SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “concurrent engineering design”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 163 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

JUSTIFI: Software for Improving Performance Objectives via Energy Efficiency

With growing energy supply concerns and rising costs, energy efficiency is a critical component of industrial energy resilience and competitiveness by directly reducing energy operating costs. Energy efficiency projects in manufacturing also yield valuable benefits to other key metrics, such as improved quality, reduced maintenance costs, improved safety, decreased pollution, and enhanced productivity. However, it is difficult to receive approval for energy efficiency projects, so implementation rates are low, even when meeting capital project payback period criteria. The inclusion and quantification of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in the decision-making process for energy efficiency projects can improve the overall financial payback period while demonstrating a positive impact on the firm's key performance metrics and business strategy. Despite their significant financial and strategic value, NEBs are rarely factored into decision-making due to lack of tools to effectively identify and quantify them. Therefore, a comprehensive and integrative approach is needed for the rapidly evolving energy landscape. To address these challenges, through funding from U.S. Department of Energy, our new assessment methodology integrates common continuous improvement six sigma concepts, such as the DMAIC process, and a protocol of guiding questions, into energy efficiency assessments to identify NEBs. We have also developed open-source software, JUSTIFI, to guide users through this process, data collection, and quantification. It is designed to be used concurrently with DOE energy system analysis software suite, MEASUR. Our methodology and tools inform energy assessors, firm engineering, decision makers, and workforce seeking to increase energy resilience and to maximize benefits aligned with performance metrics.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2026

JUSTIFI: Software for Improving Performance Objectives via Energy Efficiency

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

NASA NTRS1984

Research in computer science

Several short summaries of the work performed during this reporting period are presented. Topics discussed in this document include: (1) resilient seeded errors via simple techniques; (2) knowledge representation for engineering design; (3) analysis of faults in a multiversion software experiment; (4) implementation of parallel programming environment; (5) symbolic execution of concurrent programs; (6) two computer graphics systems for visualization of pressure distribution and convective density particles; (7) design of a source code management system; (8) vectorizing incomplete conjugate gradient on the Cyber 203/205; (9) extensions of domain testing theory and; (10) performance analyzer for the pisces system.

Ortega, J. M.↗

NASA NTRS1996

Integrating post-manufacturing issues into design and manufacturing decisions

An investigation is conducted on research into some of the fundamental issues underlying the design for manufacturing, service and recycling that affect engineering decisions early in the conceptual design phase of mechanical systems. The investigation focuses on a system-based approach to material selection, manufacturing methods and assembly processes related to overall product requirements, performance and life-cycle costs. Particular emphasis is placed on concurrent engineering decision support for post-manufacturing issues such as serviceability, recyclability, and product retirement.

Eubanks, Charles F.↗

NASA NTRS1984

Aerospace engineering design by systematic decomposition and multilevel optimization

A method for systematic analysis and optimization of large engineering systems, by decomposition of a large task into a set of smaller subtasks that is solved concurrently is described. The subtasks may be arranged in hierarchical levels. Analyses are carried out in each subtask using inputs received from other subtasks, and are followed by optimizations carried out from the bottom up. Each optimization at the lower levels is augmented by analysis of its sensitivity to the inputs received from other subtasks to account for the couplings among the subtasks in a formal manner. The analysis and optimization operations alternate iteratively until they converge to a system design whose performance is maximized with all constraints satisfied. The method, which is still under development, is tentatively validated by test cases in structural applications and an aircraft configuration optimization.

Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Multi-Organization Multi-Discipline Effort Developing a Mitigation Concept for Planetary Defense

There have been significant recent efforts in addressing mitigation approaches to neutralize Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHA). One such research effort was performed in 2015 by an integrated, inter-disciplinary team of asteroid scientists, energy deposition modeling scientists, payload engineers, orbital dynamist engineers, spacecraft discipline engineers, and systems architecture engineer from NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the Department of Energy (DoE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) and Sandia National Laboratories). The study team collaborated with GSFCs Integrated Design Centers Mission Design Lab (MDL) which engaged a team of GSFC flight hardware discipline engineers to work with GSFC, LANL, and LLNL NEA-related subject matter experts during a one-week intensive concept formulation study in an integrated concurrent engineering environment. This team has analyzed the first of several distinct study cases for a multi-year NASA research grant. This Case 1 study references the Near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) named Bennu as the notional target due to the availability of a very detailed Design Reference Asteroid (DRA) model for its orbit and physical characteristics (courtesy of the Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) mission team). The research involved the formulation and optimization of spacecraft trajectories to intercept Bennu, overall mission and architecture concepts, and high-fidelity modeling of both kinetic impact (spacecraft collision to change a NEAs momentum and orbit) and nuclear detonation effects on Bennu, for purposes of deflecting Bennu.

