Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Workforce Planning”

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

Integrated Workforce Planning Model: A Proof of Concept

Recently, the Workforce and Diversity Management Office at KSC have launched a major initiative to develop and implement a competency/skill approach to Human Resource management. As the competency/skill dictionary is being elaborated, the need for a competency-based workforce-planning model is recognized. A proof of concept for such a model is presented using a multidimensional data model that can provide the data infrastructure necessary to drive intelligent decision support systems for workforce planing. The components of competency-driven workforce planning model are explained. The data model is presented and several schemes that would support the workforce-planning model are presented. Some directions and recommendations for future work are given.

Guruvadoo, Eranna K.↗

D-Side: A Facility and Workforce Planning Group Multi-criteria Decision Support System for Johnson Space Center

"To understand and protect our home planet, to explore the universe and search for life, and to inspire the next generation of explorers" is NASA's mission. The Systems Management Office at Johnson Space Center (JSC) is searching for methods to effectively manage the Center's resources to meet NASA's mission. D-Side is a group multi-criteria decision support system (GMDSS) developed to support facility decisions at JSC. D-Side uses a series of sequential and structured processes to plot facilities in a three-dimensional (3-D) graph on the basis of each facility alignment with NASA's mission and goals, the extent to which other facilities are dependent on the facility, and the dollar value of capital investments that have been postponed at the facility relative to the facility replacement value. A similarity factor rank orders facilities based on their Euclidean distance from Ideal and Nadir points. These similarity factors are then used to allocate capital improvement resources across facilities. We also present a parallel model that can be used to support decisions concerning allocation of human resources investments across workforce units. Finally, we present results from a pilot study where 12 experienced facility managers from NASA used D-Side and the organization's current approach to rank order and allocate funds for capital improvement across 20 facilities. Users evaluated D-Side favorably in terms of ease of use, the quality of the decision-making process, decision quality, and overall value-added. Their evaluations of D-Side were significantly more favorable than their evaluations of the current approach. Keywords: NASA, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Decision Support System, AHP, Euclidean Distance, 3-D Modeling, Facility Planning, Workforce Planning.

Tavana, Madjid↗

Space Station Furnace Facility Management Information System (SSFF-MIS) Development

This report summarizes the chronology, results, and lessons learned from the development of the SSFF-MIS. This system has been nearly two years in development and has yielded some valuable insights into specialized MIS development. General: In December of 1994, the Camber Corporation and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) were contracted to design, develop, and implement a MIS for Marshall Space Flight Center's Space Station Furnace Facility Project. The system was to be accessible from both EBM-Compatible PC and Macintosh platforms. The system was required to contain data manually entered into the MIS as well as data imported from other MSFC sources. Electronic interfaces were established for each data source and retrieval was to be performed at prescribed time intervals. The SOW requirement that predominantly drove the development software selection was the dual-platform (IBM-PC and Macintosh) requirement. The requirement that the system would be maintained by Government personnel influenced the selection of Commercial Off-the-shelf software because of its inherent stability and readily available documentation and support. Microsoft FoxPro Professional 2.6 for Windows and Macintosh was selected as the development tool. This is a software development tool that has been in use for many years. It is stable and powerful. Microsoft has since released the replacement for this product, Microsoft Visual FoxPro, but at the time of this development, it was only available on the Windows platform. The initial contract included included the requirement for capabilities relating to the Work- and Organizational Breakdown Structures, cost (plan and actuals), workforce (plan and actuals), critical path scheduling, trend analysis, procurements and contracts, interface to manufacturing, Safety and Mission Assurance, risk analysis, and technical performance indicators. It also required full documentation of the system and training of users. During the course of the contract, the requirements for Safety and Mission Assurance interface, risk analysis, and technical performance indicators were deleted. Additional capabilities were added as reflected in the Contract Chronology below. Modification 4 added the requirement for Support Contractor manpower data, the ability to manually input data not imported from non-nal sources, a general 'health' indicator screen, and remote usage. Mod 6 included the ability to change the level of planning of Civil Service Manpower at any time and the ability to manually enter Op Codes in the manufacturing data where such codes were not provided by the EMPACS database. Modification 9 included a number of changes to report contents and formats. Modification 11 required the preparation of a detailed System Design Document.

