Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Transformational Leadership”

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.

17 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1992

Ninth Annual NASA/Contractors Conference on Quality and Productivity. World Class Excellence: The Journey Continues. Conference presentations

The topics covered include the following: The George M. Low Trophy; total quality assessment and measurement; using award criteria to improve organizational effectiveness; results--keeping an eye on the bottom line; capturing customer satisfaction; moving from management to leadership; leadership versus management; transforming the management team; leadership success stories; success stories in the quest for excellence; small business successes; education success stories; government success stories; tools and techniques for total quality management (TQM) integration; planning and organizing for TQM integration; successful stories for implementing system level TQM/CI tools; assessing TQM results; establishing an environment for continuous improvement at NASA; empowerment; synergism of partnering; and partnerships in education.

Templeton, Geoffrey B.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Revitalization of the NASA Langley Research Center's Infrastructure

The NASA Langley Research Center (Langley) was founded in 1917 as the nation's first civilian aeronautical research facility and NASA's first field center. For nearly 100 years, Langley has made significant contributions to the Aeronautics, Space Exploration, and Earth Science missions through research, technology, and engineering core competencies in aerosciences, materials, structures, the characterization of earth and planetary atmospheres and, more recently, in technologies associated with entry, descent, and landing. An unfortunate but inevitable outcome of this rich history is an aging infrastructure where the longest serving building is close to 80 years old and the average building age is 44 years old. In the current environment, the continued operation and maintenance of this aging and often inefficient infrastructure presents a real challenge to Center leadership in the trade space of sustaining infrastructure versus not investing in future capabilities. To address this issue, the Center has developed a forward looking revitalization strategy that ties future core competencies and technical capabilities to the Center Master Facility Plan to maintain a viable Center well into the future. This paper documents Langley's revitalization strategy which integrates the Center's missions, the Langley 2050 vision, the Center Master Facility Plan, and the New Town repair-by-replacement program through the leadership of the Vibrant Transformation to Advance Langley (ViTAL) Team.

Weiser, Erik S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Model-Based Systems Engineering Journey to Developing a Concept of Operations

Starting in 2017, NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element began a systems engineering transition from traditional, document-centric development to model-centric development when defining its foundation medical systems. These foundation medical systems define a Concept of Operations (ConOps) and identify the generic requirements for a medical system based on assumptions about a generic crew and mission environments and guidance from NASA standards (e.g., Medical “Levels of Care”). By making the transition, ExMC intends to improve communication among stakeholders about foundation medical system requirements and content. In addition, this transition will enable ExMC to lower both development and crew treatment risks for future, mission-specific medical systems. ExMC followed a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) paradigm when developing the foundation medical systems. A model-based approach provides several advantages over a traditional, document-centric approach. First, when Systems Engineers (SE) develop diagrams in a model using a standard modeling language, they produce information dense pictures that facilitate understanding much more efficiently with less room for misinterpretation than text. Second, due to the evolving nature of projects, documentation becomes out of date the minute it is published. This can result in people making decisions based on information that is no longer current, especially if they are referencing a locally-stored copy of a document. A model, on the other hand, is always up to date with the latest approved changes and information. It serves as a single point of truth. Third, a model-centric approach centralizes all important information in one place. Rather than having to flip through separate ConOps documents, design specifications, requirements specifications, and the like to coordinate information, a model captures the content in one, integrated spot. This integration makes tracing information from end-to-end easier with greater reliability. The ExMC Systems Engineering Lifecycle follows a well-defined process. ExMC Systems Engineers perform all major steps of the process, regardless of the development methodology. One of the first steps in the process is developing the ConOps that describes the operation of the system from the point of view of the users. It includes a list of the users and their needs, the goals of the medical system, key assumptions about the system, and definitions of the medical system’s operational environments. For this development effort, ExMC chose to replace the traditional text-based ConOps document with a model. While the decision to change the development workflow was not difficult, implementing the structural and organizational workflows were. It required showing ExMC’s users, most of whom are not Systems Engineers, how the information they require would be presented in the model and to gain their acceptance of this approach. This paper documents key lessons learned during the ConOps transformation by focusing on how the model represents information, the agile workflow used by SEs when developing the model and how it integrates into a project plan, how leadership influenced key users to accept the transformation, and how the users interact with the model information.

