Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LCC”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

The Need for Technology Maturity of Any Advanced Capability to Achieve Better Life Cycle Cost (LCC)

Programs such as space transportation systems are developed and deployed only rarely, and they have long development schedules and large development and life cycle costs (LCC). They have not historically had their LCC predicted well and have only had an effort to control the DDT&E phase of the programs. One of the factors driving the predictability, and thus control, of the LCC of a program is the maturity of the technologies incorporated in the program. If the technologies incorporated are less mature (as measured by their Technology Readiness Level - TRL), then the LCC not only increases but the degree of increase is difficult to predict. Consequently, new programs avoid incorporating technologies unless they are quite mature, generally TRL greater than or equal to 7 (system prototype demonstrated in a space environment) to allow better predictability of the DDT&E phase costs unless there is no alternative. On the other hand, technology development programs rarely develop technologies beyond TRL 6 (system/subsystem model or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment). Currently the lack of development funds beyond TRL 6 and the major funding required for full scale development leave little or no funding available to prototype TRL 6 concepts so that hardware would be in the ready mode for safe, reliable and cost effective incorporation. The net effect is that each new program either incorporates little new technology or has longer development schedules and costs, and higher LCC, than planned. This paper presents methods to ensure that advanced technologies are incorporated into future programs while providing a greater accuracy of predicting their LCC. One method is having a dedicated organization to develop X-series vehicles or separate prototypes carried on other vehicles. The question of whether such an organization should be independent of NASA and/or have an independent funding source is discussed. Other methods are also discussed. How to make the choice of which technologies to pursue to the prototype level is also discussed since, to achieve better LCC, first the selection of the appropriate technologies.

Robinson, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2015

The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of Life Support Recycling and Resupply

Brief human space missions supply all the crew's water and oxygen from Earth. The multiyear International Space Station (ISS) program instead uses physicochemical life support systems to recycle water and oxygen. This paper compares the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of recycling to the LCC of resupply for potential future long duration human space missions. Recycling systems have high initial development costs but relatively low durationdependent support costs. This means that recycling is more cost effective for longer missions. Resupplying all the water and oxygen requires little initial development cost but has a much higher launch mass and launch cost. The cost of resupply increases as the mission duration increases. Resupply is therefore more cost effective than recycling for shorter missions. A recycling system pays for itself when the resupply LCC grows greater over time than the recycling LCC. The time when this occurs is called the recycling breakeven date. Recycling will cost very much less than resupply for long duration missions within the Earth-Moon system, such as a future space station or Moon base. But recycling would cost about the same as resupply for long duration deep space missions, such as a Mars trip. Because it is not possible to provide emergency supplies or quick return options on the way to Mars, more expensive redundant recycling systems will be needed.

recycling↗
NASA NTRS1991

STS-44 Prelaunch Activities, O&C and LCC Firing Room

The crew of STS-44, Commander Frederick D. Gregory, Pilot Terence T. Henricks, Mission Specialists F. Story Musgrave, Mario Runco, Jr., and James S. Voss, and Payload Specialists Thomas J. Hennen, is seen at breakfast and suiting up before the launch of Atlantis. Footage shows the LCC Firing room shortly before launch, and the liftoff of Atlantis is seen.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2018

CAIDA CUI Confirmation for OMRS & LCC SOCRRATES Emulator and iSEE Upgrade, Operations, & Analysis

This internship has focused on providing solutions for the Customer Avionics Interface Development and Analysis (CAIDA) subsystem. The main emulator that has been used during this internship is the Software-Only CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) Risk Reduction Analysis and Test Engineering Simulator (SOCRRATES). This emulator uses advanced math and physics methods to simulate specific points in a mission, such as ascent, entry, and orbit. Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) must ensure that all KSC based ground systems can be properly integrated with the flight vehicle software, therefore, the Modeling and Simulation Branch (NE-XM) of the KSC (Kennedy Space Center) Engineering Directorate supports a virtual environment that simulates the interface between ground systems and the flight vehicle. A primary component in assuring that is knowing whether the emulators have incorporated the correct CUIs (Compact Unique Identifiers) into their system, as well as understanding both the static and dynamic responses of the individual CUIs. Also, an effort for verification of Operational Maintenance Requirements Specifications (OMRS) and Launch Commit Criteria (LCC) that are supported by SOCRRATES for the Orion Crew Module were part of the project tasks this semester. This internship also focused on comparing two different simulation Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products and to determine whether or not a COTS package was a viable replacement for the current software that the iSEE (Immersive Simulations and Engineering Environment) lab uses. Upon research and testing, I found that this software was not feasible for the lab. It could not easily load CAD (Computer-Aided Design) or CREO models, give live feedback while the user is in the environment, and was not compatible with a virtual reality headset, all of which are necessary for the lab.

