Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Thinking Systems”

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

A Thinking System and Thinking Autonomy

There are many definitions of what a “Thinking System” (TS) is. The literature primarily addresses what is called “Systems Thinking.” Dr. Marie Morganelli from Southern New Hampshire University states that “Systems thinking is a holistic way to investigate factors and interactions that could contribute to a possible outcome. A mindset more than a prescribed practice, systems thinking provides an understanding of how individuals can work together in different types of teams and through that understanding, create the best possible processes to accomplish just about anything.” So, a TS is a system that is capable of “systems thinking,” as it should be able to “ … create [utilize] the best possible processes [and intelligence] to accomplish just about anything.” To achieve this capability, human-like thinking is required. A truly autonomous system must be one that is capable of human-like thinking. This paper will address “Thinking Autonomy” (TA) enabled by a “Thinking System.” It will describe an architecture with the elements required to achieve the “thinking” behavior: understanding, intellect, reason, decision, will. The paper will further describe the contents and functionality of these elements and how to implement them, including software capabilities needed. Finally, the paper will provide details of a software platform that enables TA, the NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS), and describe implementations of thinking systems. Thinking systems will enable a fundamental change how AI and autonomy are implemented. It will change from a “brute force” approach that results in one-time implementations that are minimally intelligent or autonomous to a “thinking” approach where implementations evolve continuously and enable powerful intelligence and autonomy on systems of high complexity as well as on systems-of-systems.

Thinking systems↗
NASA NTRS2009

Collaborative Systems Thinking: A Response to the Problems Faced by Systems Engineering's 'Middle Tier'

Experienced systems engineers are adept at more than implementing systems engineering processes: they utilize systems thinking to solve complex engineering problems. Within the space industry demographics and economic pressures are reducing the number of experienced systems engineers that will be available in the future. Collaborative systems thinking within systems engineering teams is proposed as a way to integrate systems engineers of various experience levels to handle complex systems engineering challenges. This paper uses the GOES-R Program Systems Engineering team to illustrate the enablers and barriers to team level systems thinking and to identify ways in which performance could be improved. Ways NASA could expand its engineering training to promote team-level systems thinking are proposed.

Phfarr, Barbara B.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Charting Multidisciplinary Team External Dynamics Using a Systems Thinking Approach

Using the formalism provided by the Systems Thinking approach, the dynamics present when operating multidisciplinary teams are examined in the context of the NASA Langley Research and Technology Group, an R&D organization organized along functional lines. The paper focuses on external dynamics and examines how an organization creates and nurtures the teams and how it disseminates and retains the lessons and expertise created by the multidisciplinary activities. Key variables are selected and the causal relationships between the variables are identified. Five "stories" are told, each of which touches on a different aspect of the dynamics. The Systems Thinking Approach provides recommendations as to interventions that will facilitate the introduction of multidisciplinary teams and that therefore will increase the likelihood of performing successful multidisciplinary developments. These interventions can be carried out either by individual researchers, line management or program management.

Barthelemy, Jean-Francois↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Systems Thinking Approach to Nuclear Pedagogy and Workforce Development

Nuclear technology's controversial status has been shaped by its early use in military applications, fear driven by high-profile accidents, and unresolved waste management challenges. There have, on the other hand, been periodic claims that a “nuclear renaissance” is imminent, driven by different dynamics at different times, most recently related to growing energy demands and increasing concern over carbon emissions. In this article, we respond to urgent calls for more nuclear engineers, resulting from the latest rallying cry around nuclear energy, by reframing the problem using a systems thinking approach that illuminates new pathways for nuclear workforce development via interdisciplinary pedagogies. By building nuclear education into a wide variety of disciplines, we argue, the nuclear workforce could become more resilient to ebbs and flows in energy markets and public opinion. Widening nuclear education beyond nuclear engineers could also reduce the isolation and compartmentalization that has limited the possibilities of nuclear technology. We show how growing and diversifying the overall nuclear workforce could create a wide variety of career opportunities outside STEM and enable greater specialization within STEM, since nuclear engineers and other specialists could be freed up to focus on technological and infrastructural innovations. We argue that interventions into nuclear education should establish new connections and applications of the nuclear sciences in diverse areas of expertise to develop a broad range of professionals who can contribute to a more stable nuclear workforce, bringing what we call “critical and creative nuclear energy literacies” to long-standing and systemic challenges around nuclear energy.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS1998