Meade, Robert M.↗

Integrated Workforce Modeling System

There are several computer-based systems, currently in various phases of development at KSC, which encompass some component, aspect, or function of workforce modeling. These systems may offer redundant capabilities and/or incompatible interfaces. A systems approach to workforce modeling is necessary in order to identify and better address user requirements. This research has consisted of two primary tasks. Task 1 provided an assessment of existing and proposed KSC workforce modeling systems for their functionality and applicability to the workforce planning function. Task 2 resulted in the development of a proof-of-concept design for a systems approach to workforce modeling. The model incorporates critical aspects of workforce planning, including hires, attrition, and employee development.

Moynihan, Gary P.↗

The Training Process of the Organization Development and Training Office

The Organization Development and Training Office provides training and development opportunities to employees at NASA Glenn Research Center, as a division of the Office of Human Resources and Workforce Planning. Center-wide required trainings, new employee trainings, workshops and career development programs are organized by the OD&TO staff. They also arrange all academic, non-academic, headquarters, fellowship and learning center sponsored courses. They also service organizations wishing to work more effectively by facilitating teambuilding exercises. Equal Opportunity programs and upward mobility programs such as the STEP and GO programs for administrative staff. In working with my mentor I am very involved with Cuyahoga Community College classes, mandatory supervisory training and administrative staff workshops. My largest tasks are in the secretarial training category. The Supporting Organizations And Relationships workshop for administrative personnel, commonly known as SOAR, began last year and continued this summer with follow-up workshops. Months before a workshop or class is brought to Glenn, a need has to be realized. In this case, administrative staff did not feel they had an opportunity to receive relevant training and develop skills through teambuilding, networking and communication. A Statement of work is then created as several companies are contacted about providing the training. After the company best suited to meet the target group s needs is selected, the course is announced with an outline of all pertinent information. A reservation for a facility is made and applications or nominations, depending on the announcement s guidelines, are received from interested employees. Confirmations are sent to participants and final preparations are made but there are still several concluding steps. A training office staff member also assists the facilitator with setting up the facility and introducing the class. After the class, participants evaluations are read and summarized to determine the effectiveness of the class and instructor. In addition to the SOAR workshops, I have several projects and daily tasks to complete. Coding training applications, which require me to be familiar with Glenn s budgetary allocations and policies on training, is an ongoing process. It also requires verifying information reported by an employee via her C-478 form, more commonly known as the training application. I am also the point of contact for the Cuyahoga Community College Advising Sessions held here at NASA Glenn which involves coordinating counselors visits with employees schedules. Two databases had to be created. The first database holds information on administrative staff, and the other tracks supervisors training histories. Through these assignments I gained experience in Microsoft Access 2002 and spreadsheet creation, communicating with co-workers, and successfully facilitating a training to serve specific purposes. With trainings and evaluations to assessment them, the Organization Development and Training Office can assure a quality product and continued customer satisfaction.

Johnson, Melissa S.↗

Creating Portfolio Management Concepts for Highly Agile and Innovative Government Research Programs Using Design Thinking and Lean Startup Methodologies

Managing a research and development (R&D) portfolio presents numerous challenges, such as prioritizing research areas, remaining agile, strategic workforce planning, and measuring return on investment, impact, and innovation. One government R&D program is charged with producing a high degree of innovative, transformational breakthroughs in aviation technology. A practical, structured methodology for strategically prioritizing emerging aviation R&D in such an environment is lacking. The existing multi-criteria decision aid tools are primarily utilized at an enterprise level, take months to set up and collect data, require large teams of experts, are used on an infrequent basis, and are not conducive to a highly innovative, high-risk portfolio. Prior to audaciously creating a new portfolio prioritization process, the exact challenges with portfolio management for R&D projects were identified using the design thinking and lean start-up methods. A key part of this discovery process was interviewing stakeholders, as well as other managers of organizations charged with producing innovative portfolios. These interviews, as well as additional techniques, were used to develop a deeper understanding of the challenges and, subsequently, lay the foundation for development of an effective portfolio prioritization process. Four potential concepts that represent key findings emerged: carefully selected criteria for portfolio assessment and selection, targeted portfolio turnover rate, dynamic portfolio prioritization framework, and streamlined transition or commercialization of R&D. Acting on any one of the resulting portfolio management concepts will increase the transparency and confidence in portfolio decisions and, ideally, result in a greater degree of transformational breakthroughs in aviation technology.

