SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Digital Transformation (specifically Engineering) approach will be different for everyone NASA’s approach to foundational DE change & the Four-Layered Cake What does DoD’s Digital Engineering Instruction (2023) mean for NASA
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
One of the key roles of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is to help mitigate the risk and lower expenses associated with space exploration, science, and discovery to the point where industry and international partners are willing and able to profitably take on larger, more complex missions. To do this, the Agency must undertake a transformation to a more modern integrated Digital Engineering approach to mission definition and planning. This paper highlights NASA’s journey in understanding what this Digital Engineering Transformation means for the Agency, the benefits of this transformation to human exploration definition and planning, and the benefits to the current Artemis campaign engineering capability portfolio.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Digital engineering (DE) and integrated computational materials engineering (ICME) are widely recognized as critical enablers of faster, more affordable, and more reliable aerospace systems. However, many organizations have struggled to realize the promised return on investment (ROI) from digital initiatives. A primary reason is the absence of a shared, decision-focused framework that distinguishes simple digitization of existing workflows from true digital transformation that fundamentally changes how engineering decisions are made. This paper introduces an ICME capability maturity framework that fills this gap. The framework defines six cumulative ICME capability maturity levels (CMLs), explicitly tied to decision authority, engineering integration, optimization, and uncertainty management across material, process, structure, and performance scales. It is designed to complement established readiness metrics such as technology readiness levels (TRLs), manufacturing readiness levels (MRLs), and integration readiness levels (IRLs), by addressing a missing dimension: the conditions required for model-informed decision authority across scales. A unifying figure and capability table illustrate the six-level ICME Capability Maturity Framework, showing how organizations progress from digitization—with limited or negative ROI—to true digital transformation, where ICME-enabled workflows deliver measurable improvements in decision quality, cycle time, risk reduction, and reuse. The framework is intended for both technical practitioners and executive leadership, providing a common language to assess current state, guide roadmaps, align software ecosystem investments, and set realistic expectations for digital transformation outcomes. A regulatory-relevant statement clarifying the relationship between ICME capability and existing certification frameworks is provided.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The evolution from “document-centric” to “data-centric” and “model-centric” information leveraging structured data and model-based approaches is at the heart of digital engineering transformational efforts underway across industry and government. It is these approaches that pave the way for data lakes, Authoritative Sources of Truth (ASOTs), and systems- of-systems interoperability and the corresponding transformational benefits thereof. Such benefits include increased data availability, data access equity, data traceability, real-time analytics, batch analytics, and (most importantly) acceleration of the time-to-value and time-to-insights associated with engineering products and analyses. The longer-term benefits of reusability, customization and traceability are even more promising. For Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA), and Mission Success (SMS) activities; realization of such benefits is essential to provide engineers and analysts alike vital information when needed to support critical decision making throughout the entire life cycle. The SMA community often operate in parallel with engineering activities, for which information exchange with relevant context is paramount. Far too often, such information lags key decision points and/or is absent of the robust, integrated, knowledge needed, given inherent barriers associated with traditional document-centric means to data sharing, analysis, and reporting. This paper provides an overview of how NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) is evolving its policies, standards, guidance, and training to transform to eliminate such barriers, thus realizing the benefits emerging in this new digital era. A roadmap for achieving this digital future is presented along with key building blocks involving use and implementation of concepts such as: Objectives-Hierarchies, Objective-Driven Requirements, Accepted Standards, Safety and Assurance Cases, data digitization (i.e., ontologies, structured data, and model-centric data), FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, & Reusable) and/or FAIRUST (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable, Understandable, Secure, and Trusted) principles [1]. This paper also describes how OSMA, leveraging the Agency’s overall commitment to Digital Transformation (DT), is using the power of Policy, “Digital” Domain representation, Product Evolution, and Community Outreach and Engagement as part of a strategic vision and roadmap to evolve and transform its SMA organizations to become better able to serve its stakeholders and customers. Future publications will elaborate on these building blocks and deeper concepts.
Since 1958, NASA has delivered its enduring bold purpose, characterized in the 2022 NASA Strategic Plan as a mission to discover, explore, innovate, and advance solutions to the problems of flight, within and outside the Earth’s atmosphere, for the benefit of humankind. The NASA Strategic Plan also recognizes that this mission will be delivered differently as it looks to a future marked by radical global change, which is in part being driven by digital advances. For this reason, in late 2020 NASA established an Enterprise Digital Transformation (DT) agency-level strategic initiative to accelerate and coordinate leveraging digital advances to transform the way the Agency works, the experience of its workforce and the agility of its workplace. This paper documents NASA’s DT strategic framework and associated implementation approach, with the DT strategic initiative serving to ignite, connect, integrate, and facilitate DT progress across a federated organizational operating model.
