SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
An operational assessment of the NASA Langley Weather Information Network (WINN) System is presented. The objectives of this program include: 1) Determine if near real-time weather information presented on the flight deck improves pilot situational awareness of weather; and 2) Identify pilot interface issues related to the use of WINN system during test flights. This paper is in viewgraph form.
This Operational Assessment Report describes how the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF) met or exceeded every goal set by DOE for the calendar year (CY) 2024. In CY 2024, the ALCF operated Polaris, an AMD and NVIDIA-based Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) Apollo 6500 Gen10+ system that provides a powerful platform for breakthrough science and prepares applications and workloads for Aurora, Argonne National Laboratory’s Intel-HPE exascale computer. Since going into production in August 2022, Polaris has supported research teams from the DOE Exascale Computing Project (ECP), which concluded in 2024, and from ALCF’s Aurora Early Science Program (ESP). Polaris delivered a total of 2555.7K node-hours to 17 Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) 2024 projects and 601.6K node-hours to ASCR Leadership Computing Challenge (ALCC) projects (12 of which were awarded during the 2023–2024 ALCC year and 11 of which were awarded during the 2024–2025 ALCC year), as well as providing substantial time for Director’s Discretionary (DD) projects (966.2K node-hours). As Table ES.1 shows, Polaris performed exceptionally well in terms of overall availability (97.7 percent), scheduled availability (99.6 percent), and utilization (94.7 percent; Table 2.1). In CY 2024, ALCF supported more than 2,000 users. As of March 18, 2025, ALCF’s users have published 254 papers in peer-reviewed journals and technical proceedings.
Prevailing team effectiveness models suggest that teams are best positioned for success when certain enabling conditions are in place (Hackman, 1987; Hackman, 2012; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Wageman, Hackman, & Lehman, 2005). Team composition, or the configuration of member attributes, is an enabling structure key to fostering competent teamwork (Hackman, 2002; Wageman et al., 2005). A vast body of research supports the importance of team composition in team design (Bell, 2007). For example, team composition is empirically linked to outcomes such as cooperation (Eby & Dobbins, 1997), social integration (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002), shared cognition (Fisher, Bell, Dierdorff, & Belohlav, 2012), information sharing (Randall, Resick, & DeChurch, 2011), adaptability (LePine, 2005), and team performance (e.g., Bell, 2007). As such, NASA has identified team composition as a potentially powerful means for mitigating the risk of performance decrements due to inadequate crew cooperation, coordination, communication, and psychosocial adaptation in future space exploration missions. Much of what is known about effective team composition is drawn from research conducted in conventional workplaces (e.g., corporate offices, production plants). Quantitative reviews of the team composition literature (e.g., Bell, 2007; Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011) are based primarily on traditional teams. Less is known about how composition affects teams operating in extreme environments such as those that will be experienced by crews of future space exploration missions. For example, long-distance and long-duration space exploration (LDSE) crews are expected to live and work in isolated and confined environments (ICEs) for up to 30 months. Crews will also experience communication time delays from mission control, which will require crews to work more autonomously (see Appendix A for more detailed information regarding the LDSE context). Given the unique context within which LDSE crews will operate, NASA identified both a gap in knowledge related to the effective composition of autonomous, LDSE crews, and the need to identify psychological and psychosocial factors, measures, and combinations thereof that can be used to compose highly effective crews (Team Gap 8). As an initial step to address Team Gap 8, we conducted a focused literature review and operational assessment related to team composition issues for LDSE. The objectives of our research were to: (1) identify critical team composition issues and their effects on team functioning in LDSE-analogous environments with a focus on key composition factors that will most likely have the strongest influence on team performance and well-being, and 1 Astronaut diary entry in regards to group interaction aboard the ISS (p.22; Stuster, 2010) 2 (2) identify and evaluate methods used to compose teams with a focus on methods used in analogous environments. The remainder of the report includes the following components: (a) literature review methodology, (b) review of team composition theory and research, (c) methods for composing teams, (d) operational assessment results, and (e) recommendations.