Jeffrey Robert Cohen↗
NASA NTRS2018

Action Pathways for Transforming Cities

Transformation is required for cities to fulfil their leadership potential on climate change. Five action pathways can guide them: integrate mitigation and adaptation; coordinate risk reduction and climate adaptation; cogenerate risk information; focus on disadvantaged populations; and improve governance and knowledge networks.

Civil engineering↗
NASA NTRS2023

NASA Langley Transformation Plan

NASA Langley Research Center has a strong history of creating impactful contributions to NASA’s mission and the Nation, working across NASA’s mission directorate portfolio. NASA Langley develops and delivers innovative solutions and technologies across a diversified portfolio that includes aeronautics, space technology and exploration, and science. As NASA Langley enters its 106th year, the Center is working in changing environment driven by the global pace of technology advancement and increased global connectivity. It is within this global context that NASA Langley leadership has recognized the need to intentionally invest in modernization efforts and established the Langley Transformation Initiative. This document outlines the Langley Transformation Initiative vision and goals. Current transformation challenges are described, and a strategy is outlined for how to the Transformation Initiative plans to advance towards the transformation vision.

Transformation↗
NASA NTRS2007

50 Years of Electronic Check Out and Launch Systems at Kennedy Space Center

When NASA was created in 1958 one of the elements incorporated into this new agency was the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) in Huntsville, AL and its subordinate Missile Firing Laboratory (MFL) in Cape Canaveral. Under NASA, the MFL became the Launch Operations Directorate of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, but expanding operations in the build up to Apollo dictated that it be given the status of a full fledged Center in July, 1 962[ 1]. The next year it was renamed the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KS C) after the president whose vision transformed its first decade of operation. The ABMA was under the technical leadership of Dr. Werner Von Braun. The MEL was run by his deputy Dr. Kurt Debus, an electrical engineer whose experience in the field began in the early days of V-2 testing in war time Germany. In 1952 a group led by Debus arrived in Cape Canaveral to begin test launches of the new Redstone missile [2]. During the 50's, The MFL built several launch complexes and tested the Redstone, Jupiter and Jupiter C missiles. This small experienced team of engineers and technicians formed the seed from which has grown the KSC team of today. This article briefly reviews the evolution of the KSC electronic technologies for integration, check-out and launch of space vehicles and payloads during NASA's first 50 years.

Starr, Stanley O.↗
NASA NTRS2026

Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) Capability Maturity Levels for Ecosystems Enabling Digital Transformation

Digital engineering (DE) and integrated computational materials engineering (ICME) are widely recognized as critical enablers of faster, more affordable, and more reliable aerospace systems. However, many organizations have struggled to realize the promised return on investment (ROI) from digital initiatives. A primary reason is the absence of a shared, decision-focused framework that distinguishes simple digitization of existing workflows from true digital transformation that fundamentally changes how engineering decisions are made. This paper introduces an ICME capability maturity framework that fills this gap. The framework defines six cumulative ICME capability maturity levels (CMLs), explicitly tied to decision authority, engineering integration, optimization, and uncertainty management across material, process, structure, and performance scales. It is designed to complement established readiness metrics such as technology readiness levels (TRLs), manufacturing readiness levels (MRLs), and integration readiness levels (IRLs), by addressing a missing dimension: the conditions required for model-informed decision authority across scales. A unifying figure and capability table illustrate the six-level ICME Capability Maturity Framework, showing how organizations progress from digitization—with limited or negative ROI—to true digital transformation, where ICME-enabled workflows deliver measurable improvements in decision quality, cycle time, risk reduction, and reuse. The framework is intended for both technical practitioners and executive leadership, providing a common language to assess current state, guide roadmaps, align software ecosystem investments, and set realistic expectations for digital transformation outcomes. A regulatory-relevant statement clarifying the relationship between ICME capability and existing certification frameworks is provided.

