Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Technology Selection”

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 NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program: Select Technology Demonstration Missions

NASA's Small Spacecraft Technology Program expands the ability to execute unique missions through rapid development and demonstration of capabilities for small spacecraft applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. This presentation provides information on three technology demonstration missions currently on orbit or in development to include Starling, the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System, and DiskSat.

Roger C Hunter↗
NASA NTRS2019

Space Research Project Management Can Benefit from Engineering Technology Selection Methods

Many engineering methods have been developed to help management select technology for a system design or further research. The simplest way to compare technologies is to use a checklist containing all the more or less important selection criteria, so that nothing is overlooked. The criteria usually include cost, safety, reliability and maintainability, and potential problems such as noise generation and microgravity sensitivity. The next step typically is to weight and score all the criteria. The process of weighting and scoring is helpful in bringing out different priorities and reaching a shared point of view. Group technology selection methods are designed to highlight initial disagreements and produce a shared consensus. Often a frank discussion led by management rather than decision analysts can be more effective. The final selection depends on management and engineering judgment and may include programmatic and organizational factors that are beyond the engineering checklist. The objective of engineering technology selection methods is to provide engineering information to assist management in making sound decisions. Project management and technology selection are assumed to use rational engineering analytic methods, but they often do not. The reason is that human insight, intuition, and “gut feel,” rather than logic, more frequently determine our decisions. Project selection and management are strongly influenced by nonrational psychological influences, which can produce unjustified confidence and determination. Nevertheless, there is a strong need for space projects to do rational project analysis and selection. Demonstrating a rational spirit is necessary for a scientific and technical organization. Professional ethics at its best requires an open, honest, and fair process, without damaging politics. Rational analysis can help improve good projects and avoid selecting bad ones. A sanity check using rational analysis guided by a checklist can help avoid egregious and damaging errors.

Jones, Harry W.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Metrics in Space Life Support Technology Selection

Engineering metrics are useful in space life support technology selection, but they must be carefully used. Metrics are only part of a complete system trade-off. Metrics do harm if they cause neglect of other important technical, organizational, or intuitive decision factors. Two metrics have damaged space life support, closure and Equivalent Systems Mass (ESM). Closure measures the fraction of the required system inputs that are produced by recycling system outputs. Increasing closure produces diminishing returns and becomes increasingly expensive. Increasing closure does not directly contribute to providing better life support. ESM measures the total launch mass required to provide life support. ESM includes the mass of the system hardware and of its power, cooling, pressurized volume, spares, and logistics. ESM predicts launch costs, but recently launch costs have been reduced by a factor of 20 or more. System development cost for space hardware is often much greater than launch cost. The past nearly exclusive use of ESM has led to the neglect of Life Cycle Cost (LCC), reliability, cost, and the other engineering factors. Closure and ESM have misguided space life support technology selection for more than twenty years and have adversely affected the expenditure of 100’s of millions of dollars. Metrics can be effectively used three ways in space life support technology selection: 1. A small set of key engineering metrics for preliminary screening. 2. A full set of engineering to guide technical selection. 3. Combining engineering metrics with organizational, political, and intuitive decision factors to understand technology selection. The past emphasis on closure and ESM served to support recycling life support over resupply and built on the intuitive appeal of a human ecosystem in space.

Harry W Jones↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program: Overview and Select Technology Demonstration Missions

NASA's Small Spacecraft Technology Program expands the ability to execute unique missions through rapid development and demonstration of capabilities for small spacecraft applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. This presentation provides information on three technology demonstration missions currently on orbit or in development to include Starling, the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System, and DiskSat. Information on the program's University SmallSat Technology Partnerships initiative will also be provided.

