AeroSat - International Satellite Aerosol Science Network: Bringing the International Aerosol Remote-sensing Community Together to Brainstorm the Way Forward
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
AeroSat↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Brainstorming”
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.
Communication and Social Science in the Satellite Needs Working Group (SNWG) Assessment
Every two years, NASA conducts an in-depth assessment of the satellite Earth observation data needs of U.S. federal civilian agencies submitted through the Satellite Needs Working Group (SNWG) survey. The SNWG assessment occurs at the nexus of science and people: in the 2022 assessment, over 100 scientists across NASA, NOAA, and USGS were organized to interview over 165 end users at 29 agencies about their unique satellite needs, brainstorm a range of solutions to meet those needs, and communicate back to agencies about resources available for meeting their needs. The innovative approaches to communication, organization, and team make-up that will be described in this talk are vital to the success of the SNWG assessment. As the first major step in evaluating a satellite need, the tri-agency assessment team interviews the agency SMEs who submitted the survey to understand how satellite data could help inform their decision-making process or enable them to fulfill their key responsibilities. In preparation, NASA utilizes social scientists to provide training to all assessment participants on how to hold a discovery-centered interview, including starting with a purpose, creating a welcoming space, exploring all aspects and edges of the need, and brainstorming possible solutions to meet the need. After the interviews, assessment participants propose and review solutions across all thematic areas, seeking those that will help multiple agencies. During the selection process, agencies expected to benefit from a new solution have an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed activity and are invited to co-design the solution with NASA, should it be implemented. The organization of needs and solutions takes place in Asana, a workflow management tool adapted for the SNWG assessment, and the Report Generation Tool (RGT) enables assessment teams to collaboratively write reports that are returned to each agency with information on current and upcoming resources that help meet their needs.
Katrina Virts↗
Forging the Forge
As part of the NASA Johnson Space Center’s (JSC) effort to revitalize and recommit to our “Dare Unite Explore” vision for the future, the Center is exploring a new strategy to spread the innovation mindset and increase collaboration across the workforce. In order to maintain JSC’s leadership in human spaceflight, there is a need for working at the speed of commercial industry, breaking down silos between organizations, improving innovation and increasing workforce flexibility. Through brainstorming concepts and benchmarking other facilities, the leadership team evaluated several ideas, assessed constraints and derived that an “Innovation Team” was relatively easy to adopt. Modeled after productive teams like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Innovation Foundry and Glenn Research Center's Compass team, JSC is laying the foundation of a new innovation team called the Forge. This team is as much about getting employees tempered in the ways of innovative thinking as it is about refining design studies and hammering out proposals. By the dictionary definition of the verb, forge can mean either to move ahead slowly and steadily or to move with a sudden increase of speed and power. Driving cultural change in a large government organization like NASA often involves slow perseverance with small injections of momentum to forge ahead. Leveraging lessons learned from the Innovation Foundry and Compass, this paper describes how the collaborative, concurrent engineering framework was tailored to JSC’s needs, as well as the aspects that were considered given JSC’s operation-focused, Program-driven landscape. Our process to drive cultural change, the steps taken, and challenges encountered are discussed. The first two pilots of the teaming framework are described with initial results presented in terms of employee engagement and fostering innovation. We also describe the planned future work and next steps to continue to push the initiative forward. Long has the Center been resting on its operations heritage, now we are forging a new path to Dare to expand frontiers, Unite with our partners and Explore space to benefit humanity.
Culture Change↗
Social factors in space station interiors
Using the example of the chair, which is often written into space station planning but which serves no non-cultural function in zero gravity, difficulties in overcoming cultural assumptions are discussed. An experimental approach is called for which would allow designers to separate cultural assumptions from logistic, social and psychological necessities. Simulations, systematic doubt and monitored brainstorming are recommended as part of basic research so that the designer will approach the problems of space module design with a complete program.