Modeling and Analysis of Multidiscipline Research Teams at NASA Langley Research Center: A Systems Thinking Approach

Multidisciplinary analysis and design is inherently a team activity due to the variety of required expertise and knowledge. As a team activity, multidisciplinary research cannot escape the issues that affect all teams. The level of technical diversity required to perform multidisciplinary analysis and design makes the teaming aspects even more important. A study was conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center to develop a model of multidiscipline teams that can be used to help understand their dynamics and identify key factors that influence their effectiveness. The study sought to apply the elements of systems thinking to better understand the factors, both generic and Langley-specific, that influence the effectiveness of multidiscipline teams. The model of multidiscipline research teams developed during this study has been valuable in identifying means to enhance team effectiveness, recognize and avoid problem behaviors, and provide guidance for forming and coordinating multidiscipline teams.

Waszak, Martin R.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Artificial Thought is Required for Sustained Autonomy

Current literature primarily addresses what is referred to as “Systems Thinking.” Dr. Marie Morganelli from Southern New Hampshire University states that “Systems thinking is a holistic way to investigate factors and interactions that could contribute to a possible outcome [1]. A mindset more than a prescribed practice, systems thinking provides an understanding of how individuals can work together in different types of teams and through that understanding, create the best possible processes to accomplish just about any-thing.” So, a “Thinking System” is a system that is capable of “systems thinking,” as it should be able to “ …create [utilize] the best possible processes, and possess the [intelligence] to accomplish just about anything.” To achieve this capability, hu-man-like thinking is required. A truly autonomous system must be one that is capable of human-like thinking. Sustained autonomy requires “Thinking Autonomy” (TA) that is enabled by a “Thinking System.”

Autonomous systems↗
DOE OSTI2025

Progress on the MARVEL Cybersecurity by Design Model-Based Systems Engineering Project

Formal model-based systems engineering (MBSE) combines a model, systems thinking, and systems engineering to visually depict the boundaries, context, and behavior of interconnected systems, facilitating effective design, development, and utilization of engineered systems throughout the systems engineering lifecycle. Although nuclear reactor vendors employ these tools to integrate functionality, performance, and safety, they are not yet addressing digital risk concerns introduced by use of operational technology, such as digital instrumentation and control systems. To accomplish this objective, the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and EvaLuation (MARVEL) microreactor was used as an MBSE case study. This real-world application provides a first-of-a-kind opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of integrating digital risk and cybersecurity into the MBSE design process of a nuclear reactor. This paper provides an update of the ongoing MARVEL Cyber MBSE project as it specifically relates to the integration of digital risk management and cybersecurity by design.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2018

Leverage Points for System Health Management of Autonomous Systems

Systems Health Management (SHM) is one of three basic functionalities that constitute an autonomous capability of a system. The other two functionalities are Planning & Scheduling, and Task Execution. In an autonomous system, variable autonomy is often distinct from variable authority to sense, decide, and act. There are quantifiable Levels of Autonomy that can be achieved by tuning different portions of the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act loop to provide flexibility and control. This approach is tabulated for multiple domains such as spacecraft and aerial vehicles. Examining SHM through a Systems Thinking lens helps us understand its stocks and flows, loops, and delays. Systems thinking, and modeling, is a useful way to understand change and complexity of systems of many types. There are certain archetypes that underlie well-known autonomy architectures. And there often are leverage points - best places to intervene in a system - that can resolve or mitigate some fundamental challenges in the design and deployment of autonomous systems. I identify these levers and present the ones that have been successfully used in NASA missions.