ICME↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Application of Agile for Systems Engineering, Project Management and Modeling and Lessons Learned

The Systems Engineering team within the Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element has been transforming its development processes to be more efficient, robust,and responsive to change and to its stakeholders. To these ends, the Systems Engineering team trialed the integration of agile development techniques into existing and new processes. Agile development methods are well understood within the software development community. Outside ofsoftware development, however, how non-software project management (PM) and systems engineering (SE) teams implement agile development techniques is less well understood. In its transformation efforts, the ExMC SE team focused on three main areas: Improving the project communications among subsystem teams and stakeholders by adopting a scrum-like process, Changing the status and reporting mechanisms to improve schedule coordination between the subsystem team, SE leadership, and ExMC Element leadership, and Unifying the model-based SE workflow to improve understanding of Concepts of Operations across projects.This presentation highlights several of these transformations and what the SE team learned while undergoing the transformation.

S Lumpkins↗
NASA NTRS2018

Aero-Propulsion Control Research in Support of NASA Aeronautics Research Strategic Thrusts

In the past few years, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) has introduced and updated a “New Blueprint for Transforming Global Aviation†. This blueprint consists of six NASA Aeronautics Research Strategic Thrusts â€" “The updated vision is designed to ensure that through NASA's aeronautical research the United States will maintain its leadership in the sky and sustain aviation so that it remains a key economic driver and cultural touchstone for the nation.†In mid-2016, technology development roadmaps were developed by ARMD for each of the strategic research thrusts and these roadmaps are continually being updated based on feedback from the broader aeronautics research community. The NASA Aeronautics research vision is implemented through a set of 4 programs â€" Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP), Airspace Operations and Safety Program (AOSP), Integrated Aviation Systems Program (IASP), and Transformative Aeronautics Concepts Program (TACP). The Intelligent Control and Autonomy Branch (ICAB) at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, is leading and participating in various projects in partnership with other organizations within GRC and across NASA, the U.S. aerospace industry, and academia to develop advanced controls and health management technologies for aero-propulsion systems that will help meet the goals of the ARMD programs. These efforts are primarily under the various projects under AAVP, AOSP, and TACP. The ICAB current research tasks in support of ARMD program are described in this paper. The paper provides motivation, background, technical approach and recent accomplishments for these tasks, as well as a couple of tasks completed in the previous fiscal year.

Propulsion Control↗
NASA NTRS2020

The “Gearamid” Model: Transforming NASA Langley’s Role in the Aerospace Technology Ecosystem

NASA’s operating environment is evolving: numerous new emerging technologies are converging to create breakthrough solutions, many nontraditional players are partnering to create those solutions, and a diverse array of new public-private funding models are being employed. A team at NASA’s Langley Research Center (LaRC) developed a model to describe the challenges that must be addressed for an emerging breakthrough technology to penetrate the appropriate market sector, and how all the players in the relevant ecosystem can collaborate to accelerate the market infusion process. This model, which the team dubbed the “Gearamid,” originated from a narrower study to determine what LaRC should do to capitalize on and advance autonomous technology as a “game changer” in the civil aerospace domain. The elements in the original version of the Gearamid depict the various challenges that need to be addressed as an autonomous technology proceeds from initial development to market infusion. In addition, the Gearamid indicates the “actors” best suited to address each challenge element. The study team noted that all challenge elements in the Gearamid must be worked concurrently to assure successful infusion of autonomous solutions. The team also found that NASA expertise naturally positions Agency organizations—including LaRC—to lead contributions that address certain challenge elements and to play a supplemental role in other areas where entities external to NASA are actively working and investing to solve challenges. Furthermore, the team concluded that NASA can play a leadership role in coordinating efforts of the diverse entities across the civil aerospace community. After determining the center’s optimal role in the autonomous technology development ecosystem, the study team then extrapolated the Gearamid model for autonomous technologies into a broader, more general model depicting the challenge elements that must be overcome to develop and infuse any emerging technology. LaRC has embraced the Gearamid model and is using it to drive changes that will transform the center and allow it to function optimally in the evolving landscape. Given LaRC’s successes, the study team suggests that other organizations may also be able to use the Gearamid model to inform future planning/strategy efforts.