The growing emphasis on affordability for space transportation systems requires the assessment of new space vehicles for all life cycle activities, from design and development, through manufacturing and operations. This paper addresses the operational assessment of launch vehicles, focusing on modeling the ground support requirements of a vehicle architecture, and estimating the resulting costs and flight rate. This paper proposes the use of Activity Based Costing (ABC) modeling for this assessment. The model uses expert knowledge to determine the activities, the activity times and the activity costs based on vehicle design characteristics. The approach provides several advantages to current approaches to vehicle architecture assessment including easier validation and allowing vehicle designers to understand the cost and cycle time drivers.
In discussing a new NASA initiative in advanced space transportation systems and technologies, the Director of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Arthur G. Stephenson, noted that, "It would use new propulsion technology, air-breathing engine so you don't have to carry liquid oxygen, at least while your flying through the atmosphere. We are calling it Spaceliner 100 because it would be 100 times cheaper, costing $ 100 dollars a pound to orbit." While airbreathing propulsion is directly named, rocket propulsion is also implied by, "... while you are flying through the atmosphere." In-space final acceleration to orbital speed mandates rocket capabilities. Thus, in this informed view, Spaceliner 100 will be predicated on combined airbreathing/rocket propulsion, the technical subject of this paper. Interestingly, NASA's recently concluded Highly Reusable Space Transportation (HRST) study focused on the same affordability goal as that of the Spaceliner 100 initiative and reflected the decisive contribution of combined propulsion as a way of expanding operability and increasing the design robustness of future space transports, toward "aircraft like" capabilities. The HRST study built on the Access to Space Study and the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) development activities to identify and characterize space transportation concepts, infrastructure and technologies that have the greatest potential for reducing delivery cost by another order of magnitude, from $1,000 to $100-$200 per pound for 20,000 lb. - 40.000 lb. payloads to low earth orbit (LEO). The HRST study investigated a number of near-term, far-term, and very far-term launch vehicle concepts including all-rocket single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) concepts, two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) concepts, concepts with launch assist, rocket-based combined cycle (RBCC) concepts, advanced expendable vehicles, and more far term ground-based laser powered launchers. The HRST study consisted of preliminary concept studies, assessments and analysis tool development for advanced space transportation systems, followed by end-to-end system concept definitions and trade analyses, specific system concept definition and analysis, specific key technology and topic analysis, system, operational and economics model development, analysis, and integrated assessments. The HRST Integration Task Force (HITF) was formed to synthesize study results in several specific topic areas and support the development of conclusions from the study: Systems Concepts Definitions, Technology Assessment, Operations Assessment, and Cost Assessment. This paper summarizes the work of the Operations Assessment Team: the six approaches used, the analytical tools and methodologies developed and employed, the issues and concerns, and the results of the assessment. The approaches were deliberately varied in measures of merit and procedure to compensate for the uncertainty inherent in operations data in this early phase of concept exploration. In general, rocket based combined cycle (RBCC) concepts appear to have significantly greater potential than all-rocket concepts for reducing operations costs.
The systems design process for future space transportation involves understanding multiple variables and their effect on lifecycle metrics. Variables such as technology readiness or potential environmental impact are qualitative, while variables such as reliability, operations costs or flight rates are quantitative. In deciding what new design concepts to fund, NASA needs a methodology that would assess the sum total of all relevant qualitative and quantitative lifecycle metrics resulting from each proposed concept. The objective of this research was to review the state of operations assessment methodologies and models used to evaluate proposed space transportation systems and to develop recommendations for improving them. It was found that, compared to the models available from other sources, the operations assessment methodology recently developed at Kennedy Space Center has the potential to produce a decision support tool that will serve as the industry standard. Towards that goal, a number of areas of improvement in the Kennedy Space Center's methodology are identified.
The systems design process for future space transportation involves understanding multiple variables and their effect on lifecycle metrics. Variables such as technology readiness or potential environmental impact are qualitative, while variables such as reliability, operations costs or flight rates are quantitative. In deciding what new design concepts to fund, NASA needs a methodology that would assess the sum total of all relevant qualitative and quantitative lifecycle metrics resulting from each proposed concept. The objective of this research was to review the state of operations assessment methodologies and models used to evaluate proposed space transportation systems and to develop recommendations for improving them. It was found that, compared to the models available from other sources, the operations assessment methodology recently developed at Kennedy Space Center has the potential to produce a decision support tool that will serve as the industry standard. Towards that goal, a number of areas of improvement in the Kennedy Space Center's methodology are identified.