Systems are changing and engineering practices must mind the balance between evolutionary and revolutionary change as we move towards increasingly agile processes, enabled by interconnected tools, to best provide for partnered collaboration. This is the first example of Goddard's alignment between Digital Engineering strategy and Model-Based Systems Engineering strategy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Digital engineering strategies typically assume that digital engineering models interoperate seamlessly across the multiple different engineering modeling software applications involved, such as model- based systems engineering (MBSE), mechanical computer-aided design (MCAD), electrical computer-aided design (ECAD), and other engineering modeling applications. The presumption is that the data schema in these modeling software applications are structured in the familiar flat- tabular schema like any other software application. Engineering domain-specific applications (e.g., systems, mechanical, electrical, simulation) are typically designed to solve domain-specific problems, necessarily excluding explicit representations of non-domain information to help the engineer focus on the domain problems (system definition, design, simulation). Such exclusions become problematic in inter-domain information exchange. The obvious assumptions of one domain might not be so obvious to experts in another domain. Ambiguity in domain-specific language can erode the ability to enable different domain modeling applications to interoperate, unless the underlying language is understood and used as the basis for translation from one application to another. The engineering modeling software application industry has struggled for decades to enable these applications to interoperate. Industry standards have been developed, but they have not unified the industry. Why is this? The authors assert that the industry has relied on traditional database integration methods. The basic issue prohibiting successful application integration then is that traditional database-driven integration does not consider the distinct languages of each domain. An engineering models meaning is expressed through the underlying language of that engineering domain. In essence, traditional integration methods do not retain the semantic context (meaning) of the model. The basis of this research stems from the widely held assumption that systems engineering models are (or can be) structured according to the underlying semantic ontology of the model. This assumption can be imagined from two thoughts. 1) Digital systems engineering models are often represented using graph theory (the graph of a complex systems model can contain millions of nodes and edges). When examining the nodes one at a time and following the outbound edges of each node one by one, one can end up with rudimentary statements about the model (i.e., node A relates to node B), as in a semantic graph. 2) Likewise, from the study of natural languages, a sentence can be structured into unambiguous triples of subject-predicate-object within formal and highly expressive semantic ontologies. The rudimentary statements about a systems model discerned with graph theory closely mimic the triples used in the ontologies that try to structure natural languages. In other words, a systems models semantic graph can be (or is) structured into an ontology. Additionally, it is well established in industry that through natural language processing (NLP), which provides the means to create language structures, that computers can interpret ontological graphs. Therefore, the authors hypothesized that if the integrity of the underlying semantic structure of a systems model is retained, the contextual meaning of the model is retained. By structuring system models into the triples of the underlying ontology during the transformation from one MBSE application to another, the authors have provided a proof of the concept that the meaning of a system model can be retained during transformation. The authors assert that this is the missing ingredient in effective systems model-to-model interoperability. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the FY19 Model Interoperability team members who provided a solid foundation for the FY20 team to leverage: John McCloud, for the work he did to guide us toward the right use of technology that will appropriately discover and manipulate ontologies. Carlos Tafoya, for the work he did to develop an application programming interface (API)/Adapter that would export ontology-based data from GENESYS. Peter Chandler, for the work he did to architect our overall integration solution, with an eye toward the future that would influence a large-scale federated production-level systems engineering digital model ecosystem.
The DEDC provides immersive project-based learning on digital engineering toolsets and processes supporting NASA’s digital transformation goals: - Digital Engineering uses authoritative sources of systems' data and models as a continuum across disciplines to support integrated digital approach life cycle activities from concept through disposal. - The digital environment provided includes the state-of-the-art digital engineering suite, Siemens Xcelerator. The pilot project is developing an end-to-end integrated model of an In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) system for commodities production: - ISRU uses local resources to provide mission consumables to enable a sustainable Moon or Mars surface presence. - The final digital twin product will include a methanation reactor, condenser, and electrolyzer subsystem.
With the current industry movement to “digitally transform” there is much fervor to do something, to change in some way, to do things differently and digitally; however, the last decade has shown that most organizations do not know where to start or abandon transformation efforts. And often the approaches taken fall in the realm of “low-hanging fruit” or “easy wins” which rarely result in the foundational change needed. NASA was no different in the early years of its digital transformation and this drove the development of what eventually became known as the “Four-Layer Cake”. The Four-Layer Cake provides the critical approach for determining the core areas for investment to gain the greatest return without having to boil the ocean or hope that the low-hanging fruit will provide the foundational elements for a domain’s transformation.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has an ongoing Digital Transformation effort and to leverage and showcase the power of Digital Transformation, an effort is underway to develop an integrated, datacentric, model representing NASA’s key process requirements. The task was divided into three phases: As Is modeling, Analysis, and To Be Planning. As part of this effort, a team has completed the first Phase I of the modeling task and is nearing completion of the second phase. This effort will capture the key elements as requirements, responsibilities, allocations, roles, products, and associated lifecycle elements. The scope of modeling included NASA’s NPR 7120.5 (Project and Program Management), NPR 7123.1 (Systems Engineering) and NPRs 8705.2 (Risk classification for Robotic Missions) and 8705.4 (Human-Rating Requirements for Space Missions).