Jill M Marlowe↗
NASA NTRS2021

NASA Strategy for Technology Development

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) provides the strategy and leadership that integrates NASA’s technology development and open innovation activities to advance American aeronautic, science, and space exploration objectives. OCT performs an agency-level technology coordination role, coordinating with the NASA Mission Directorates, field centers, and other government agencies to align the agency’s technology investments to meet mission requirements while filling gaps, anticipating future needs, and minimizing duplication of effort. OCT provides the strategy and coordination that guide NASA's technology and innovation activities through Strategic Technology Integration, Digital Transformation, the Science and Technology Partnership Forum, and Innovation. The Strategic Technology Integration team informs policy, requirements, and strategy for NASA’s technology development activities in support of the Chief Technologist by coordinating with NASA mission directorates, other government agencies, and external organizations. As part of these efforts, OCT develops the NASA Technology Taxonomy and the NASA Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan. Digital Transformation will increasingly change the way NASA operates and will enable the agency’s missions to be completed more efficiently and effectively. It will allow current and future employees to use their talents in more innovative ways. The Science and Technology Partnership Forum is a strategic forum, with principal partners at the United States Space Force and the National Reconnaissance Office. It was established to identify synergistic efforts and technologies in order to leverage those synergies and influence portfolios across space agencies in areas deemed pervasive and ready for collaboration. NASA's Innovation efforts are designed to transform diverse ideas into value and are guided by a framework that is focused on the agency’s people, processes, partnerships and portfolio. The innovation framework is used to connect the workforce to tools, strategies and activities to increase the pace of innovation. OCT translates National space policies into NASA technology strategies and coordination across the agency and interagency communities to guide NASA's technology and innovation activities to achieve capabilities needed for future missions. This chapter provides insight into the value of analyzing future states to inform technology developments to plot the strategic direction of NASA’s space technology program.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Revisiting the Soyuz-1 Parachute Failure in the Context of Safety in the Modern Era

The Soyuz‑1 accident remains one of the most consequential parachute related failures in human spaceflight history and provides enduring lessons for modern Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) system design. Occurring during the height of the Cold War and the Space Race, the mission unfolded under extraordinary political and schedule pressure as the Soviet Union sought to maintain its early leadership in space achievements following the death of chief designer Sergei Korolev. Despite unresolved propulsion, electrical, and parachute system deficiencies, Soyuz‑1 proceeded to launch and immediately encountered critical inflight anomalies, including a failed solar panel deployment, attitude control issues, and communication dropouts. Upon reentry, a malfunction in the parachute system, driven by a primary main canopy that failed to deploy, and subsequent entanglement of the reserve main canopy with the primary drogue parachute, resulted in insufficient deceleration and the fatal crash of cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov. Subsequent investigations revealed deep rooted cultural and organizational issues within the Soviet space program, including inadequate testing, suppression of dissent, undocumented last minute design changes, and the absence of integrated parachute system verification. More than 200 design flaws were identified after the accident, and firsthand accounts, including those from Yuri Gagarin, highlighted widespread concern prior to launch. Over time, the Soviet program implemented substantial reforms: systematic design corrections, rigorous process documentation, and an extensive series of drop tests that ultimately transformed the Soyuz system into one of the world’s most reliable human-rated return vehicles. This paper examines the technical architecture of the Soyuz‑1 parachute system, reconstructs the likely deployment sequence and failure mechanism, and analyzes the cultural contributors that shaped the accident. The study draws parallels to modern spacecraft parachute development, emphasizing the critical importance of integrated system testing, transparent engineering culture, and continuous hardware surveillance. These lessons remain directly relevant to today’s NASA and Commercial Crew Programs (CCP), where the Government continues to refine its understanding of aggregate risk and strengthen overall astronaut safety in the face of increasingly complex parachute systems.