Planetary Defense↗

NASA NTRS1984

Software modifications to the Demonstration Advanced Avionics Systems (DAAS)

Critical information required for the design of integrated avionics suitable for generation aviation is applied towards software modifications for the Demonstration Advanced Avionics System (DAAS). The program emphasizes the use of data busing, distributed microprocessors, shared electronic displays and data entry devices, and improved functional capability. A demonstration advanced avionics system (DAAS) is designed, built, and flight tested in a Cessna 402, twin engine, general aviation aircraft. Software modifications are made to DAAS at Ames concurrent with the flight test program. The changes are the result of the experience obtained with the system at Ames, and the comments of the pilots who evaluated the system.

Nedell, B. F.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team (A-Team). The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an ATeam study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels (CML) are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram (SRD). In the process of developing the SRD, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid towards developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions and reveal the mission concept’s most compelling science. This paper will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.In June of 2011 a new collaborative engineering approach forearly concept formulation began in the JPL InnovationFoundry [1], six months later becoming the “A-Team” [2].Responding to a need for exploring mission architecturelevel trades [3], the A-Team precedes Team X [4,5] in asequence of concurrent engineering teams at JPL that can beused to mature a concept from a “cocktail napkin” level ideato a complete mission point design. The A-Team efficientlyexplores the science, implementation, and programmatictrade space in early concept formulation. Small, facilitatedgroups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitativelyassess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the tradespace through collaborative analysis and use of advancedmethods and tools. The A-Team process builds off theexperience within JPL and other recent approaches to earlyconcept formulation [6] including best practices of the JPLInnovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering &Formulation Section, Team Eureka and the Rapid MissionArchitecture Team[7].The A-Team is a focal point for innovative formulationapproaches and people within JPL. It relies on a largebackground of study resources, creative thinkers and “greybeard” scrutinizers, advanced tools, and subject matterexperts with both breadth and depth in experience andexpertise that are all available at JPL. The A-Team isdesigned to be a rapid and efficient process takingapproximately 6 weeks (the entire process can be as short asjust a few days or as long as up to three months) and costingthe equivalent of a work-month of a full-time employee orless. Studies begin with detailed planning and client reviewfollowed by study sessions, analysis work, and reporting.The staffing on each study is customized to the study goalsand objectives, and it is addressed early in the A-Teamprocess. Sessions are generally half-day or whole-day eventsand conducted over a series of days with focused agendas thatare moderated by a trained facilitator. Preliminary results andknowledge capture are available within hours of each session,and a final report is generally available two weeks later.One of the biggest challenges facing early conceptdevelopment is understanding the gradient in science returnversus various available mission scenarios and payload options. Often times, major areas of scientific inquiry havealready been prioritized by science groups, including throughthe National Research Council’s Decadal Studies inAstronomy, Planetary, and Earth Science. Yet science teamscontinue to struggle, especially in competitive missionsolicitations, to capture the right amount of scope that’sachievable within the cost constraints of the opportunity.Often the desire to completely and comprehensively study ascience area in just one mission (after all, true missionopportunities are rare) drives teams to take on too much,providing requirements that are unachievable within theresources of the opportunity without inducing unacceptableimplementation risk. Alternatively, science teams can seekto reduce risk by using an established instrument, but havenot thought through the traceability and key aspects of thescience question to justify its use. Both scenarios lead to badassumptions at the beginning of the concept development thatcan then ripple through implementation option choices,potentially preventing what would have been a good scienceinvestigation from being selected.The purpose of this paper is first to provide some additionalbackground and summary of the A-Team process, tools,people, and facilities. We then focus on the A-Teammethodology for overcoming the barriers of defining thescience scope well at the early concept development stage.This includes understanding the science story andtraceability, and then examining the gradient in science returnversus key characteristics of observables, developing theright payload and mission requirement specification throughexamining the science and implementation trade space.

Ziemer, John K.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Re-Engineering the Multimission Command System at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

This paper will discuss the design and implementation of the command software, especially trade-offs and lessons learned from practical operational use in JPL's Advanced Multimission Operations System.The command system provides an advanced multimission environment for secure, concurrent commanding of multiple spacecraft. The lessons learned have resulted in a re-engineering of the command system, especially in its user interface and new automation capabilities. This paper will also discuss new development work including a multimission command database toolkit, a universal command translator for sequencing and real-time commands, and incorporation of telecommand capabilities for new missions.

re-engineering↗

NASA NTRS1984

Aerospace engineering design by systematic decomposition and multilevel optimization

This paper describes a method for systematic analysis and optimization of large engineering systems, e.g., aircraft, by decomposition of a large task into a set of smaller, self-contained subtasks that can be solved concurrently. The subtasks may be arranged in many hierarchical levels with the assembled system at the top level. Analyses are carried out in each subtask using inputs received from other subtasks, and are followed by optimizations carried out from the bottom up. Each optimization at the lower levels is augmented by analysis of its sensitivity to the inputs received from other subtasks to account for the couplings among the subtasks in a formal manner. The analysis and optimization operations alternate iteratively until they converge to a system design whose performance is maximized with all constraints satisfied. The method, which is still under development, is tentatively validated by test cases in structural applications and an aircraft configuration optimization. It is pointed out that the method is intended to be compatible with the typical engineering organization and the modern technology of distributed computing.

Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Computer Program Re-layers Engineering Drawings

RULCHK computer program aids in structuring layers of information pertaining to part or assembly designed with software described in article "Software for Drawing Design Details Concurrently" (MFS-28444). Checks and optionally updates structure of layers for part. Enables designer to construct model and annotate its documentation without burden of manually layering part to conform to standards at design time.

Crosby, Dewey C., III↗

NASA NTRS1995

Developmental problems and their solution for the Space Shuttle main engine alternate liquid oxygen high-pressure turbopump: Anomaly or failure investigation the key

The Space Shuttle main engine (SSME) alternate high-pressure liquid oxygen pump experienced synchronous vibration and ball bearing life problems that were program threatening. The success of the program hinged on the ability to solve these development problems. The design and solutions to these problems are engirded in the lessons learned and experiences from prior programs, technology programs, and the ability to properly conduct failure or anomaly investigations. The failure investigation determines the problem cause and is the basis for recommending design solutions. For a complex problem, a comprehensive solution requires that formal investigation procedures be used, including fault trees, resolution logic, and action items worked through a concurrent engineering-multidiscipline team. The normal tendency to use an intuitive, cut-and-try approach will usually prove to be costly, both in money and time and will reach a less than optimum, poorly understood answer. The SSME alternate high-pressure oxidizer turbopump development has had two complex problems critical to program success: (1) high synchronous vibrations and (2) excessive ball bearing wear. This paper will use these two problems as examples of this formal failure investigation approach. The results of the team's investigation provides insight into the complexity of the turbomachinery technical discipline interacting/sensitivities and the fine balance of competing investigations required to solve problems and guarantee program success. It is very important to the solution process that maximum use be made of the resources that both the contractor and Government can bring to the problem in a supporting and noncompeting way. There is no place for the not-invented-here attitude. The resources include, but are not limited to: (1) specially skilled professionals; (2) supporting technologies; (3) computational codes and capabilities; and (4) test and manufacturing facilities.

Ryan, R.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Adding a Second Ku-Band Antenna to the International Space Station

The International Space Station, as originally developed, used the Ku-Band Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System communications link to transmit non-critical data to the ground. Since becoming operational, the use for the link evolved to include additional services that, although also not critical, were deemed to be necessary for the crew. The external Ku-Band Antennas were designed for transport to the ISS in the shuttle cargo bay and thus are not suitable for manifesting on any current cargo vehicle. The original intent was to stow two spare antennas on orbit in a protective container until such time as they were needed to replace a failing unit which is a long and complicated process due to the complexity of the removal and replacement procedure. The Boeing Company proposed manifesting one of those spare antennas in an operable configuration eliminating the need for an Extravehicular Activity (EVA) to correct the first failure and as such minimizing the time to hours rather than weeks required to restore the Ku-Band communications link after failures. After the first failure, an EVA would be scheduled to replace the failed antenna with the stowed spare antenna. Because the hot spare is activated internal to the ISS, the replacement of the failed unit can be done when convenient rather than in haste. This paper describes the methodology used to locate a suitable site to add a new antenna mast to the ISS as well the process followed to fabricate, deliver and install the new interface hardware. Because this was not planned when the ISS was originally designed, structural, power, data and Intermediate Frequency signal connections had to be found for use. With the movement of the P6 solar array element from the initial location in the center zenith location of the ISS to the end of the port side of the truss and concurrent relocation of one string of S-Band communications assets, there were candidate power, data and structural connections available on the Z1 Truss. The engineering team evaluated these residual interfaces for use and designed cabling and structural elements for the candidate interfaces. The antenna was recently installed on ULF-4 and has completed a preliminary checkout. Included in this check out were evaluation of the power level received from the TDRS and evaluation of the gimbal position feedback for consideration in the static bias pointing matrix. This process demonstrates the ability to modify and upgrade manned space vehicles as either need or technology requires.

DuSold, Chuck↗

NASA NTRS1990

Space Station logistics policy - Risk management from the top down

Considerations are presented in the area of risk management specifically relating to logistics and system supportability. These considerations form a basis for confident application of concurrent engineering principles to a development program, aiming at simultaneous consideration of support and logistics requirements within the engineering process as the system concept and designs develop. It is shown that, by applying such a process, the chances of minimizing program logistics and supportability risk in the long term can be improved. The problem of analyzing and minimizing integrated logistics risk for the Space Station Freedom Program is discussed.