project portfolio management↗

The InSight APSS Data Return Anomaly: Development of an Automated Detection and Response Method

The Auxiliary Payload Sensor Suite (APSS), a collection of environmental sensors carried by the Interior exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy, and Heat Transport (InSight) lander, is capable of measuring Martian air temperature, wind speed, atmospheric pressure, and local magnetic fields. After beginning Mars surface operations, the instrument experienced an anomaly that prevented it from returning science data. The anomaly affected not only the instrument, but also had impacts at the system level. APSS returned to normal operations, however the anomaly occurred again just several weeks later. This proved the need for a streamlined recovery response that would be adaptable to the operations planning cycle and workforce, that would limit the system-level impacts of the anomaly, and that would minimize the instrument downtime. The recovery response evolved from a ground-in-the-loop response to an onboard method for detecting occurrences of the anomaly and automatically recovering the instrument. Ultimately, the automated detection and response method reduced instrument downtime from days to hours and significantly minimized science data loss.

Mittal, Nimisha↗

NASA's Space Launch System Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction Efforts

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formally initiated the Space Launch System (SLS) development in September 2011, with the approval of the program s acquisition plan, which engages the current workforce and infrastructure to deliver an initial 70 metric ton (t) SLS capability in 2017, while using planned block upgrades to evolve to a full 130 t capability after 2021. A key component of the acquisition plan is a three-phased approach for the first stage boosters. The first phase is to complete the development of the Ares and Space Shuttle heritage 5-segment solid rocket boosters (SRBs) for initial exploration missions in 2017 and 2021. The second phase in the booster acquisition plan is the Advanced Booster Risk Reduction and/or Engineering Demonstration NASA Research Announcement (NRA), which was recently awarded after a full and open competition. The NRA was released to industry on February 9, 2012, with a stated intent to reduce risks leading to an affordable advanced booster and to enable competition. The third and final phase will be a full and open competition for Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E) of the advanced boosters. There are no existing boosters that can meet the performance requirements for the 130 t class SLS. The expected thrust class of the advanced boosters is potentially double the current 5-segment solid rocket booster capability. These new boosters will enable the flexible path approach to space exploration beyond Earth orbit (BEO), opening up vast opportunities including near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange Points, and Mars. This evolved capability offers large volume for science missions and payloads, will be modular and flexible, and will be right-sized for mission requirements. NASA developed the Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction NRA to seek industry participation in reducing risks leading to an affordable advanced booster that meets the SLS performance requirements. Demonstrations and/or risk reduction efforts were required to be related to a proposed booster concept directly applicable to fielding an advanced booster. This paper will discuss, for the first time publicly, the contract awards and how NASA intends to use the data from these efforts to prepare for the planned advanced booster DDT&E acquisition as the SLS Program moves forward with competitively procured affordable performance enhancements.

Crumbly, Christopher M.↗

NASA's Space Launch System Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction Efforts