Aaron L Morris↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Living Universe: NASA and the Development of Astrobiology

In the opening weeks of 1998 a news article in the British journal Nature reported that NASA was about to enter biology in a big way. A "virtual" Astrobiology Institute was gearing up for business, and NASA administrator Dan Goldin told his external advisory council that he would like to see spending on the new institute eventually reach $100 million per year. "You just wait for the screaming from the physical scientists (when that happens)," Goldin was quoted as saying. Nevertheless, by the time of the second Astrobiology Science Conference in 2002, attended by seven hundred scientists from many disciplines, NASA spending on astrobiology had reached nearly half that amount and was growing at a steady pace. Under NASA leadership numerous institutions around the world applied the latest scientific techniques in the service of astrobiology's ambitious goal: the study of what NASA's 1996 Strategic Plan termed the "living universe." This goal embraced nothing less than an understanding of the origin, history, and distribution of life in the universe, including Earth. Astrobiology, conceived as a broad interdisciplinary research program, held the prospect of being the science for the twenty-first century which would unlock the secrets to some of the great questions of humanity. It is no surprise that these age-old questions should continue into the twenty-first century. But that the effort should be spearheaded by NASA was not at all obvious to those - inside and outside the agency - who thought NASA's mission was human spaceflight, rather than science, especially biological science. NASA had, in fact, been involved for four decades in "exobiology," a field that embraced many of the same questions but which had stagnated after the 1976 Viking missions to Mars. In this volume we tell the colorful story of the rise of the discipline of exobiology, how and why it morphed into astrobiology at the end of the twentieth century, and why NASA was the engine for both the discipline's founding and for its transformation.

Dick, Steven J.↗
NASA NTRS2013

High Speed Mobility Through On-Demand Aviation

Game changing advances come about by the introduction of new technologies at a time when societal needs create the opportunity for new market solutions. A unique opportunity exists for NASA to bring about such a mobility revolution in General Aviation, extendable to other aviation markets, to maintain leadership in aviation by the United States. This report outlines the research carried out so far under NASA's leadership towards developing a new mobility choice, called Zip Aviation1,2,3. The feasibility, technology and system gaps that need to be addressed, and pathways for successful implementation have been investigated to guide future investment. The past decade indicates exciting trends in transportation technologies, which are quickly evolving. Automobiles are embracing automation to ease driver tasks as well as to completely control the vehicle with added safety (Figure 1). Electric propulsion is providing zero tail-pipe emission vehicles with dramatically lower energy and maintenance costs. These technologies have not yet been applied to aviation, yet offer compelling potential benefits across all aviation markets, and in particular to General Aviation (GA) as an early adopter market. The benefits of such an adoption are applicable in the following areas: 􀁸 Safety: The GA market experiences accident rates that are substantially higher than automobiles or commercial airlines, with 7.5 fatal accidents per 100 million vehicle miles compared to 1.3 for automobiles and.068 for airlines. Approximately 80% of these accidents are caused by some form of pilot error, with another 13% caused by single point propulsion system failure. 􀁸 Emissions: Environmental constraints are pushing for the elimination of 100Low Lead (LL) fuel used in most GA aircraft, with aviation fuel the #1 source of lead emissions into the environment. Aircraft also have no emission control systems (i.e. no catalytic converters etc.), so they are gross hydrocarbon polluters compared to automobiles. 􀁸 Community Noise: Hub and smaller GA airports are facing increasing noise restrictions, and while commercial airliners have dramatically decreased their community noise footprint over the past 30 years, GA aircraft noise has essentially remained same, and moreover, is located in closer proximity to neighborhoods and businesses. 􀁸 Operating Costs: GA operating costs have risen dramatically due to average fuel costs of over $6 per gallon, which has constrained the market over the past decade and resulted in more than 50% lower sales and 35% less yearly operations. Infusion of autonomy and electric propulsion technologies can accomplish not only a transformation of the GA market, but also provide a technology enablement bridge for both larger aircraft and the emerging civil Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) markets. The NASA Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments (AGATE) project successfully used a similar approach to enable the introduction of primary composite structures and flat panel displays in the 1990s, establishing both the technology and certification standardization to permit quick adoption through partnerships with industry, academia, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Regional and airliner markets are experiencing constant pressure to achieve decreasing levels of community emissions and noise, while lowering operating costs and improving safety. But to what degree can these new technology frontiers impact aircraft safety, the environment, operations, cost, and performance? Are the benefits transformational enough to fundamentally alter aircraft competiveness and productivity to permit much greater aviation use for high speed and On-Demand Mobility (ODM)? These questions were asked in a Zip aviation system study named after the Zip Car, an emerging car-sharing business model. Zip Aviation investigates the potential to enable new emergent markets for aviation that offer "more flexibility than the existing transportation solutions." These studies indicate that autonomy and electric propulsion technology infusions offer a unique opportunity to provide breakthrough capabilities for new high speed, on-demand travel alternatives that can leapfrog the need for future expensive ground-based infrastructure investment. At the same time, such investments offer a method of laying the foundation for these technologies to be incubated for commercial aviation at lower cost, and with lower initial certification thresholds due to the relatively poor capabilities of GA aircraft to permit early adoption and private market capitalization by rapid technology accelerations, as depicted in Figure 2.

