SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “NASA Process Requirements”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2004

NASA Processes and Requirements for Conducting Human-in-the-Loop Closed Chamber Tests

NASA has specific processes and requirements that must be followed for tests involving human subjects to be conducted in a safe and effective manner. There are five distinct phases of test operations. Phase one, the test request phase, consists of those activities related to initiating, processing, reviewing, and evaluating the test request. Phase two, the test preparation phase consists of those activities related to planning, coordinating, documenting, and building up the test. Phase three, the test readiness phase consists of those activities related to verifying and reviewing the planned test operations. Phase four, the test activity phase, consists of all pretest operations, functional checkouts, emergency drills, and test operations. Phase five, the post test activity phase, consists of those activities performed once the test is completed, including briefings, documentation of anomalies, data reduction and archiving, and reporting. Project management processes must be followed for facility modifications and major test buildup, which include six phases: initiation and assessment, requirements evaluation, preliminary design, detailed design, use readiness review (URR) and acceptance. Compliance with requirements for safety and quality assurance are documented throughout the test buildup and test operation processes. Tests involving human subjects must be reviewed by the applicable Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Barta, Daniel J.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Evaluation of the user requirements processes for NASA terrestrial applications programs

To support the evolution of increasingly sound user requirements definition processes that would meet the broad range of NASA's terrestrial applications planning and management needs during the 1980's, the user requirements processes as they function in the real world at the senior and middle management levels were evaluated. Special attention was given to geologic mapping and domestic crop reporting to provide insight into problems associated with the development and management of user established conventional practices and data sources. An attempt was made to identify alternative NASA user interfaces that sustain strengths, alleviate weaknesses, maximize application to multiple problems, and simplify management cognizance. Some of the alternatives are outlined and evaluated. It is recommended that NASA have an identified organizational point of focus for consolidation and oversight of the user processes.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling NASA’s Procedural Requirement Processes – Implications for a Digital Future

NPR↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling NASA’s Procedural Requirement Processes - Implications for Digital Future

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). This paper will summarize the approach, scope, parsing patterns applied, metamodel, and associated workflows for the As-Is modeling. It will also summarize the results and insights gleaned during that phase, including the review process. These insights have informed the analysis and will be discussed. The analysis modeling phase will also be summarized including how the stakeholders were engaged, how the common elements were handled and dispositioned, and will also describe some of the plans for the future of NASA NPDs and NPRs.

Systems Engineering↗

NASA NTRS1996

A revisit to the requirements methodologies for services provided by the Office of Space Communications

The methodologies of the NASA requirements processing system, originally designed to enhance NASA's customer interface and response time, are reviewed. The response of NASA to the problems associated with the system is presented, and it is shown what was done to facilitate the process and to improve customer relations. The requirements generation system (RGS), a computer-supported client-server system, adopted by NASA is presented. The RGS system is configurable on a per-mission basis and can be structured to allow levels of requirements. The details provided concerning the RGS include the recommended configuration, information on becoming an RGS user and network connectivity worksheets for computer users.

Fishkind, Stanley↗

NASA NTRS2008

Using Life-Cycle Human Factors Engineering to Avoid $2.4 Million in Costs: Lessons Learned from NASA's Requirements Verification Process for Space Payloads

The Human Factors Implementation Team (HFIT) process has been used to verify human factors requirements for NASA International Space Station (ISS) payloads since 2003, resulting in $2.4 million in avoided costs. This cost benefit has been realized by greatly reducing the need to process time-consuming formal waivers (exceptions) for individual requirements violations. The HFIT team, which includes astronauts and their technical staff, acts as the single source for human factors requirements integration of payloads. HFIT has the authority to provide inputs during early design phases, thus eliminating many potential requirements violations in a cost-effective manner. In those instances where it is not economically or technically feasible to meet the precise metric of a given requirement, HFIT can work with the payload engineers to develop common sense solutions and formally document that the resulting payload design does not materially affect the astronaut s ability to operate and interact with the payload. The HFIT process is fully ISO 9000 compliant and works concurrently with NASA s formal systems engineering work flow. Due to its success with payloads, the HFIT process is being adapted and extended to ISS systems hardware. Key aspects of this process are also being considered for NASA's Space Shuttle replacement, the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

Carr, Daniel↗

NASA NTRS2009

Implementation of NASA Materials and Processes Requirements at the Goddard Space Flight Center

This slide presentation reviews the history and current practices of the Materials Engineering Branch (MEB) at the Goddard Space Flight Center. Included in the presentation is a review of the general Materials and Processes (M&P) requirements in the NASA-STD-6016. The work that the Materials Engineering Branch does to support GSFC Projects is also reviewed. The Materials Engineering Branch capabilities are listed, the expertise that is available to GSFC projects is also listed. Included in the backup slides are forms that the MEB uses to identify the materials in the spacecraft under development.