Bundy, Caleb↗
NASA NTRS2003

Using Technology Readiness Level (TRL), Life Cycle Cost (LCC), and Other Metrics to Supplement Equivalent System Mass (ESM) in Advanced Life Support (ALS)

The ALS project plan goals are reducing cost, improving performance, and achieving flight readiness. ALS selects projects to advance the mission readiness of low cost, high performance technologies. The role of metrics is to help select good projects and report progress. The Equivalent Mass (EM) of a system is the sum of the estimated mass of the hardware, of its required materials and spares, and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system needed to support the hardware in space. EM is the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support a system. EM is directly proportional to the launch cost.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2019

Evaluating Models' Response of Tropical Low Clouds to SST Forcings Using CALIPSO Observations

Recent studies have shown that, in response to a surface warming, the marine tropical low-cloud cover (LCC) as observed by passive-sensor satellites substantially decreases, therefore generating a smaller negative value of the top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) cloud radiative effect (CRE). Here we study the LCC and CRE interannual changes in response to sea surface temperature (SST) forcings in the GISS model E2 climate model, a developmental version of the GISS model E3 climate model, and in 12 other climate models, as a function of their ability to represent the vertical structure of the cloud response to SST change against 10 years of CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations) observations. The more realistic models (those that satisfy the observational constraint) capture the observed interannual LCC change quite well ([delta]LCC]/[delta]SST= -3.49±1.01%K [negative 1 superscript] vs. [delta]LCC/[delta]SST[subscript obs]= -3.59±0.28%K[negative 1 superscript]) while the others largely underestimate it ([delta]LCC/[delta]SST= -1.32±1.28%K[negative 1 superscript]). Consequently, the more realistic models simulate more positive shortwave (SW) feedback ([delta]CRE/[delta]SST=2.60±1.13Wm[negative 2 superscript] K[negative 1 superscript]) than the less realistic models (CRE/SST=0.87±2.63Wm2K1), in better agreement with the observations ([delta]CRE/[delta]SST[subscript obs]=3±0.26Wm[negative 2 superscript] K[negative 1 superscript] ), although slightly underestimated. The ability of the models to represent moist processes within the planetary boundary layer (PBL) and produce persistent stratocumulus (Sc) decks appears crucial to replicating the observed relationship between clouds, radiation and surface temperature. This relationship is different depending on the type of low clouds in the observations. Over stratocumulus regions, cloud-top height increases slightly with SST, accompanied by a large decrease in cloud fraction, whereas over trade cumulus (Cu) regions, cloud fraction decreases everywhere, to a smaller extent.

low clouds↗
NASA NTRS1988

The multi-disciplinary design study: A life cycle cost algorithm

The approach and results of a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis of the Space Station Solar Dynamic Power Subsystem (SDPS) including gimbal pointing and power output performance are documented. The Multi-Discipline Design Tool (MDDT) computer program developed during the 1986 study has been modified to include the design, performance, and cost algorithms for the SDPS as described. As with the Space Station structural and control subsystems, the LCC of the SDPS can be computed within the MDDT program as a function of the engineering design variables. Two simple examples of MDDT's capability to evaluate cost sensitivity and design based on LCC are included. MDDT was designed to accept NASA's IMAT computer program data as input so that IMAT's detailed structural and controls design capability can be assessed with expected system LCC as computed by MDDT. No changes to IMAT were required. Detailed knowledge of IMAT is not required to perform the LCC analyses as the interface with IMAT is noninteractive.

Harding, R. R.↗
NASA NTRS1994

A new technique for the measurement of surface shear stress vectors using liquid crystal coatings

Research has recently shown that liquid crystal coating (LCC) color-change response to shear depends on both shear stress magnitude and direction. Additional research was thus conducted to extend the LCC method from a flow-visualization tool to a surface shear stress vector measurement technique. A shear-sensitive LCC was applied to a planar test surface and illuminated by white light from the normal direction. A fiber optic probe was used to capture light scattered by the LCC from a point on the centerline of a turbulent, tangential-jet flow. Both the relative shear stress magnitude and the relative in-plane view angle between the sensor and the centerline shear vector were systematically varied. A spectrophotometer was used to obtain scattered-light spectra which were used to quantify the LCC color (dominant wavelength) as a function of shear stress magnitude and direction. At any fixed shear stress magnitude, the minimum dominant wavelength was measured when the shear vector was aligned with and directed away from the observer; changes in the relative in-plane view angle to either side of this vector/observer aligned position resulted in symmetric Gaussian increases in measured dominant wavelength. Based on these results, a vector measurement methodology, involving multiple oblique-view observations of the test surface, was formulated. Under present test conditions, the measurement resolution of this technique was found to be +/- 1 deg for vector orientations and +/- 5% for vector magnitudes. An approach t o extend the present methodology to full-surface applications is proposed.