Roger C. Hunter↗
NASA NTRS1989

A two-phase methodology for technology selection and system design

A two-phase methodology that can be used to guide R&D managers in the evaluation and selection of competing technologies is presented. Deterministic multiattribute utility theory is used in the first phase to rank the technological alternatives; the example presented involves the evaluation of electric and hybrid passenger vehicles. In all, 39 individuals from eight automotive firms were interviewed to assess their risk preferences and attitudes toward the vehicle design. In the second phase, the decision-maker must allocate a fixed amount of resources to different projects for the technology selected, some of which may be undertaken in parallel, to maximize a given measure of performance. When parallel funding is pursued the best outcome is chosen. The problem is formulated as a probabilistic network and solved heuristically using Monte Carlo simulation. Results are presented for two decision-makers and three budget options. In each case, the heuristic finds the optimal allocation of funds.

Bard, Jonathan F.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Air and Water System (AWS) Design and Technology Selection for the Vision for Space Exploration

This paper considers technology selection for the crew air and water recycling systems to be used in long duration human space exploration. The specific objectives are to identify the most probable air and water technologies for the vision for space exploration and to identify the alternate technologies that might be developed. The approach is to conduct a preliminary first cut systems engineering analysis, beginning with the Air and Water System (AWS) requirements and the system mass balance, and then define the functional architecture, review the International Space Station (ISS) technologies, and discuss alternate technologies. The life support requirements for air and water are well known. The results of the mass flow and mass balance analysis help define the system architectural concept. The AWS includes five subsystems: Oxygen Supply, Condensate Purification, Urine Purification, Hygiene Water Purification, and Clothes Wash Purification. AWS technologies have been evaluated in the life support design for ISS node 3, and in earlier space station design studies, in proposals for the upgrade or evolution of the space station, and in studies of potential lunar or Mars missions. The leading candidate technologies for the vision for space exploration are those planned for Node 3 of the ISS. The ISS life support was designed to utilize Space Station Freedom (SSF) hardware to the maximum extent possible. The SSF final technology selection process, criteria, and results are discussed. Would it be cost-effective for the vision for space exploration to develop alternate technology? This paper will examine this and other questions associated with AWS design and technology selection.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS1983

Advanced Platform Systems Technology study. Volume 2: Trade study and technology selection

Three primary tasks were identified which include task 1-trade studies, task 2-trade study comparison and technology selection, and task 3-technology definition. Task 1 general objectives were to identify candidate technology trade areas, determine which areas have the highest potential payoff, define specific trades within the high payoff areas, and perform the trade studies. In order to satisfy these objectives, a structured, organized approach was employed. Candidate technology areas and specific trades were screened using consistent selection criteria and considering possible interrelationships. A data base comprising both manned and unmanned space platform documentation was used as a source of system and subsystem requirements. When requirements were not stated in the data base documentation, assumptions were made and recorded where necessary to characterize a particular spacecraft system. The requirements and assumptions were used together with the selection criteria to establish technology advancement goals and select trade studies. While both manned and unmanned platform data were used, the study was focused on the concept of an early manned space station.

Source record↗
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 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 NTRS1985

Space station systems technology study (add-on task). Volume 2: Trade study and technology selection

The current Space Station Systems Technology Study add on task was an outgrowth of the Advanced Platform Systems Technology Study (APSTS) that was completed in April 1983 and the subsequent Space Station System Technology Study completed in April 1984. The first APSTS proceeded from the identification of 106 technology topics to the selection of five for detailed trade studies. During the advanced platform study, the technical issues and options were evaluated through detailed trade processes, individual consideration was given to costs and benefits for the technologies identified for advancement, and advancement plans were developed. An approach similar to that was used in the subsequent study, with emphasis on system definition in four specific technology areas to facilitate a more in depth analysis of technology issues.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1999

A Real-Options Approach for NASA Strategic Technology Selection

In this paper, we examine the use of real options valuation in the context of prioritizing advanced technologies for NASA funding. Further, we offer a set of computational procedures that quantifies the option value of each technology.

real options technology selection option pricing↗
NASA NTRS1974

Fluid technology (selected components, devices, and systems): A compilation

Developments in fluid technology and hydraulic equipment are presented. The subjects considered are: (1) the use of fluids in the operation of switches, amplifiers, and servo devices, (2) devices and data for laboratory use in the study of fluid dynamics, and (3) the use of fluids as controls and certain methods of controlling fluids.

Source record↗