Powers, Charles E.↗

NASA NTRS1982

NASA payload interface verification requirements - Process and implementation

The separate and combinatorial roles played by NASA and STS payload contractors in the processes of interfacing cargo with the Shuttle are described. NASA personnel aid payload interface verification beginning at the hardware development level and perform independent interface verification once the payload is delivered to the payload processing facility. The cargo is first checked for operational and flight readiness, including inspection of installed devices to specification for the interface connections. Checklists furnished to the user are returned to NASA prior to integration simulation unless formal statements of compliance or waivers are exchanged. The continuance of strict adherence to predelivery interface verification testing is emphasized as necessary for meeting the turnaround times projected for the Orbiter fleet.

Huffstetler, W. J.↗

NASA NTRS1998

Issues in NASA Program and Project Management. Special Edition: A Collection of Papers on NASA Procedures and Guidance 7120.5A

A key aspect of NASA's new Strategic Management System is improving the way we plan, approve, execute and evaluate our programs and projects. To this end, NASA has developed the NASA Program and Project Management processes and Requirements-NASA Procedures and Guidelines (NPG) 7120.5A, which formally documents the "Provide Aerospace Products and Capabilities" crosscutting process, and defines the processes and requirements that are responsive to the Program/Project Management-NPD 7120.4A. The Program/Project Management-NPD 7120.4A, issued November 14, 1996, provides the policy for managing programs and projects in a new way that is aligned with the new NASA environment. An Agencywide team has spent thousands of hours developing the NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements-NPG 7120.5A. We have created significant flexibility, authority and discretion for the program and project managers to exercise and carry out their duties, and have delegated the responsibility and the accountability for their programs and projects.

Edward J. Hoffman↗

NASA NTRS1999

NASA Occupational Health Program FY98 Self-Assessment

The NASA Functional Management Review process requires that each NASA Center conduct self-assessments of each functional area. Self-Assessments were completed in June 1998 and results were presented during this conference session. During FY 97 NASA Occupational Health Assessment Team activities, a decision was made to refine the NASA Self-Assessment Process. NASA Centers were involved in the ISO registration process at that time and wanted to use the management systems approach to evaluate their occupational health programs. This approach appeared to be more consistent with NASA's management philosophy and would likely confer status needed by Senior Agency Management for the program. During FY 98 the Agency Occupational Health Program Office developed a revised self-assessment methodology based on the Occupational Health and Safety Management System developed by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. This process was distributed to NASA Centers in March 1998 and completed in June 1998. The Center Self Assessment data will provide an essential baseline on the status of OHP management processes at NASA Centers. That baseline will be presented to Enterprise Associate Administrators and DASHO on September 22, 1998 and used as a basis for discussion during FY 99 visits to NASA Centers. The process surfaced several key management system elements warranting further support from the Lead Center. Input and feedback from NASA Centers will be essential to defining and refining future self assessment efforts.

Brisbin, Steven G.↗

NASA NTRS2021

Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft

This NASA Technical Standard is directed toward materials and processes (M&P) used in the design, fabrication, and testing of space program flight hardware for NASA, including but not limited to crewed, uncrewed, robotic, launch vehicle, lander, in-space and surface systems, and spacecraft program/project hardware elements. All spaceflight hardware is covered by the M&P requirements of this document, including vendor-designed, off-the-shelf, and vendor-furnished items. M&P used in interfacing ground support equipment (GSE), test equipment, hardware processing equipment, hardware packaging, and hardware shipment is covered by the M&P requirements of this NASA Technical Standard only to the extent required to prevent damage to or contamination of spaceflight hardware (see section 4). M&P used in NASA aircraft and aircraft operations are not covered by the M&P requirements of this document.