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formally initiated the Space Launch System (SLS) development in September 2011, with the approval of the program s acquisition plan, which engages the current workforce and infrastructure to deliver an initial 70 metric ton (t) SLS capability in 2017, while using planned block upgrades to evolve to a full 130 t capability after 2021. A key component of the acquisition plan is a three-phased approach for the first stage boosters. The first phase is to complete the development of the Ares and Space Shuttle heritage 5-segment solid rocket boosters for initial exploration missions in 2017 and 2021. The second phase in the booster acquisition plan is the Advanced Booster Risk Reduction and/or Engineering Demonstration NASA Research Announcement (NRA), which was recently awarded after a full and open competition. The NRA was released to industry on February 9, 2012, and its stated intent was to reduce risks leading to an affordable Advanced Booster and to enable competition. The third and final phase will be a full and open competition for Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E) of the Advanced Boosters. There are no existing boosters that can meet the performance requirements for the 130 t class SLS. The expected thrust class of the Advanced Boosters is potentially double the current 5-segment solid rocket booster capability. These new boosters will enable the flexible path approach to space exploration beyond Earth orbit, opening up vast opportunities including near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange Points, and Mars. This evolved capability offers large volume for science missions and payloads, will be modular and flexible, and will be right-sized for mission requirements. NASA developed the Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction NRA to seek industry participation in reducing risks leading to an affordable Advanced Booster that meets the SLS performance requirements. Demonstrations and/or risk reduction efforts were required to be related to a proposed booster concept directly applicable to fielding an Advanced Booster. This paper will discuss, for the first time publicly, the contract awards and how NASA intends to use the data from these efforts to prepare for the planned Advanced Booster DDT&E acquisition as the SLS Program moves forward with competitively procured affordable performance enhancements.

Crumbly, Christopher M.↗

Review of Issues Associated with Safe Operation and Management of the Space Shuttle Program

At the request of the President of the United States through the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the NASA Administrator tasked the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel with the responsibility to identify and review issues associated with the safe operation and management of the Space Shuttle program arising from ongoing efforts to improve and streamline operations. These efforts include the consolidation of operations under a single Space Flight Operations Contract (SFOC), downsizing the Space Shuttle workforce and reducing costs of operations and management. The Panel formed five teams to address the potentially significant safety impacts of the seven specific topic areas listed in the study Terms of Reference. These areas were (in the order in which they are presented in this report): Maintenance of independent safety oversight; implementation plan for the transition of Shuttle program management to the Lead Center; communications among NASA Centers and Headquarters; transition plan for downsizing to anticipated workforce levels; implementation of a phased transition to a prime contractor for operations; Shuttle flight rate for Space Station assembly; and planned safety and performance upgrades for Space Station assembly. The study teams collected information through briefings, interviews, telephone conversations and from reviewing applicable documentation. These inputs were distilled by each team into observations and recommendations which were then reviewed by the entire Panel.

Johnstone, Paul M.↗

Strategic Perspectives on the Future of Systems Engineering at NASA

NASA’s Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Infusion and Modernization Initiative (MIAMI) chartered a strategy group comprising early to mid-career NASA subject matter experts with diverse experiences to look into the future of systems engineering at NASA. The purpose of the group was to provide a vision for the future state of systems engineering practices and to develop a strategic plan to enable the evolution of the art up to 20 years in the future. The group used a design thinking approach to gather ideas and obtained insight into current engineering processes and domain outlook by interviewing engineers of varying expertise and experiences who had worked on teams of different sizes for missions large and small. The group built a roadmap to highlight future needs, projected capabilities, and technology and competency gaps and developed a strategic plan to ensure the expedient introduction of these capabilities. The resulting strategic plan recommends capability development and workforce strategies and provides guidance for Agency-wide SE policy. Artifacts, details, and raw data from the strategy team’s work are contained in NASA/TM-20205002911/SUPPL, Strategic Perspectives on the Future of Systems Engineering at NASA: Supplemental Information: Appendixes A to K.

Anupa R Bajwa↗

Building a Field: The Future of Astronomy with Gravitational Waves

Harnessing the sheer discovery potential of GW Astronomy will require bold, deliberate,and sustained efforts to train and develop the requisite workforce. The next decaderequires a strategic plan to build - from the ground up - a robust, open, andwell-connected GW Astronomy community with deep participation from traditionalastronomers, physicists, data scientists, and instrumentalists. This basic infrastructure issorely needed as an enabling foundation for research. We outline a set ofrecommendations for funding agencies, universities, and professional societies to helpbuild a thriving, diverse, and inclusive new field.

