SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Co-Op Report”
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.
Co-Op Tour Summary Report
While on assignment at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, I participated in the development of the X-33 Avionics Flight Experiment (AFE). This ideal opportunity not only gave me an insider's look at the design and operation of modern aerospace avionics, but also allowed be to interact with others in the industry in an effort to stay on the cutting edge of the new technologies being incorporated into existing avionics architectures.
[NASA Johnson Space Center Co-Op Student Experience Report]
My primary task on my first tour at JSC was to assist my mentor, Sheikh Ahsan, with a research study he is conducting on aluminum wire. While assisting my mentor with the aluminum wire study, I've also had an opportunity to complete work for other projects including the In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Project and an Electrolysis Project for Innovation Day at JSC.
Co-op Student Work Report
Projects: (1) Boeing Launch Abort Analysis My first project for the summer was analyzing the Boeing CCDev Vehicle's abort aerodynamics using an inviscid solver (CART3D). The goal of the project was to develop the grid and CFD inputs necessary to use CART3D as a quick tool for investigating loading trends at various points along abort trajectories. As a supplementary task, I analyzed a few cases and compared them to the aerodatabase from the last generation geometry. (2) My second project for the summer dealt with investigating how heating changes as the height of a protuberance on top of a flat plate changes. The goal of this investigation is to better understand how to properly model heating on and around a protuberance. This is one of the biggest challenges when designing a re ]entry vehicle because very small changes in the shape and conditions leading up to a protuberance, not to mention the protuberance geometry, will greatly impact the local heating.
NASA Pathways Co-op Tour Johnson Space Center Fall 2013
This report outlines the tasks and objectives completed during a co‐operative education tour with National Aeronautics and Space Association (NASA) at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. I worked for the Attitude & Pointing group of the Flight Dynamics Division within the Mission Operations Directorate at Johnson Space Center. NASA's primary mission is to support and expand the various ongoing space exploration programs and any research and development activities associated with it. My primary project required me to develop and a SharePoint web application for my group. My secondary objective was to become familiar with the role of my group which was primarily to provide spacecraft attitude and line of sight determination, including Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) communications coverage for various NASA, International, and commercial partner spacecraft. My projects required me to become acquainted with different software systems, fundamentals of aerospace engineering, project management, and develop essential interpersonal communication skills. Overall, I accomplished multiple goals which included laying the foundations for an updated SharePoint which will allow for an organized platform to communicate and share data for group members and external partners. I also successfully learned about the operations of the Attitude & Pointing Group and how it contributes to the Missions Operations Directorate and NASA's Space Program as a whole
Improving the Accuracy of the AFWA-NASA (ANSA) Blended Snow-Cover Product over the Lower Great Lakes Region
The Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) -- NASA blended snow-cover product, called ANSA, utilizes Earth Observing System standard snow products from the Moderate- Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) to map daily snow cover and snow-water equivalent (SWE) globally. We have compared ANSA-derived SWE with SWE values calculated from snow depths reported at ~1500 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) co-op stations in the Lower Great Lakes Basin. Compared to station data, the ANSA significantly underestimates SWE in densely-forested areas. We use two methods to remove some of the bias observed in forested areas to reduce the root-mean-square error (RMSE) between the ANSA- and station-derived SWE. First, we calculated a 5- year mean ANSA-derived SWE for the winters of 2005-06 through 2009-10, and developed a five-year mean bias-corrected SWE map for each month. For most of the months studied during the five-year period, the 5-year bias correction improved the agreement between the ANSA-derived and station-derived SWE. However, anomalous months such as when there was very little snow on the ground compared to the 5-year mean, or months in which the snow was much greater than the 5-year mean, showed poorer results (as expected). We also used a 7-day running mean (7DRM) bias correction method using days just prior to the day in question to correct the ANSA data. This method was more effective in reducing the RMSE between the ANSA- and co-op-derived SWE values, and in capturing the effects of anomalous snow conditions.