Systems Thinking↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-18251-DND

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and its Eco-Schools USA program is focused providing an engaging educational experience to help students better understand the essential principles of Earth's systems and the impact of climate change on them. The program is aimed to provide those students with the ability to communicate about climate change and apply knowledge in decision making. To achieve these objectives, the NWF partnered with NASA scientists and developed the Eco-Schools USA Climate Change Connections (CCC) is a 9th-12th grade curriculum. CCC is designed to build upon and utilize the many NASA mission resources, programs, and associated interfaces to enhance authentic learning experiences for both educators and students. It seeks to develop an integrated systems-thinking approach to understanding and acting upon the issue of climate change. In collaboration with mission specialists from ICESat, LandSat, Terra, AQUA, AURA, a cross programmatic curriculum was developed to provide a unified or systems-thinking approach to addressing realworld Earth systems problems (see NWF web page below). In this presentation, we provide an overview of the Climate Change Connections lesson curriculum but focus specifically on a couple of example exercises where NASA data sets are used to teach basic lessons about aspects of the climate system as it pertains to the built environment. In particular, we show how data adapted from NASA’s GEWEX Surface Energy Budget are applied to a lesson in solar energy. These data sets are made available directly through NASA web portals entitled “My NASA Data” and the Prediction of Worldwide Renewable Energy Resource. At the POWER web portal there is a link to the Surface meteorology and Solar Energy web portal providing data sets tailored specifically to the assessment of solar energy resource at any location on the globe. Here, we depict the sources of these data and their subsequent usage in the Eco-Schools USA CCC Lessons.

Paul W Stackhouse↗
NASA NTRS2007

A Return to Innovative Engineering Design, Critical Thinking and Systems Engineering

I believe we are facing a critical time where innovative engineering design is of paramount importance to the success of our aerospace industry. However, the very qualities and attributes necessary for enhancing, educating, and mentoring a creative spirit are in decline in important areas. The importance of creativity and innovation in this country was emphasized by a special edition of the Harvard Business Review OnPoint entitled: "The Creative Company" which compiled a series of past and present articles on the subject of creativity and innovation and stressed its importance to our national economy. There is also a recognition of a lack of engineering, critical thinking and problem-solving skills in our education systems and a trend toward trying to enhance those skills by developing K-12 educational programs such as Project Lead the Way, "Science for All Americans", Benchmarks 2061 , etc. In addition, with respect to spacecraft development, we have a growing need for young to mid-level engineers with appropriate experience and skills in spacecraft design, development, analysis, testing, and systems engineering. As the Director of Engineering at NASA's Johnson Space Center, I realized that sustaining engineering support of an operational human spacecraft such as the Space Shuttle is decidedly different than engineering design and development skills necessary for designing a new spacecraft such as the Crew Exploration Vehicle of the Constellation Program. We learned a very important lesson post Columbia in that the Space Shuttle is truly an experimental and not an operational vehicle and the strict adherence to developed rules and processes and chains of command of an inherently bureaucratic organizational structure will not protect us from a host of known unknowns let alone unknown unknowns. There are no strict rules, processes, or procedures for understanding anomalous results of an experiment, anomalies with an experimental spacecraft like Shuttle, or in the conceptual design of a spacecraft. Engineering design is as much an art as it is a science. The critical thinking skills necessary to uncover lurking problems in an experimental design and creatively develop solutions are some of the same skills necessary to design a new spacecraft. Thus, I believe engineers unfamiliar with or removed from design and development need time to transition and develop the required skill set to be effective spacecraft designers. I believe the creative process necessary in design can be enhanced and even taught as early as grades K-12 and should continue to be nurtured and developed at the university level and beyond. I am going to present a strategy for developing learning teams to address complex multidisciplinary problems and to creatively develop solutions to those problems rapidly at minimal cost. I will frame a real problem, the development of on-orbit thermal protection system repair of the Space Shuttle, and step through the series of skills necessary to enhance the creative process. The case study I will illustrate is based on a real project, the R&D Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) Repair Team's development of on-orbit repair concepts for damaged Space Shuttle RCC nose cap and/or leading edges.

