Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission was the first Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) project initiated under NASA's revised rules for space flight project management, NPR 7120.5D, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements." NASA selected GRAIL through a competitive Announcement of Opportunity process and funded its Phase B Preliminary Design effort. The team's first major milestone was a JPL institutional milestone, the Project Mission System Review (PMSR), which proved an excellent tune-up for the end-of-Phase-B NASA life-cycle review, the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). Building on JPL experience on the Prometheus and Juno projects, the team successfully organized for and conducted these reviews on an aggressive schedule. For the Project Critical Design Review (CDR), lessons learned from the PDR and updated Standing Review Board (SRB) practices from the Agency were factored into the review preparation effort. Additionally, the review was held at the Principal Investigator's institution, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, rather than at the project management center (JPL), which necessitated additional cross-country coordination steps. The PMSR, PDR, and CDR were design reviews and largely paper-oriented. For the System Integration Review (SIR), the project needed to transition to a hardware review and deal with paper in a very different manner. While many of the practices employed for the design reviews were modified and retained (e.g., review preparation team, gate products management, pre-reviews, SRB coordination), the review agenda, presentation style, and slide templates were significantly changed. A key success factor concerned the handling of project open paper, which was succinctly and effectively communicated to the SRB in presentations.This paper provides a brief overview of the GRAIL mission and its project management challenges, provides a detailed description of project SIR preparation and execution activities, including positive and negative lessons learned and identifies recommendations for future NASA (and non- NASA) project teams.

NPR 7120.5D↗