Cranz, Galen↗
Return to the Moon: Lunar robotic science missions
There are two important aspects of the Moon and its materials which must be addressed in preparation for a manned return to the Moon and establishment of a lunar base. These involve its geologic science and resource utilization. Knowledge of the Moon forms the basis for interpretations of the planetary science of the terrestrial planets and their satellites; and there are numerous exciting explorations into the geologic science of the Moon to be conducted using orbiter and lander missions. In addition, the rocks and minerals and soils of the Moon will be the basic raw materials for a lunar outpost; and the In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) of lunar materials must be considered in detail before any manned return to the Moon. Both of these fields -- planetary science and resource assessment -- will necessitate the collection of considerable amounts of new data, only obtainable from lunar-orbit remote sensing and robotic landers. For over fifteen years, there have been a considerable number of workshops, meetings, etc. with their subsequent 'white papers' which have detailed plans for a return to the Moon. The Lunar Observer mission, although grandiose, seems to have been too expensive for the austere budgets of the last several years. However, the tens of thousands of man-hours that have gone into 'brainstorming' and production of plans and reports have provided the precursor material for today's missions. It has been only since last year (1991) that realistic optimism for lunar orbiters and soft landers has come forth. Plans are for 1995 and 1996 'Early Robotic Missions' to the Moon, with the collection of data necessary for answering several of the major problems in lunar science, as well as for resource and site evaluation, in preparation for soft landers and a manned-presence on the Moon.
Taylor, Lawrence A.↗
The 1992 town meetings: Toward a shared vision
With the goal of developing a shared vision for the future of NASA, the U.S. civil aeronautics and space agency conducted a series of town meetings across the country in Nov. and Dec. 1992. Specifically, NASA sought comment on the Agency's new vision statement and mission values, which were developed by the Agency's employees in an effort to redefine NASA's priorities and purpose for the 1990's and beyond. In practice, the meetings constituted a sort of nationwide brainstorming session on how to make aeronautics and space research more relevant to people's daily lives. Primary findings, NASA's action plan, town meeting proceedings, and conclusions are described.
Source record↗
Upward appraisal as a means for improving supervisory performance and promoting process improvement, with long-term implications for organizational change
This study represents the implementation phase of an organizational development project which was initiated last year in the Management Support Division (MSD) at Langley Research Center to diagnose organizational functioning. As a result of MSD survey data from last year's effort, a Quality Action Team was created to address the responses compiled from the MSD Organizational Assessment Questionnaire and Follow-Up Questionnaire. The team was officially named the MSD Employee Relations Improvement Team (MERIT). MERIT's goal was to analyze major concerns generated by the questionnaires and to present feasible solutions to management which would improve supervisory performance, promote process improvement; and ultimately, lead to a better organization. The team met weekly and was very disciplined in following guidelines needed to ensure a fully functioning team. Several TQM tools were used during the team process, including brainstorming and the cause and effect diagram. One of the products produced by MERIT was a 'report card', more formally known as an upward appraisal system, to evaluate supervisory performance in the division office, its three branches, and in teams. Major areas of emphasis on the 47 item report card were those identified by employees through the previously administered questionnaires as needing to be improved; specifically, training, recognition, teamwork, supervision and leadership, and communication. MERIT created an enlarged and modified version of the report card which enabled scores for each individual supervisor to be recorded on a separate form, along with summary results and employee comments. Report card results have been compiled and fed back to the Division Chief and Assistant Division Chief. These individuals will in turn, feed the results back to the remaining supervisors and the team leaders. Although results differ among supervisors, some similarities exist. Communication generally appears to be adequate, which represents an improvement over last year. In contrast, recognition and teamwork are the two major areas where improvement in supervisory performance seems to be most needed. The initial report card results will serve as a baseline against which future performance ratings will be compared. Once supervisors have been presented with their data and given an opportunity to analyze and discus the results, they will be assisted in developing an action plan for improving their performance and work processes. They will be provided with ongoing support from management in following through with the action plan.
Siegfeldt, Denise V.↗
Report of results of benchmarking survey of central heating operations at NASA centers and various corporations
In recent years, Total Quality Management has swept across the country. Many companies and the Government have started looking at every aspect on how business is done and how money is spent. The idea or goal is to provide a service that is better, faster and cheaper. The first step in this process is to document or measure the process or operation as it stands now. For Lewis Research Center, this report is the first step in the analysis of heating plant operations. This report establishes the original benchmark that can be referred to in the future. The report also provides a comparison to other organization's heating plants to help in the brainstorming of new ideas. The next step is to propose and implement changes that would meet the goals as mentioned above. After the changes have been implemented the measuring process starts over again. This provides for a continuous improvement process.