Camarda, Charles J.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Target Diagnostic Menu Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory SYSM-5620: Design Thinking and Systems Engineering

Target Diagnostic’s Engineering Science (TDES) currently supports over 80 diagnostic systems, all of which draw from a fixed budget that covers staff time and procurement. As the division continues to add new diagnostics, demand on these limited resources increases, yet the budget remains unchanged. Shot Responsible Individuals (RIs) have unrestricted freedom to select any number or type of diagnostics for each experiment, often by copying previous shot configurations with only minor modifications. This practice makes it easy to generate new shots but does not encourage critical evaluation of diagnostic necessity. As a result, many diagnostics are routinely included in a shot without a clear justification, and in practice, much of the data collected is not analyzed. The ever-growing arsenal of diagnostics also increases the burden on TDES personnel, requiring more staff for support, maintenance, and service. This environment creates challenges in focusing resources on diagnostics that provide the greatest value to the NIF mission and raises concerns about the continued justification for maintaining all existing systems. The static TDES budget cannot sustain the ongoing growth in demand for new diagnostic systems. Shot RIs currently face no constraints on the number or type of diagnostics they assign to each experiment, often defaulting to previous configurations without critically assessing the necessity of each diagnostic. This results in the routine inclusion of diagnostics whose data may not be analyzed or may no longer directly support the NIF mission. Consequently, TDES is required to maintain and support an expanding set of diagnostics, straining limited resources and risking inefficient use of staff and funding. There is a need for TDES to efficiently allocate limited resources by establishing a process that requires shot RIs to critically evaluate and justify the inclusion of each diagnostic in their experiments. This process should discourage the routine, unexamined inclusion of diagnostics, support the identification of underutilized or obsolete systems, and ensure that only those diagnostics providing the greatest value to the NIF mission are maintained and supported. Ultimately, this approach must enable TDES to operate within budget constraints while maximizing scientific impact and operational efficiency.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Thinking in Systems

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Katherine Dickenson↗
NASA NTRS2006

The Application of Architecture Frameworks to Modelling Exploration Operations Costs

Developments in architectural frameworks and system-of-systems thinking have provided useful constructs for systems engineering. DoDAF concepts, language, and formalisms, in particular, provide a natural way of conceptualizing an operations cost model applicable to NASA's space exploration vision. Not all DoDAF products have meaning or apply to a DoDAF inspired operations cost model, but this paper describes how such DoDAF concepts as nodes, systems, and operational activities relate to the development of a model to estimate exploration operations costs. The paper discusses the specific implementation to the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) operational functions/activities currently being developed and presents an overview of how this powerful representation can apply to robotic space missions as well.

Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trajectory Based Operations (TBO)

Today, the FAA is fully engaged in the development and deployment of TBO for the NAS. To realize TBO, the FAA and NAS user community recognize the importance of systems-of-systems thinking and of greater integration across systems, programs, teams, and between research and the field. The ATD-1 Operational Integration Assessment (OIA), helped blaze the trail for this important transition while moving TBFM Terminal Sequencing and Spacing (TSAS) down the path to deployment. Only a few years later, a comprehensive flight test of Flight Deck Interval Management (FIM) capabilities was executed, complementary and interoperable with traffic flow capabilities that were then emerging for TBO. Together, the ATD-1 tech transfers helped pave the way for the highly integrated systems-of-systems development and acquisition being undertaken for TBO. This session will chart that path to where we are today, and where we are going in the future.

ATD-1, TSAS, FIM, trajectory based operations↗