Preliminary Evaluation of the AFWA-NASA (ANSA) Blended Snow-Cover Product over the Lower Great Lakes Region
The Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) - NASA (ANSA) blended-snow product utilizes EOS standard snow products from the Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) to map daily snow cover and snow-water equivalent (SWE) globally. We have compared ANSA-derived SWE. with SWE values calculated from snow depths reported at approx.1500 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) coop stations in the Lower Great Lakes basin. Our preliminary results show that conversion of snow depth to SWE is very sensitive to the choice of snow density (we used either 0.2 or 03 as conversion factors). We found overall better agreement between the ANSA-derived SWE and the co-op station data when we use a snow density of 0.3 to convert the snow depths to SWE. In addition, we show that the ANSA underestimates SWE in densely-forested areas, using January and February 2008 ANSA and co-op data. Furthermore, apparent large SWE changes from one day to the next may be caused by thaw-re-freeze events, and do not always represent a real change in SWE. In the near future we will continue the analysis in the 2006-07 and 2007-08 snow seasons.
Risk-informed Hierarchical Control of Behind-the-Meter DERs with AMI Data Integration (Final Technical Report)
This project addresses several key barriers to implement the next generation demand response applications and provides a clear understanding of implementing hierarchical and standalone control using AMI data. Through this program, Eaton has developed and tested a meter-as-a-controller prototype with the help of other partners--- National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Pecan St Inc. (PSI), and Delaware Electric Cooperative (DEC). The controller can utilize residential controllable loads such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioner (HVAC), electric water heater and distributed energy resources like solar PV and battery energy storage systems for off-setting the demand that is required from the grid, thus providing reliable grid-services for demand reduction or peak shaving. The controller is also capable of coordinating the resources of the premises for better management and energy efficiency while meeting the comfort bound of the premises owner as quality-of-service. The development has been demonstrated in a three virtual-home setup at system performance lab of NREL with real appliances (HVAC, electric water heater, solar PV, and battery). The technology has also been proved through laboratory and field demonstration with successful interconnectivity (e.g., end-to-end communication and data exchange) between the residential appliances and utility through the RF network at Delaware Electric Co-op (DEC) in Delaware.
My Work in the NASA Glenn History Office and Records Management Office
This is my fourth summer working with my mentor, Kevin P. Coleman, who is the Center History Coordinator, Center Records Manager, and Center Forms Manager. I am working in the GRC History Office with some overlap in the Records Management Office. I have three major projects this summer. First, I am assisting in the documentation of historic facilities. Second, I am involved in a project to organize files and create an archives at Plum Brook Station. Third, I have helped the records management office with its inventory of stored records at Plum Brook. Also, I received an award this summer for research work I had done for NASA in the past. First, my primary project is to help assemble documentation for historic facilities at Glenn. This is somewhat of an extension of my project from last summer. Last summer, I worked to compile a complete list of all of NASA s historic sites and landmarks (as designated by the National Park Service, as well as several private organizations) throughout the country. Then, I briefly researched the significance of historic designation under federal law. Finally, I put my findings into a report which was submitted to NASA Headquarters. Upon review by the NASA History Office and several center-level history officials, it was decided that NASA should work to update its documentation of its historic sites and landmarks since some of the documentation was outdated or unavailable. Until recently, many project managers and facility managers working at historic facilities were not even aware that their surroundings had been designated as historic under federal law (most specifically, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its amendments). Therefore, they were unaware of the legal obligations for historic preservation. This summer, my project is to research some of Glenn s historic sites and landmarks in more detail. The goal is to put together a template for documenting historic NASA facilities. The hope is that this template of requirements for historic documentation of facilities (which may include records, drawings, photos, film, interviews, and a Web site) can be used agency-wide to assist center history offices in documenting historic sites and landmarks. To this end, I am working with Bob Arrighi, an archivist from InDyne, Inc., and Anne Burke, a NASA co-op, to gather and assess the historic value of records from several facilities at Glenn and Plum Brook Station. We will also work to determine the costs of each part of the template.
NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study
To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.