Hoffman, Thomas R.↗
NASA Research Announcement Phase 1 Report and Phase 2 Proposal for the Development of a Power Assisted Space Suit Glove Assembly
In July of 1996, ILC Dover was awarded Phase 1 of a contract for NASA to develop a prototype Power Assisted Space Suit glove to enhance the performance of astronauts during Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA). This report summarizes the work performed to date on Phase 1, and details the work to be conducted on Phase 2 of the program. Phase 1 of the program consisted of research and review of related technical sources, concept brainstorming, baseline design development, modeling and analysis, component mock-up testing, and test data analysis. ILC worked in conjunction with the University of Maryland's Space Systems Laboratory (SSL) to develop the power assisted glove. Phase 2 activities will focus on the design maturation and the manufacture of a working prototype system. The prototype will be tested and evaluated in conjunction with existing space suit glove technology to determine the performance enhancement anticipated with the implementation of the power assisted joint technology in space suit gloves.
Cadogan, Dave↗
An Example of Concurrent Engineering
The Collaborative Engineering Design and Analysis Room (CEDAR) facility allows on-the- spot design review capability for any project during all phases of development. The required disciplines assemble in this facility to work on any problems (analysis, manufacturing, inspection, etc.) associated with a particular design. A small highly focused team of specialists can meet in this room to better expedite the process of developing a solution to an engineering task within the framework of the constraints that are unique to each discipline. This facility provides the engineering tools and translators to develop a concept within the confines of the room or with remote team members that could access the team's data from other locations. The CEDAR area is envisioned as excellent for failure investigation meetings to be conducted where the computer capabilities can be utilized in conjunction with the Smart Board display to develop failure trees, brainstorm failure modes, and evaluate possible solutions.
Rowe, Sidney↗
X-traktor: A Rookie Robot, Simple, Yet Complex, Impeccably Designed, a Very Innovative Multidisciplinary Engineering Masterpiece
FIRST is the acronym of For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. FIRST is a 501.C.3 non-profit organization whose mission is to generate an interest in science and engineering among today's young adults and youth. This mission is accomplished through a robot competition held annually in the spring of each year. NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, Education Programs Department, awarded a grant to Lee High School, the sole engineering magnet school in Huntsville, Alabama. MSFC awarded the grant in hopes of fulfilling its goal of giving back invaluable resources to its community and engineers, as well as educating tomorrow's work force in the high-tech area of science and technology. Marshall engineers, Lee High School students and teachers, and a host of other volunteers and parents officially initiated this robot design process and competitive strategic game plan. The FIRST Robotics Competition is a national engineering contest, which immerses high school students in the exciting world of science and engineering. Teaming with engineers from government agencies, businesses, and universities enables the students to learn about the engineering profession. The students and engineers have six weeks to work together to brainstorm, design, procure, construct, and test their robot. The team then competes in a spirited, 'no-holds barred' tournament, complete with referees, other FIRST-designed robots, cheerleaders, and time clocks. The partnerships developed between schools, government agencies, businesses, and universities provide an exchange of resources and talent that build cooperation and expose students to new and rewarding career options. The result is a fun, exciting, and stimulating environment in which all participants discover the important connections between classroom experiences and real-world applications. This paper will highlight the story, engineering development, and evolutionary design of Xtraktor, the rookie robot, a manufacturing marvel and engineering achievement.
Henderson, A. J., Jr.↗
Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustics Technology Evaluation and Selection Using a Multi-Attribute Decision Making Process and Non-Deterministic Design
The Systems Analysis Branch at NASA Langley Research Center has investigated revolutionary Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustics (PAA) technologies and configurations for a Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) type aircraft as part of its research for NASA s Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) Project. Within the context of the long-term NASA goal of reducing the perceived aircraft noise level by a factor of 4 relative to 1997 state of the art, major configuration changes in the propulsion airframe integration system were explored with noise as a primary design consideration. An initial down-select and assessment of candidate PAA technologies for the BWB was performed using a Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) process consisting of organized brainstorming and decision-making tools. The assessments focused on what effect the PAA technologies had on both the overall noise level of the BWB and what effect they had on other major design considerations such as weight, performance and cost. A probabilistic systems analysis of the PAA configurations that presented the best noise reductions with the least negative impact on the system was then performed. Detailed results from the MADM study and the probabilistic systems analysis will be published in the near future.