Despite aggressive work on the development of sensor fusion algorithms and techniques, no formal evaluation procedures have been proposed. Based on existing integration models in the literature, an evaluation framework is developed to assess an operator's ability to use multisensor, or sensor fusion, displays. The proposed evaluation framework for evaluating the operator's ability to use such systems is a normative approach: The operator's performance with the sensor fusion display can be compared to the models' predictions based on the operator's performance when viewing the original sensor displays prior to fusion. This allows for the determination as to when a sensor fusion system leads to: 1) poorer performance than one of the original sensor displays (clearly an undesirable system in which the fused sensor system causes some distortion or interference); 2) better performance than with either single sensor system alone, but at a sub-optimal (compared to the model predictions) level; 3) optimal performance (compared to model predictions); or, 4) super-optimal performance, which may occur if the operator were able to use some highly diagnostic 'emergent features' in the sensor fusion display, which were unavailable in the original sensor displays. An experiment demonstrating the usefulness of the proposed evaluation framework is discussed.
Quantifying the operational variability of extravehicular activity (EVA) execution is critical to help design and build future support systems to enable astronauts to monitor and manage operations in deep-space, where ground support operators will no longer be able to react instantly and manage execution deviations due to the significant communication latency. This study quantifies the operational variability exhibited during Apollo 14-17 lunar surface EVA operations to better understand the challenges and natural tendencies of timeline execution and life support system performance involved in surface operations. Each EVA (11 in total) is individually summarized as well as aggregated to provide descriptive trends exhibited throughout the Apollo missions. This work extends previous EVA task analyses by calculating deviations between planned and as-performed timelines as well as examining metabolic rate and consumables usage throughout the execution of each EVA. The intent of this work is to convey the natural variability of EVA operations and to provide operational context for coping with the variability inherent to EVA execution as a means to support future concepts of operations.
The NASA Short-term Prediction Research and Transition (SPoRT) Center seeks to accelerate the infusion of NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) observations, data assimilation and modeling research into NWS forecast operations and decision-making. To meet long-term program expectations, it is not sufficient simply to give forecasters sophisticated workstations or new forecast products without fully assessing the ways in which they will be utilized. Close communication must be established between the research and operational communities so that developers have a complete understanding of user needs. In turn, forecasters must obtain a more comprehensive knowledge of the modeling and sensing tools available to them. A major goal of the SPoRT Program is to develop metrics and conduct assessment studies with NWS forecasters to evaluate the impacts and benefits of ESE experimental products on forecast skill. At a glance the task seems relatively straightforward. However, performing assessment of experimental products in an operational environment is demanding. Given the tremendous time constraints placed on NWS forecasters, it is imperative that forecaster input be obtained in a concise unobtrusive manor. Great care must also be taken to ensure that forecasters understand their participation will eventually benefit them and WFO operations in general. Two requirements of the assessment plan developed under the SPoRT activity are that it 1) Can be implemented within the WFO environment; and 2) Provide tangible results for BOTH the research and operational communities. Supplemental numerical quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPF) were chosen as the first experimental SPoRT product to be evaluated during a Pilot Assessment Program conducted 1 May 2003 within the Huntsville AL National Weather Service Forecast Office. Forecast time periods were broken up into six- hour bins ranging from zero to twenty-four hours. Data were made available for display in AWIPS on an operational basis so they could be efficiently incorporated into the forecast process. The methodology used to assess the value of experimental QPFs compared to available operational products is best described as a three-tier approach involving both forecasters and research scientists. Tier-one is a web-based survey completed by duty forecasters on the aviation and public desks. The survey compiles information on how the experimental product was used in the forecast decision making process. Up to 6 responses per twenty-four hours can be compiled during a precipitation event. Tier-two consists of an event post mortem and experimental product assessment performed daily by the NASA/NWS Liaison. Tier-three is a detailed breakdown/analysis of specific events targeted by either the NWS SO0 or SPoRT team members. The task is performed by both NWS and NASA research scientists and may be conducted once every couple of months. The findings from the Pilot Assessment Program will be reported at the meeting.