Reda, Daniel C.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria - performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and risk - are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost accounts for most of the cost of planetary missions, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated masses of the hardware and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in Advanced Life Support. A crew time mass-equivalent and sometimes other non-mass factors are added to equivalent mass to create ESM. Equivalent mass is an estimate of the launch cost only. For earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is usually exceeded by the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E). Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. Since LCC includes launch cost, it is always a more accurate cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission design, destination, and duration. Since DDT&E or operations may cost more than launch, LCC may give a more accurate cost ranking than equivalent mass. To be sure of identifying the lowest cost technology for a particular mission, we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria such as performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and technical and schedule risk are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost would account for much of the cost of a future planetary mission, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select advanced life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated mass of the hardware and of the spacecraft pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass of a system is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in the Advanced Life Support project. ESM adds a mass-equivalent of crew time and possibly other cost factors to equivalent mass. Traditional equivalent mass is strictly based on flown mass and reflects only the launch cost. ESM includes other important cost factors, but it complicates the simple flown mass definition of equivalent mass by adding a non-physical mass penalty for crew time that may exceed the actual flown mass. Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. For Earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is less than the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDTBE). LCC is a more inclusive cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission destination and duration. Since DDTBE or operations may cost more than launch, LCC gives a more accurate relative cost ranking than equivalent mass. To select the lowest cost technology for a particular application we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2011

FPGA for Power Control of MSL Avionics

A PLGT FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) is included in the LCC (Load Control Card), GID (Guidance Interface & Drivers), TMC (Telemetry Multiplexer Card), and PFC (Pyro Firing Card) boards of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) spacecraft. (PLGT stands for PFC, LCC, GID, and TMC.) It provides the interface between the backside bus and the power drivers on these boards. The LCC drives power switches to switch power loads, and also relays. The GID drives the thrusters and latch valves, as well as having the star-tracker and Sun-sensor interface. The PFC drives pyros, and the TMC receives digital and analog telemetry. The FPGA is implemented both in Xilinx (Spartan 3- 400) and in Actel (RTSX72SU, ASX72S). The Xilinx Spartan 3 part is used for the breadboard, the Actel ASX part is used for the EM (Engineer Module), and the pin-compatible, radiation-hardened RTSX part is used for final EM and flight. The MSL spacecraft uses a FC (Flight Computer) to control power loads, relays, thrusters, latch valves, Sun-sensor, and star-tracker, and to read telemetry such as temperature. Commands are sent over a 1553 bus to the MREU (Multi-Mission System Architecture Platform Remote Engineering Unit). The MREU resends over a remote serial command bus c-bus to the LCC, GID TMC, and PFC. The MREU also sends out telemetry addresses via a remote serial telemetry address bus to the LCC, GID, TMC, and PFC, and the status is returned over the remote serial telemetry data bus.

Wang, Duo↗
NASA NTRS2013

New Approaches in Reusable Booster System Life Cycle Cost Modeling

This paper presents the results of a 2012 life cycle cost (LCC) study of hybrid Reusable Booster Systems (RBS) conducted by NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The work included the creation of a new cost estimating model and an LCC analysis, building on past work where applicable, but emphasizing the integration of new approaches in life cycle cost estimation. Specifically, the inclusion of industry processes/practices and indirect costs were a new and significant part of the analysis. The focus of LCC estimation has traditionally been from the perspective of technology, design characteristics, and related factors such as reliability. Technology has informed the cost related support to decision makers interested in risk and budget insight. This traditional emphasis on technology occurs even though it is well established that complex aerospace systems costs are mostly about indirect costs, with likely only partial influence in these indirect costs being due to the more visible technology products. Organizational considerations, processes/practices, and indirect costs are traditionally derived ("wrapped") only by relationship to tangible product characteristics. This traditional approach works well as long as it is understood that no significant changes, and by relation no significant improvements, are being pursued in the area of either the government acquisition or industry?s indirect costs. In this sense then, most launch systems cost models ignore most costs. The alternative was implemented in this LCC study, whereby the approach considered technology and process/practices in balance, with as much detail for one as the other. This RBS LCC study has avoided point-designs, for now, instead emphasizing exploring the trade-space of potential technology advances joined with potential process/practice advances. Given the range of decisions, and all their combinations, it was necessary to create a model of the original model and use genetic algorithms to explore results. A strong business case occurs when viable paths are identified for an affordable up-front investment, and these paths can credibly achieve affordable, responsive operations, characterized by smaller direct touch labor efforts at the wing level from flight to flight. The results supporting this approach, its potential, and its conclusions are presented here.