Holley-Bockelman, Kelly↗

Supporting Exploration Missions by Enabling Exploration Mission System Software

Future exploration missions will consist of a multitude of data sources, systems, and operators collaborating to complete mission objectives. Presently, NASA is instantiating the contractual mechanisms, such as the xEVAS and HLS contracts, to produce these mission assets. Architectural planning is also underway to establish the networking protocols and infrastructure to digitally create and connect mission elements, such as LunaNET. However, without new horizontally integrated data systems, these advancements will be limited in their ability to get mission data appropriately integrated into the plan, train, fly, explore workflow of the operations workforce. Here we describe several mission system software development efforts underway that are designed to support human spaceflight missions. We describe the current iterations of a suite of tools to support EVA procedure authoring and execution, for both ISS and Artemis missions, as well as a software solution to establish and interact with mission context and data products. These tools have been developed iteratively and continue to be tested in several NASA facilities such as the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL), Artemis field testing, and in present-day International Space Station (ISS) operations on orbit. Our solutions demonstrate how software development can be aligned with ongoing operations development activities to discover the features that best support future human spaceflight missions.

EVA Mission System Software↗

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

This report covers the activities of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) for calendar year 1998-a year of sharp contrasts and significant successes at NASA. The year opened with the announcement of large workforce cutbacks. The slip in the schedule for launching the International Space Station (ISS) created a five-month hiatus in Space Shuttle launches. This slack period ended with the successful and highly publicized launch of the STS-95 mission. As the year closed, ISS assembly began with the successful orbiting and joining of the Functional Cargo Block (FGB), Zarya, from Russia and the Unity Node from the United States. Throughout the year, the Panel maintained its scrutiny of NASA's safety processes. Of particular interest were the potential effects on safety of workforce reductions and the continued transition of functions to the Space Flight Operations Contractor. Attention was also given to the risk management plans of the Aero-Space Technology programs, including the X-33, X-34, and X-38. Overall, the Panel concluded that safety is well served for the present. The picture is not as clear for the future. Cutbacks have limited the depth of talent available. In many cases, technical specialties are 'one deep.' The extended hiring freeze has resulted in an older workforce that will inevitably suffer significant departures from retirements in the near future. The resulting 'brain drain' could represent a future safety risk unless appropriate succession planning is started expeditiously. This and other topics are covered in the section addressing workforce. The major NASA programs are also limited in their ability to plan property for the future. This is of particular concern for the Space Shuttle and ISS because these programs are scheduled to operate well into the next century. In the case of the Space Shuttle, beneficial and mandatory safety and operational upgrades are being delayed because of a lack of sufficient present funding. Likewise, the ISS has little flexibility to begin long lead-time items for upgrades or contingency planning. For example, the section on computer hardware and software contains specific findings related to required longer range safety-related actions. NASA can be proud of its accomplishments this past year, but must remain ever vigilant, particularly as ISS assembly begins to accelerate. The Panel will continue to focus on both the short- and long-term aspects of risk management and safety planning. This task continues to be made manageable and productive by the excellent cooperation the Panel receives from both NASA and its contractors. Particular emphasis will continue to be directed to longer term workforce and program planning issues as well as the immediate risks associated with ISS assembly and the initial flights of the X-33 and X-34. Section 2 of this report presents specific findings and recommendations generated by ASAP activities during 1998. Section 3 contains more detailed information in support of these findings and recommendations. Appendix A is a current roster of Panel members, consultants, and staff. Appendix B contains NASA's response to the findings and recommendations from the 1997 ASAP Annual Report. Appendix C details the fact-finding activities of the Panel in 1998. During the year, Mr. Richard D. Blomberg was elected chair of the Panel and Vice Admiral (VADM) Robert F Dunn was elected deputy chair. VADM Bernard M. Kauderer moved from consultant to member. Mr. Charles J. Donlan retired from the Panel after many years of meritorious service. Ms. Shirley C. McCarty and Mr. Robert L. ('Hoot') Gibson joined the Panel as consultants.