A functional fault model (FFM) is an abstract representation of the failure space of a givensystem. As such, it simulates the propagation of failure effects along paths between the origin ofthe system failure modes and points within the system capable of observing the failure effects. Asa result, FFMs may be used to diagnose the presence of failures in the modeled system. FFMsnecessarily contain a significant amount of information about the design, operations, and failuremodes and effects. One of the important benefits of FFMs is that they may be qualitative, ratherthan quantitative and, as a result, may be implemented early in the design process when there ismore potential to positively impact the system design. FFMs may therefore be developed andmatured throughout the monitored system's design process and may subsequently be used toprovide real-time diagnostic assessments that support system operations. This paper provides anoverview of a generalized NASA process that is being used to develop and apply FFMs. FFMtechnology has been evolving for more than 25 years. The FFM development process presented inthis paper was refined during NASA's Ares I, Space Launch System, and Ground SystemsDevelopment and Operations programs (i.e., from about 2007 to the present). Process refinementtook place as new modeling, analysis, and verification tools were created to enhance FFMcapabilities. In this paper, standard elements of a model development process (i.e., knowledgeacquisition, conceptual design, implementation & verification, and application) are describedwithin the context of FFMs. Further, newer tools and analytical capabilities that may benefit thebroader systems engineering process are identified and briefly described. The discussion isintended as a high-level guide for future FFM modelers.
A functional fault model (FFM) is an abstract representation of the failure space of a given system. As such, it simulates the propagation of failure effects along paths between the origin of the system failure modes and points within the system capable of observing the failure effects. As a result, FFMs may be used to diagnose the presence of failures in the modeled system. FFMs necessarily contain a significant amount of information about the design, operations, and failure modes and effects. One of the important benefits of FFMs is that they may be qualitative, rather than quantitative and, as a result, may be implemented early in the design process when there is more potential to positively impact the system design. FFMs may therefore be developed and matured throughout the monitored system's design process and may subsequently be used to provide real-time diagnostic assessments that support system operations. This paper provides an overview of a generalized NASA process that is being used to develop and apply FFMs. FFM technology has been evolving for more than 25 years. The FFM development process presented in this paper was refined during NASA's Ares I, Space Launch System, and Ground Systems Development and Operations programs (i.e., from about 2007 to the present). Process refinement took place as new modeling, analysis, and verification tools were created to enhance FFM capabilities. In this paper, standard elements of a model development process (i.e., knowledge acquisition, conceptual design, implementation & verification, and application) are described within the context of FFMs. Further, newer tools and analytical capabilities that may benefit the broader systems engineering process are identified and briefly described. The discussion is intended as a high-level guide for future FFM modelers.
Following long-duration space transits, adaptive changes in sensorimotor and cognitive function may impair the crew s ability to safely control pressurized rovers designed to explore the new environment. We describe a rover simulation developed to quantify post-flight decrements in operational proficiency following International Space Station expeditions. The rover simulation consists of a serial presentation of discrete tasks to be completed as quickly and accurately as possible. Each task consists of 1) perspective taking using a map that defines a docking target, 2) navigation toward the target around a Martian outpost, and 3) docking a side hatch of the rover to a visually guided target. The simulator utilizes a Stewart-type motion base (CKAS, Australia), single seat cabin with triple scene projection covering approximately 150 horizontal by 40 vertical, and joystick controller. The software was implemented using Unity3 with next-gen PhysX engine to tightly synchronize simulation and motion platform commands. Separate C# applications allow investigators to customize session sequences with different lighting and gravitational conditions, and then execute tasks to be performed as well as record performance data. Preliminary tests resulted in low incidence of motion sickness (<15% unable to complete first session), with only negligible after effects and symptoms after familiarization sessions. Functionally relevant testing early post-flight will develop evidence regarding the limitations to early surface operations and what countermeasures are needed. This approach can be easily adapted to other vehicle designs to provide a platform to safely assess how sensorimotor and cognitive function impact manual control performance.