Zapata, Edgar↗
NASA NTRS2013

New Approaches in Reuseable Booster System Life Cycle Cost Modeling

This paper presents the results of a 2012 life cycle cost (LCC) study of hybrid Reusable Booster Systems (RBS) conducted by NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The work included the creation of a new cost estimating model and an LCC analysis, building on past work where applicable, but emphasizing the integration of new approaches in life cycle cost estimation. Specifically, the inclusion of industry processes/practices and indirect costs were a new and significant part of the analysis. The focus of LCC estimation has traditionally been from the perspective of technology, design characteristics, and related factors such as reliability. Technology has informed the cost related support to decision makers interested in risk and budget insight. This traditional emphasis on technology occurs even though it is well established that complex aerospace systems costs are mostly about indirect costs, with likely only partial influence in these indirect costs being due to the more visible technology products. Organizational considerations, processes/practices, and indirect costs are traditionally derived ("wrapped") only by relationship to tangible product characteristics. This traditional approach works well as long as it is understood that no significant changes, and by relation no significant improvements, are being pursued in the area of either the government acquisition or industry?s indirect costs. In this sense then, most launch systems cost models ignore most costs. The alternative was implemented in this LCC study, whereby the approach considered technology and process/practices in balance, with as much detail for one as the other. This RBS LCC study has avoided point-designs, for now, instead emphasizing exploring the trade-space of potential technology advances joined with potential process/practice advances. Given the range of decisions, and all their combinations, it was necessary to create a model of the original model and use genetic algorithms to explore results. A strong business case occurs when viable paths are identified for an affordable up-front investment, and these paths can credibly achieve affordable, responsive operations, characterized by smaller direct touch labor efforts at the wing level from flight to flight. The results supporting this approach, its potential, and its conclusions are presented here.

Zapata, Edgar↗
NASA NTRS2009

Concepts for Life Cycle Cost Control Required to Achieve Space Transportation Affordability and Sustainability

Cost control must be implemented through the establishment of requirements and controlled continually by managing to these requirements. Cost control of the non-recurring side of life cycle cost has traditionally been implemented in both commercial and government programs. The government uses the budget process to implement this control. The commercial approach is to use a similar process of allocating the non-recurring cost to major elements of the program. This type of control generally manages through a work breakdown structure (WBS) by defining the major elements of the program. If the cost control is to be applied across the entire program life cycle cost (LCC), the approach must be addressed very differently. A functional breakdown structure (FBS) is defined and recommended. Use of a FBS provides the visibifity to allow the choice of an integrated solution reducing the cost of providing many different elements of like function. The different functional solutions that drive the hardware logistics, quantity of documentation, operational labor, reliability and maintainability balance, and total integration of the entire system from DDT&E through the life of the program must be fully defined, compared, and final decisions made among these competing solutions. The major drivers of recurring cost have been identified and are presented and discussed. The LCC requirements must be established and flowed down to provide control of LCC. This LCC control will require a structured rigid process similar to the one traditionally used to control weight/performance for space transportation systems throughout the entire program. It has been demonstrated over the last 30 years that without a firm requirement and methodically structured cost control, it is unlikely that affordable and sustainable space transportation system LCC will be achieved.