Paules, Granville↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Rapid Development of Instrument Thermal Models: Perspectives and Guidelines from NASA Goddard’s Instrument Design Laboratory

The Instrument Design Laboratory (IDL), part of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Integrated Design Center (IDC), is a concurrent and collaborative environment which allows for rapid development of science instrumentation concepts within the span of less than two weeks. Science goals set by a Principal Investigator from government, industry or academia are translated into engineering requirements, from which a team of engineers spanning multiple disciplines use an established study process and a suite of analysis tools to work towards an instrument point design. As part of this process, a staff thermal engineer is tasked with designing a thermal control system which meets all incoming thermal requirements, while iterating real-time with other subsystems to ensure compatibility and functionality as a completed system. Thermal engineers on spaceflight projects typically have weeks or months to develop thermal models. However, the severe time limitation in this conceptual study setting makes thermal design particularly difficult, as rapid thermal modeling solely over the span of a few days is required to develop the instrument thermal design and understand the performance over its intended mission, especially if the instrument concept contains multiple thermal challenges such as dynamic environments or high heat dissipating components. In this paper, the authors provide a condensed guide for the most efficient ways to develop thermal models and conduct thermal analysis within the span of one-to-two weeks, as informed by decades of design experience and best practices in the IDL. The authors also focus on quick methods for determining worst-case thermal environments, deciding which modeling details are essential at this early phase, and quantifying the engineering resources necessary for thermal control. This paper concludes with specific thermal design tips for different instrument types across the electromagnetic spectrum.

Kan Yang↗

NASA NTRS2015

Flight Testing Surfaces Engineered for Mitigating Insect Adhesion on a Falcon HU-25C

Insect residue contamination on aircraft wings can decrease fuel efficiency in aircraft designed for natural laminar flow. Insect residues can cause a premature transition to turbulent flow, increasing fuel burn and making the aircraft less environmentally friendly. Surfaces, designed to minimize insect residue adhesion, were evaluated through flight testing on a Falcon HU-25C aircraft flown along the coast of Virginia and North Carolina. The surfaces were affixed to the wing leading edge and the aircraft remained at altitudes lower than 1000 feet throughout the flight to assure high insect density. The number of strikes on the engineered surfaces was compared to, and found to be lower than, untreated aluminum control surfaces flown concurrently. Optical profilometry was used to determine insect residue height and areal coverage. Differences in results between flight and laboratory tests suggest the importance of testing in realistic use environments to evaluate the effectiveness of engineered surface designs.

Shanahan, Michelle↗

NASA NTRS2016

Radiation Shielding for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

Design and analysis of radiation shielding for nuclear thermal propulsion has continued at Marshall Space Flight Center. A set of optimization tools are in development, and strategies for shielding optimization will be discussed. Considerations for the concurrent design of internal and external shielding are likely required for a mass optimal shield design. The task of reducing radiation dose to crew from a nuclear engine is considered to be less challenging than the task of thermal mitigation for cryogenic propellant, especially considering the likely implementation of additional crew shielding for protection from solar particles and cosmic rays. Further consideration is thus made for the thermal effects of radiation absorption in cryogenic propellant. Materials challenges and possible methods of manufacturing are also discussed.

Caffrey, Jarvis A.↗

NASA NTRS1995

The Capabilities of Space Stations

Over the past two years the U.S. space station program has evolved to a three-phased international program, with the first phase consisting of the use of the U.S. Space Shuttle and the upgrading and use of the Russian Mir Space Station, and the second and third phases consisting of the assembly and use of the new International Space Station. Projected capabilities for research, and plans for utilization, have also evolved and it has been difficult for those not directly involved in the design and engineering of these space stations to learn and understand their technical details. The Committee on the Space Station of the National Research Council, with the concurrence of NASA, undertook to write this short report in order to provide concise and objective information on space stations and platforms -- with emphasis on the Mir Space Station and International Space Station -- and to supply a summary of the capabilities of previous, existing, and planned space stations. In keeping with the committee charter and with the task statement for this report, the committee has summarized the research capabilities of five major space platforms: the International Space Station, the Mir Space Station, the Space Shuttle (with a Spacelab or Spacehab module in its cargo bay), the Space Station Freedom (which was redesigned to become the International Space Station in 1993 and 1994), and Skylab. By providing the summary, together with brief descriptions of the platforms, the committee hopes to assist interested readers, including scientists and engineers, government officials, and the general public, in evaluating the utility of each system to meet perceived user needs.

Source record↗