The close and productive collaborations between the NWS Warning and Forecast Office (WFO) in Great Falls, MT and the Short Term Prediction and Research Transition (SPORT) Center at NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center have provided a unique opportunity for science sharing and technology transfer. In particular, SPoRT has provided a false color composite product derived from MODIS data, which is part of NASA's Earth Observing System. This product is designed to delineate snow and ice covered ground, bare ground and clouds. The Great Falls WFO has been a test bed of the MODIS false color composite as a tool in operations to monitor the development and dissipation of snow cover In particular, preliminary applications have shown that the product can be used to monitor snow cover in remote locations as well as ice in rivers. This information can lead to improved assessments of flooding potential during post event conditions where rapid melting and runoff are anticipated. The potential of this product on future geostationary satellites may substantially contribute to the NWS mission by providing enhanced situational awareness. The operational use of this product has been transitioned at WFO Great Falls through a process of product implementation, discussions with the service hydrologist and forecasters, and post event analysis. A concentrated assessment period from January to March, 2008 was initiated to investigate the impact of the MODIS false color product on WFO Great Falls' operations. This presentation will emphasize the impact the MODIS false color product had in the WFO's situational awareness and how best this information can be used to influence operational decisions.
The Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) was established to accelerate scientific discovery by providing world-leading computational performance and advanced data infrastructure to the US Department of Energy (DOE) computing community. As a DOE Office of Science user facility, the OLCF has managed the successful deployment and operation of a succession of leadership-class resources dedicated to open science. In addition to these resources, the OLCF staff continually strive to develop innovative processes and technologies, improve security, and empower users through effective allocation management and comprehensive user support and training. These efforts support the advancement of science by the OLCF users and benefit high-performance computing (HPC) facilities around the world.
In late 2009, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) jointly organized a workshop to discuss technical issues associated with application of risk assessments to early phases of system design. The workshop, which was coordinated by the Idaho National Laboratory, involved invited presentations from a number of PRA experts in the aerospace and nuclear fields and subsequent discussion to address the following questions: (a) What technical issues limit decision-makers' confidence in PRA results, especially at a pre-operational phase of the system life cycle? (b) What is being done to address these issues'? (c) What more can be done ? The workshop resulted in participant observations and suggestions on several technical issues, including the pursuit of non-traditional approaches to risk assessment and the verification and validation of risk models. The workshop participants also identified several important non-technical issues, including risk communication with decision makers, and the integration of PRA into the overall design process.
In 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program established the Leadership Computing Facility (LCF) with a mission to provide the world’s most advanced computational resources to the open science community. The LCF is a huge investment in the nation’s scientific and technological future, inspired by a growing demand for large-scale computing and its impact on science and engineering. The LCF operates two world-class centers in support of open science at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) and at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge) and deploys diverse machines that are among the most powerful systems in the world today. The LCF ranks among the top U.S. scientific facilities delivering impactful science. The work performed at these centers informs policy decisions and advances innovations in far-reaching areas such as energy assurance, ecological sustainability, and global security. The leadership-class systems at Argonne and Oak Ridge operate around the clock every day of the year. The high level of services these centers provide and the exceptional science they produce justify their existence to the DOE Office of Science and the U.S. Congress
The United States National Space Policy provides guidance and directives for U.S. Government agencies to purchase commercial space services and capabilities to the maximum extent practical. In alignment with this guidance, NASA is exploring potential industry partnerships to leverage current or planned commercial space communication and navigation infrastructure to provide services to NASA user missions in the mid-2020s. Leveraging commercial infrastructure and reducing NASA’s reliance on government-owned and operated infrastructure should yield substantial development and operations cost savings. Additionally, the commercial services market will offer NASA a variety of service offerings at competitive prices, while simultaneously allowing NASA to benefit from commercial best practices. Under Appendix G of the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP-2) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), NASA awarded contracts to eight study vendors in May 2019 to investigate the feasibility of applying commercial services concepts to the NASA user mission community. The studies, managed by NASA Glenn Research Center, were completed in October 2019 and detailed ten study topic areas, three of which included: service provider interoperability, user terminal interoperability, and commercial services concept of operations. This report provides a summary of the significant (non-proprietary) findings and recommendations relating to those study areas from the BAA study vendors.