Moore, Mark D.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Enabling Wireless Avionics Intra-Communications

The Electromagnetics and Sensors Branch of NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) is investigating the potential of an all-wireless aircraft as part of the ECON (Efficient Reconfigurable Cockpit Design and Fleet Operations using Software Intensive, Networked and Wireless Enabled Architecture) seedling proposal, which is funded by the Convergent Aeronautics Solutions (CAS) project, Transformative Aeronautics Concepts (TAC) program, and NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI). The project consists of a brief effort carried out by a small team in the Electromagnetic Environment Effects (E3) laboratory with the intention of exposing some of the challenges faced by a wireless communication system inside the reflective cavity of an aircraft and to explore potential solutions that take advantage of that environment for constructive gain. The research effort was named EWAIC for "Enabling Wireless Aircraft Intra-communications." The E3 laboratory is a research facility that includes three electromagnetic reverberation chambers and equipment that allow testing and generation of test data for the investigation of wireless systems in reflective environments. Using these chambers, the EWAIC team developed a set of tests and setups that allow the intentional variation of intensity of a multipath field to reproduce the environment of the various bays and cabins of large transport aircraft. This setup, in essence, simulates an aircraft environment that allows the investigation and testing of wireless communication protocols that can effectively be used as a tool to mitigate some of the risks inherent to an aircraft wireless system for critical functions. In addition, the EWAIC team initiated the development of a computational modeling tool to illustrate the propagation of EM waves inside the reflective cabins and bays of aircraft and to obtain quantifiable information regarding the degradation of signals in aircraft subassemblies. The nose landing gear of a UAV CAD model was used to model the propagation of a system in a "deployed" configuration versus a "stowed" configuration. The differences in relative field strength provide valuable information about the distribution of the field that can be used to engineer RF links with optimal radiated power and antenna configuration that accomplish the intended system reliability. Such modeling will be necessary in subsequent studies for managing multipath propagation characteristics inside a main cabin and to understand more complex environments, such as the inside wings, landing gear bays, cargo bays, avionics bays, etc. The results of the short research effort are described in the present document. The team puts forth a set of recommendations with the intention of informing the project and program leadership of the future work that, in the opinion of the EWAIC team, would assist the ECON team reach the intended goal of developing an all-wireless aircraft.

Torres, Omar↗