Burg, Cecile M.↗
The NASA Continuous Risk Management Process
As an intern this summer in the GRC Risk Management Office, I have become familiar with the NASA Continuous Risk Management Process. In this process, risk is considered in terms of the probability that an undesired event will occur and the impact of the event, should it occur (ref., NASA-NPG: 7120.5). Risk management belongs in every part of every project and should be ongoing from start to finish. Another key point is that a risk is not a problem until it has happened. With that in mind, there is a six step cycle for continuous risk management that prevents risks from becoming problems. The steps are: identify, analyze, plan, track, control, and communicate & document. Incorporated in the first step are several methods to identify risks such as brainstorming and using lessons learned. Once a risk is identified, a risk statement is made on a risk information sheet consisting of a single condition and one or more consequences. There can also be a context section where the risk is explained in more detail. Additionally there are three main goals of analyzing a risk, which are evaluate, classify, and prioritize. Here is where a value is given to the attributes of a risk &e., probability, impact, and timeframe) based on a multi-level classification system (e.g., low, medium, high). It is important to keep in mind that the definitions of these levels are probably different for each project. Furthermore the risks can be combined into groups. Then, the risks are prioritized to see what risk is necessary to mitigate first. After the risks are analyzed, a plan is made to mitigate as many risks as feasible. Each risk should be assigned to someone in the project with knowledge in the area of the risk. Then the possible approaches to choose from are: research, accept, watch, or mitigate. Next, all risks, mitigated or not, are tracked either individually or in groups. As the plan is executed, risks are re-evaluated, and the attribute values are adjusted as necessary. Metrics are established and monitored as tools for risk tracking. Also a trigger or threshold should be set on the metric data that indicates when an action is needed. Results of this tracking are usually evaluated and reported in a relevant format at weekly or monthly meetings. Choosing controls is the subsequent step, which involves the effects of the tracking. The three basic controls are: close, continue tracking, and re- plan. Finally communicate & document is the last step, but occurs throughout the process. It is vital that main risks, plans, changes, and progress are known by everyone in the project. A good way to keep everyone updated and inform other projects of common issues is by thoroughly documenting project risks. NASA sees value in risk management and believes that projects have greater probability or success by using the NASA Continuous Risk Management Process.
Pokorny, Frank M.↗
Microspheres in Plasma Display Panels
Filling small bubbles of molten glass with gases is just as difficult as it sounds, but the technical staff at NASA is not known to shy away from a difficult task. When Microsphere Systems, Inc. (MSI), of Ypsilanti, Michigan, and Imaging Systems Technology, Inc. (IST), of Toledo, Ohio, were trying to push the limits of plasma displays but were having difficulty with the designs, NASA s Glenn Garrett Morgan Commercialization Initiative (GMCI) assembled key personnel at Glenn Research Center and Ohio State University for a brainstorming session to come up with a solution for the companies. They needed a system that could produce hollow, glass micro-sized spheres (microspheres) that could be filled with a variety of gasses. But the extremely high temperature required to force the micro-sized glass bubbles to form at the tip of a metal nozzle resulted in severe discoloration of the microspheres. After countless experiments on various glass-metal combinations, they had turned to the GMCI for help. NASA experts in advanced metals, ceramics, and glass concluded that a new design approach was necessary. The team determined that what was needed was a phosphate glass composition that would remain transparent, and they went to work on a solution. Six weeks later, using the design tips from the NASA team, Tim Henderson, president of MSI, had designed a new system in which all surfaces in contact with the molten glass would be ceramic instead of metal. Meanwhile, IST was able to complete a Phase I Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and supply a potential customer with samples of the microspheres for evaluation as filler materials for high-performance insulations.
Source record↗
Acting on Lessons Learned: A NASA Glenn Acoustics Branch Perspective
Lessons learned from the International Space Station have indicated that early attention to acoustics will be key to achieving safer, more productive environments for new long duration missions. Fans are known to be dominant noise sources, and reducing fan noise poses challenges for fan manufacturers and systems engineers. The NASA Glenn Acoustics Branch has considered ways in which expertise and capabilities traditionally used to understand and mitigate aircraft engine noise can be used to address small fan noise issues in Exploration and Information Technology applications. Many could benefit if NASA can capture what is known about small fan aero and acoustic performance in a "Guide for the Design, Selection, and Installation of Fans for Spaceflight Applications." A draft outline for this document will be offered as a useful starting point for brainstorming ideas for the various smaller, near-term research projects that would need to be addressed first.