Materials↗

NASA NTRS1998

NASA Procedures and Guidance 7120.5A: An Overview

The 1998 NASA Strategic Plan states that we are to deliver world-class programs and cutting-edge technology through a revolutionized NASA. Process and requirements must change to insure success in delivering those world-class programs. The 1996 Strategic Management Handbook defines the Agency's crosscutting processes: "Manage Strategically," "Provide Aerospace Products and Capabilities," "Generate Knowledge" and "Communicate Knowledge." The focus of this overview, and for the development of programs and projects, is the "Provide Aerospace Products and Capabilities" process. NASA Policy Document 7120.4A specifies the management system policy for the development and operation of programs and projects. NPG 7120.5A describes the next tier of requirements, integrating those crosscutting processes and process-focused requirements, making sure we can be flexible and efficient, providing the right kind of product delivery that meets user requirements.

Griner, Carolyn S.↗

NASA NTRS2009

NASA-STD-6016 Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft

The standards for materials and processes surrounding spacecraft are discussed. Presentation focused on minimum requirements for Materials and Processes (M&P) used in design, fabrication, and testing of flight components for NASA manned, unmanned, robotic, launch vehicle, lander, in-space and surface systems, and spacecraft program/project hardware elements.Included is information on flammability, offgassing, compatibility requirements, and processes; both metallic and non-metallic materials are mentioned.

Hirsch, David B.↗

NASA NTRS2014

A Systems Engineering Approach to Quality Assurance for Aerospace Testing

On the surface, it appears that AS9100 has little to say about how to apply a Quality Management System (QMS) to major aerospace test programs (or even smaller ones). It also appears that there is little in the quality engineering Body of Knowledge (BOK) that applies to testing, unless it is nondestructive examination (NDE), or some type of lab or bench testing associated with the manufacturing process. However, if one examines: a) how the systems engineering (SE) processes are implemented throughout a test program; and b) how these SE processes can be mapped to the requirements of AS9100, a number of areas for involvement of the quality professional are revealed. What often happens is that quality assurance during a test program is limited to inspections of the test article; what could be considered a manufacturing al fresco approach. This limits the quality professional and is a disservice to the programs and projects, since there are a number of ways that quality can enhance critical processes, and support efforts to improve risk reduction, efficiency and effectiveness. The Systems Engineering (SE) discipline is widely used in aerospace to ensure the progress from Stakeholder Expectations (the President, Congress, the taxpayers) to a successful, delivered product or service. Although this is well known, what is not well known is that these same SE processes are implemented in varying complexity, to prepare for and implement test projects that support research, development, verification and validation, qualification, and acceptance test projects. Although the test organization's terminology may vary from the SE terminology, and from one test service provider to another, the basic process is followed by successful, reliable testing organizations. For this analysis, NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7123.1, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements is used to illustrate the SE processes that are used for major aerospace testing. Many of these processes are also implemented for smaller test projects, and this set of processes will also look familiar to those who have participated in launch site activation and flight demonstrations.

Shepherd, Christena C.↗

NASA NTRS2024

The NASA Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA) Process Standard

This paper presents status on the upcoming NASA Agency-level RHA Process Standard. Based on recommendations provided by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), the NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program has led development of an agency-level standard for space flight avionics and electronics RHA. The standard introduces a novel RHA taxonomy and prescribes the process required by NASA programs and projects to baseline their RHA programs consistent with the MEAL (Mission, Environment, Application, and Lifetime) criteria including the risk tolerance posture. The standard also provides requirements for the RHA schedule integration in the program or project lifecycle and requirements for data deliverables content. Additional non-prescriptive technical content is provided in the standard appendices to guide development of RHA programs for NASA missions.

Avionics↗

NASA NTRS2015

Human Systems Integration (HSI) Practitioner's Guide

The NASA/SP-2015-3709, Human Systems Integration (HSI) Practitioner's Guide, also known as the "HSIPG," provides a tool for implementing HSI activities within the NASA systems engineering framework. The HSIPG is written to aid the HSI practitioner engaged in a program or project (P/P), and serves as a knowledge base to allow the practitioner to step into an HSI lead or team member role for NASA missions. Additionally, this HSIPG is written to address the role of HSI in the P/P management and systems engineering communities and aid their understanding of the value added by incorporating good HSI practices into their programs and projects. Through helping to build a community of knowledgeable HSI practitioners, this document also hopes to build advocacy across the Agency for establishing strong, consistent HSI policies and practices. Human Systems Integration (HSI) has been successfully adopted (and adapted) by several federal agencies-most notably the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-as a methodology for reducing system life cycle costs (LCCs). These cost savings manifest themselves due to reductions in required numbers of personnel, the practice of human-centered design, decreased reliance on specialized skills for operations, shortened training time, efficient logistics and maintenance, and fewer safety-related risks and mishaps due to unintended human/system interactions. The HSI process for NASA establishes how cost savings and mission success can be realized through systems engineering. Every program or project has unique attributes. This HSIPG is not intended to provide one-size-fits-all recommendations for HSI implementation. Rather, HSI processes should be tailored to the size, scope, and goals of individual situations. The instructions and processes identified here are best used as a starting point for implementing human-centered system concepts and designs across programs and projects of varying types, including manned and unmanned, human spaceflight, aviation, robotics, and environmental science missions. The practitioner using this guide should have expertise in Systems Engineering or other disciplines involved in producing systems with anticipated human interactions. (See section 1.6 of this guide for further discussion on HSI discipline domains.) The HSIPG provides an "HSI layer" to the NASA Systems Engineering Engine (SEE), detailed in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7123.1B, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, and further explained in NASA/SP-2007-6105, Systems Engineering Handbook (see HSIPG Table 2.2-1, NASA Documents with HSI Content, for specific references and document versions).