Source record↗

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Annual Report for 1999

This report covers the activities of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) for the calendar year 1999.This was a year of notable achievements and significant frustrations. Both the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) programs were delayed.The Space Shuttle prudently postponed launches after the occurrence of a wiring short during ascent of the STS-93 mission. The ISS construction schedule slipped as a result of the Space Shuttle delays and problems the Russians experienced in readying the Service Module and its launch vehicle. Each of these setbacks was dealt with in a constructive way. The STS-93 short circuit led to detailed wiring inspections and repairs on all four orbiters as well as analysis of other key subsystems for similar types of hidden damage. The ISS launch delays afforded time for further testing, training, development, and contingency planning. The safety consciousness of the NASA and contractor workforces, from hands-on labor to top management, continues high. Nevertheless, workforce issues remain among the most serious safety concerns of the Panel. Cutbacks and reorganizations over the past several years have resulted in problems related to workforce size, critical skills, and the extent of on-the-job experience. These problems have the potential to impact safety as the Space Shuttle launch rate increases to meet the demands of the ISS and its other customers. As with last year's report, these work- force-related issues were considered of sufficient import to place them first in the material that follows. Some of the same issues of concern for the Space Shuttle and ISS arose in a review of the launch vehicle for the Terra mission that the Panel was asked by NASA to undertake. Other areas the Panel was requested to assess included the readiness of the Inertial Upper Stage for the deployment of the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the possible safety impact of electromagnetic effects on the Space Shuttle. The findings and recommendations in this report do not highlight any major, immediate issues that might compromise the safe pursuit of the various NASA programs. They do, however, cover concerns that the Panel believes should be addressed in the interest of maintaining NASA's excellent safety record.The Panel is pleased to note that remedial efforts for some of the findings raised are underway. Given appropriate funding and cooperative efforts among the Administration, the Congress and the various contractors, the Panel is convinced that safety problems can be avoided or solved resulting in lower risk for NASA's human space and aeronautics programs. Section II of this report contains specific findings and recommendations generated by Panel activities during the calendar year 1999. Section III presents more detailed information in support of these findings and recommendations. A current roster of Panel members, consultants, and staff is included as Appendix A. Appendix B contains NASA's response to the findings and recommendations from the 1998 annual report. It has been augmented this year to include brief explanations of why the Panel classified the NASA response as " open,""continuing," or "closed." Appendix C lists the fact-finding activities of the Panel in 1999.

Blomberg, Richard D.↗

Supporting Exploration Missions by Enabling Exploration Mission System Software

Future exploration missions will consist of a multitude of data sources, systems, and operators collaborating to complete mission objectives. Presently, NASA is instantiating the contractual mechanisms, such as the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) and Human Landing System (HLS) contracts, to produce these mission assets. Architectural planning is also underway to establish the networking protocols and infrastructure to digitally create and connect mission elements, such as LunaNET. However, without new horizontally integrated data systems, these advancements will be limited in their ability to get mission data appropriately integrated into the plan, train, fly, explore workflow of the flight operations workforce. Here we describe several mission system software development efforts underway that are designed to support human spaceflight missions. This paper describes the current iterations of a suite of tools to support EVA procedure authoring and execution, and mission context creation for both International Space Station (ISS) and Artemis missions. These tools have been developed iteratively and continue to be used in present-day ISS operations on orbit and in several NASA facilities such as the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) and Artemis field testing. These solutions demonstrate how software development can be aligned with ongoing operations development activities to discover the features that best support both current and future human spaceflight missions.

Matthew J. Miller↗

Supporting Exploration Missions by Enabling Exploration Mission System Software

Future exploration missions will consist of a multitude of data sources, systems, and operators collaborating to complete mission objectives. Presently, NASA is instantiating the contractual mechanisms, such as the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) and Human Landing System (HLS) contracts, to produce these mission assets. Architectural planning is also underway to establish the networking protocols and infrastructure to digitally create and connect mission elements, such as LunaNET. However, without new horizontally integrated data systems, these advancements will be limited in their ability to get mission data appropriately integrated into the plan, train, fly, explore workflow of the flight operations workforce. Here we describe several mission system software development efforts underway that are designed to support human spaceflight missions. This paper describes the current iterations of a suite of tools to support EVA procedure authoring and execution, and mission context creation for both International Space Station (ISS) and Artemis missions. These tools have been developed iteratively and continue to be used in present-day ISS operations on orbit and in several NASA facilities such as the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) and Artemis field testing. These solutions demonstrate how software development can be aligned with ongoing operations development activities to discover the features that best support both current and future human spaceflight missions.

Matthew Miller↗