Rhodes, Russel E.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Space Transportation Systems Life Cycle Cost Assessment and Control

Civil and military applications of space transportation have been pursued for just over 50 years and there has been, and still is, a need for safe, dependable, affordable, and sustainable space transportation systems. Fully expendable and partially reusable space transportation systems have been developed and put in operation that have not adequately achieved this need. Access to space is technically achievable, but presently very expensive and will remain so until there is a breakthrough in the way we do business. Since 1991 the national Space Propulsion Synergy Team (SPST) has reviewed and assessed the lessons learned from the major U.S. space programs of the past decades focusing on what has been learned from the assessment and control of Life Cycle Cost (LCC) from these systems. This paper presents the results of a selected number of studies and analyses that have been conducted by the SPST addressing the need, as well as the solutions, for improvement in LCC. The major emphasis of the SPST processes is on developing the space transportation system requirements first (up front). These requirements must include both the usual system flight performance requirements and also the system functional requirements, including the infrastructure on Earth's surface, in-space and on the Moon and Mars surfaces to determine LCC. This paper describes the development of specific innovative engineering and management approaches and processes. This includes a focus on flight hardware maturity for reliability, ground operations approaches, and business processes between contractor and government organizations. A major change in program/project cost control is being proposed by the SPST to achieve a sustainable space transportation system LCC - controlling cost as a program metric in addition to the existing practice of controlling performance and weight. Without a firm requirement and methodically structured cost control, it is unlikely that an affordable and sustainable space transportation system LCC will ever be achieved. '

Robinson, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Space Transportation System Availability Relationships to Life Cycle Cost

Future space transportation architectures and designs must be affordable. Consequently, their Life Cycle Cost (LCC) must be controlled. For the LCC to be controlled, it is necessary to identify all the requirements and elements of the architecture at the beginning of the concept phase. Controlling LCC requires the establishment of the major operational cost drivers. Two of these major cost drivers are reliability and maintainability, in other words, the system's availability (responsiveness). Potential reasons that may drive the inherent availability requirement are the need to control the number of unique parts and the spare parts required to support the transportation system's operation. For more typical space transportation systems used to place satellites in space, the productivity of the system will drive the launch cost. This system productivity is the resultant output of the system availability. Availability is equal to the mean uptime divided by the sum of the mean uptime plus the mean downtime. Since many operational factors cannot be projected early in the definition phase, the focus will be on inherent availability which is equal to the mean time between a failure (MTBF) divided by the MTBF plus the mean time to repair (MTTR) the system. The MTBF is a function of reliability or the expected frequency of failures. When the system experiences failures the result is added operational flow time, parts consumption, and increased labor with an impact to responsiveness resulting in increased LCC. The other function of availability is the MTTR, or maintainability. In other words, how accessible is the failed hardware that requires replacement and what operational functions are required before and after change-out to make the system operable. This paper will describe how the MTTR can be equated to additional labor, additional operational flow time, and additional structural access capability, all of which drive up the LCC. A methodology will be presented that provides the decision makers with the understanding necessary to place constraints on the design definition. This methodology for the major drivers will determine the inherent availability, safety, reliability, maintainability, and the life cycle cost of the fielded system. This methodology will focus on the achievement of an affordable, responsive space transportation system. It is the intent of this paper to not only provide the visibility of the relationships of these major attribute drivers (variables) to each other and the resultant system inherent availability, but also to provide the capability to bound the variables, thus providing the insight required to control the system's engineering solution. An example of this visibility is the need to provide integration of similar discipline functions to allow control of the total parts count of the space transportation system. Also, selecting a reliability requirement will place a constraint on parts count to achieve a given inherent availability requirement, or require accepting a larger parts count with the resulting higher individual part reliability requirements. This paper will provide an understanding of the relationship of mean repair time (mean downtime) to maintainability (accessibility for repair), and both mean time between failure (reliability of hardware) and the system inherent availability.

Rhodes, Russel E.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Operations and support cost modeling using Markov chains

Systems for future missions will be selected with life cycle costs (LCC) as a primary evaluation criterion. This reflects the current realization that only systems which are considered affordable will be built in the future due to the national budget constaints. Such an environment calls for innovative cost modeling techniques which address all of the phases a space system goes through during its life cycle, namely: design and development, fabrication, operations and support; and retirement. A significant portion of the LCC for reusable systems are generated during the operations and support phase (OS). Typically, OS costs can account for 60 to 80 percent of the total LCC. Clearly, OS costs are wholly determined or at least strongly influenced by decisions made during the design and development phases of the project. As a result OS costs need to be considered and estimated early in the conceptual phase. To be effective, an OS cost estimating model needs to account for actual instead of ideal processes by associating cost elements with probabilities. One approach that may be suitable for OS cost modeling is the use of the Markov Chain Process. Markov chains are an important method of probabilistic analysis for operations research analysts but they are rarely used for life cycle cost analysis. This research effort evaluates the use of Markov Chains in LCC analysis by developing OS cost model for a hypothetical reusable space transportation vehicle (HSTV) and suggests further uses of the Markov Chain process as a design-aid tool.

Unal, Resit↗