Zumbado, Jennifer Rochlis↗

NASA NTRS2006

Conducting Closed Habitation Experiments: Experience from the Lunar Mars Life Support Test Project

The Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) was conducted from 1995 through 1997 at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to demonstrate increasingly longer duration operation of integrated, closed-loop life support systems that employed biological and physicochemical techniques for water recycling, waste processing, air revitalization, thermal control, and food production. An analog environment for long-duration human space travel, the conditions of isolation and confinement also enabled studies of human factors, medical sciences (both physiology and psychology) and crew training. Four tests were conducted, Phases I, II, IIa and III, with durations of 15, 30, 60 and 91 days, respectively. The first phase focused on biological air regeneration, using wheat to generate enough oxygen for one experimental subject. The systems demonstrated in the later phases were increasingly complex and interdependent, and provided life support for four crew members. The tests were conducted using two human-rated, atmospherically-closed test chambers, the Variable Pressure Growth Chamber (VPGC) and the Integrated Life Support Systems Test Facility (ILSSTF). Systems included test articles (the life support hardware under evaluation), human accommodations (living quarters, kitchen, exercise equipment, etc.) and facility systems (emergency matrix system, power, cooling, etc.). The test team was managed by a lead engineer and a test director, and included test article engineers responsible for specific systems, subsystems or test articles, test conductors, facility engineers, chamber operators and engineering technicians, medical and safety officers, and science experimenters. A crew selection committee, comprised of psychologists, engineers and managers involved in the test, evaluated male and female volunteers who applied to be test subjects. Selection was based on the skills mix anticipated for each particular test, and utilized information from psychological and medical testing, data on the knowledge, experience and skills of the applicants, and team building exercises. The design, development, buildup and operation of test hardware and documentation followed the established NASA processes and requirements for test buildup and operation.

Barta, Daniel J.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Conducting Closed Habitation Experiments: Experience from the Lunar Mars Life Support Test Project

The Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) was conducted from 1995 through 1997 at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to demonstrate increasingly longer duration operation of integrated, closed-loop life support systems that employed biological and physicochemical techniques for water recycling, waste processing, air revitalization, thermal control, and food production. An analog environment for long-duration human space travel, the conditions of isolation and confinement also enabled studies of human factors, medical sciences (both physiology and psychology) and crew training. Four tests were conducted, Phases I, II, IIa and III, with durations of 15, 30,60 and 91 days, respectively. The first phase focused on biological air regeneration, using wheat to generate enough oxygen for one experimental subject. The systems demonstrated in the later phases were increasingly complex and interdependent, and provided life support for four crew members. The tests were conducted using two human-rated, atmospherically-closed test chambers, the Variable Pressure Growth Chamber (VPGC) and the Integrated Life Support Systems Test Facility (ILSSTF). Systems included test articles (the life support hardware under evaluation), human accommodations (living quarters, kitchen, exercise equipment, etc.) and facility systems (emergency matrix system, power, cooling, etc.). The test team was managed by a lead engineer and a test director, and included test article engineers responsible for specific systems, subsystems or test articles, test conductors, facility engineers, chamber operators and engineering technicians, medical and safety officers, and science experimenters. A crew selection committee, comprised of psychologists, engineers and managers involved in the test, evaluated male and female volunteers who applied to be test subjects. Selection was based on the skills mix anticipated for each particular test, and utilized information from psychological and medical testing, data on the knowledge, experience and skills of the applicants, and team building exercises. The design, development, buildup and operation of test hardware and documentation followed the established NASA processes and requirements for test buildup and operation.

Barta, Daniel J.↗