Koch, L. Danielle↗
Multiuser Collaboration with Networked Mobile Devices
In this paper we describe a multiuser collaboration infrastructure that enables multiple mission scientists to remotely and collaboratively interact with visualization and planning software, using wireless networked personal digital assistants(PDAs) and other mobile devices. During ground operations of planetary rover and lander missions, scientists need to meet daily to review downlinked data and plan science activities. For example, scientists use the Science Activity Planner (SAP) in the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission to visualize downlinked data and plan rover activities during the science meetings [1]. Computer displays are projected onto large screens in the meeting room to enable the scientists to view and discuss downlinked images and data displayed by SAP and other software applications. However, only one person can interact with the software applications because input to the computer is limited to a single mouse and keyboard. As a result, the scientists have to verbally express their intentions, such as selecting a target at a particular location on the Mars terrain image, to that person in order to interact with the applications. This constrains communication and limits the returns of science planning. Furthermore, ground operations for Mars missions are fundamentally constrained by the short turnaround time for science and engineering teams to process and analyze data, plan the next uplink, generate command sequences, and transmit the uplink to the vehicle [2]. Therefore, improving ground operations is crucial to the success of Mars missions. The multiuser collaboration infrastructure enables users to control software applications remotely and collaboratively using mobile devices. The infrastructure includes (1) human-computer interaction techniques to provide natural, fast, and accurate inputs, (2) a communications protocol to ensure reliable and efficient coordination of the input devices and host computers, (3) an application-independent middleware that maintains the states, sessions, and interactions of individual users of the software applications, (4) an application programming interface to enable tight integration of applications and the middleware. The infrastructure is able to support any software applications running under the Windows or Unix platforms. The resulting technologies not only are applicable to NASA mission operations, but also useful in other situations such as design reviews, brainstorming sessions, and business meetings, as they can benefit from having the participants concurrently interact with the software applications (e.g., presentation applications and CAD design tools) to illustrate their ideas and provide inputs.
ground operations↗
Technology Transfer Challenges: A Case Study of User-Centered Design in NASA's Systems Engineering Culture
The Upper Stage (US) section of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Ares I rocket will require internal access platforms for maintenance tasks performed by humans inside the vehicle. Tasks will occur during expensive critical path operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) including vehicle stacking and launch preparation activities. Platforms must be translated through a small human access hatch, installed in an enclosed worksite environment, support the weight of ground operators and be removed before flight - and their design must minimize additional vehicle mass at attachment points. This paper describes the application of a user-centered conceptual design process and the unique challenges encountered within NASA's systems engineering culture focused on requirements and "heritage hardware". The NASA design team at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) initiated the user-centered design process by studying heritage internal access kits and proposing new design concepts during brainstorming sessions. Simultaneously, they partnered with the Technology Transfer/Innovative Partnerships Program to research inflatable structures and dynamic scaffolding solutions that could enable ground operator access. While this creative, technology-oriented exploration was encouraged by upper management, some design stakeholders consistently opposed ideas utilizing novel, untested equipment. Subsequent collaboration with an engineering consulting firm improved the technical credibility of several options, however, there was continued resistance from team members focused on meeting system requirements with pre-certified hardware. After a six-month idea-generating phase, an intensive six-week effort produced viable design concepts that justified additional vehicle mass while optimizing the human factors of platform installation and use. Although these selected final concepts closely resemble heritage internal access platforms, challenges from the application of the user-centered process provided valuable lessons for improving future collaborative conceptual design efforts.
Quick, Jason↗
LCROSS: A High Return, Small Satellite Mission
Early in 2006, the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) held a competition for NASA Centers to propose innovative ideas for a secondary payload mission to launch with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) to the Moon. The successful proposal could cost no more than $80 million dollars (less was preferred), would have to be ready to launch with the LRO in 31 months, could weigh no more than 1000 kg (fuelled), and would be designated a risk-tolerant "Class D" mission. In effect, NASA was offering a fixed-price contract to the winning NASA team to stay within a cost and schedule cap by accepting an unusually elevated risk position. To address this Announcement of Opportunity to develop a cost-and-schedule-capped secondary payload mission to fly with LRO, NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) in Moffett Field, CA, USA embarked on a brainstorming effort termed "Blue Ice" in which a small team was asked to explore a number of mission scenarios that might have a good chance for success and still fit within the stated programmatic constraints. From this work, ARC developed and submitted six of the nineteen mission proposals received by ESMD from throughout the Agency, one of which was LCROSS - a collaborative effort between ARC and its industrial partner, Northrop-Grumman (NG) in Redondo Beach, CA, USA.
Andrews, Daniel R.↗