SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “competitive suppliers”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

12 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1993

The United States digital recording industry

The recording industry resembles the semiconductor industry in several aspects. Both are large (greater than $60 Billion/year revenues); both are considered critical technologies supporting national objectives; both are experiencing increased competition from foreign suppliers; they recognize significant opportunities for both technological and market growth in the decade to come; and both realize that a key to this future growth lies in alliances among industry, academia, and government. The semiconductor industry has made significant investments in alliances relating to manufacturing technologies (SEMATECH) and to joint long-term technology research centered in universities (SRC). The federal government has provided funding support of these efforts in recognition of the critical roles semiconductor technologies play in national interests. The recording industry is now also forming critical alliances, but has been slower in starting and in gaining broad recognition by government agencies and legislators that the industry needs federal support. Traditionally, the recording industry has been viewed as mature, stable, and, while critical to national interests, able to chart and fund its own course toward future national needs. That perception is fortunately changing.

Simonds, John L.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Space transportation activities in the United States

The status of the existing space transportation systems in the U.S. and options for increased capability is being examined in the context of mission requirements, options for new vehicles, cost to operate the existing vehicles, cost to develop new vehicles, and the capabilities and plans of other suppliers. This assessment is addressing the need to build and resupply the space station, to maintain necessary military assets in a rapidly changing world, and to continue a competitive commercial space transportation industry. The Department of Defense (DOD) and NASA each conducted an 'access to space' study using a common mission model but with the emphasis on their unique requirements. Both studies considered three options: maintain and improve the existing capability, build a new launch vehicle using contemporary technology, and build a new launch vehicle using advanced technology. While no decisions have been made on a course of action, it will be influenced by the availability of funds in the U.S. budget, the changing need for military space assets, the increasing competition among space launch suppliers, and the emerging opportunity for an advanced technology, low cost system and international partnerships to develop it.

Gabris, Edward A.↗

NASA NTRS1983

NASA's Space Research and Technology Program. Report of a workshop

The status of the spacecraft and subsystem industry and the civil and military uses of space were examined. Genetic and specific enabling technologies were identified. It was found that U.S. spacecraft manufacturers support civil and commercial uses, the military and NASA and, in turn, are supported by subsystem suppliers. However, no single spacecraft program carries sufficient resources to develop advanced critical subsystem technologies and increasingly, U.S. suppliers are facing strong competition from foreign industry that is government subsidized.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1998

Improving Customer Satisfaction in an R and D Environment

Satisfying customer needs is critical to the sustained competitive advantage of service suppliers. It is therefore important to understand the types of customer needs which, if fulfilled or exceeded, add value and contribute to overall customer satisfaction. This study identifies the needs of various research and development (R&D) customers who contract for engineering and design support services. The Quality Function Deployment (QFD) process was used to organize and translate each customer need into performance measures that, if implemented, can improve customer satisfaction. This study also provides specific performance measures that will more accurately guide the efforts of the engineering supplier. These organizations can either implement the QFD methodology presented herein or extract a few performance measures that are specific to the quality dimensions in need of improvement. Listening to 'what' customers talk about is a good first start.

Alexander, Anita↗

NASA NTRS1994

Standard protocol stack for mission control

It is proposed to create a fully 'open' architectural specification for standardized space mission command and control. By being open, i.e., independent for any particular implementation, diversity and competition will be encouraged among future commercial suppliers of space equipment and systems. Customers of the new standard capability are expected to include: (1) the civil space community (e.g., NASA, NOAA, international Agencies); (2) the military space community (e.g., Air Force, Navy, intelligence); and (3) the emerging commercial space community (e.g., mobile satellite service providers).

Hooke, Adrian J.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Deregulation Impact in Negotiating a New Electrical Contract Between NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field and FirstEnergy Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, USA

The governor of the State of Ohio signed amended substitute Senate bill 3 on July 6, 1999, requiring Ohio's electric industry to change from a monopoly environment to a competitive electric environment for generation services. The start date for competitive retail generation services was set for January 1, 2001. This new deregulation law allowed all Ohioans to choose the supplier of generation service, but the transmission and distribution would remain regulated. It also required electric utilities to unbundle the three main components (generation, transmission, and distribution) and make other changes designed to produce a competitive electric generation market. While deregulation was taking shape, the NASA Glenn Research Center electrical contract with FirstEnergy Corp. of Cleveland, Ohio, was to expire on September 7, 1999. Glenn strategically evaluated and incorporated the impacts of electric deregulation in the negotiations. Glenn and FirstEnergy spent over a year in negotiations until the Glenn utility team and the FirstEnergy negotiating team came to an agreement in the fall of 2000, and a new contract became effective on January 1, 2001.

Quach, Quyen T.↗

NASA NTRS1992

George M. Low trophy NASA's quality and excellence award, 1992. Application guidelines: Large business

The George M. Low Trophy is awarded to current NASA contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers in the aerospace industry who have demonstrated sustained excellence and outstanding achievements in quality and productivity for three or more years. The objectives of the award are to increase public awareness of the importance of quality and productivity to the Nation's aerospace program and industry in general; encourage domestic business to continue efforts to enhance quality, increase productivity, and thereby strengthen competitiveness; and provide the means for sharing the successful methods and techniques used by the applicants with other American enterprises. Information is given on candidate eligibility for large businesses, the selection process, the nomination letter, and the application report.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1992

George M. Low Trophy: NASA's quality and excellence award. 1992 recipients: Honeywell Clearwater, IBM Houston

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2016

On-Orbit Manufacturing From Orbital Factories to In Situ Resource Utilization

This webinar will review commercial prospects for manufacturing in orbit. Doing business in space is rapidly becoming more reliable, affordable and accessible. From 2010 to 2015 launch prices went down by a factor of 10 or more, to about $5,000kg while investments into Space 2.0 companies and technologies are closing in on $2.5 Billion (New Space Global). With three commercial suppliers (SpaceX, Orbital ATK and Sierra Nevada Corp) to Earths orbits, mission frequency is improving dramatically. Moreover, private space companies (SpaceX Reusable Dragon Lab; Bigelows B330) are also scouting the opportunities of renting or selling modules as platforms for orbital free-flying facilities; modules that can be used for automated fabrication to manned experiments.Topics addressed in the webinar include: 1. Case studies of unique competitive advantages that can be gained from microgravity and space vacuum: wafer reprocessing, fiber optics, crystal growth;2. Prospective solar power orbital data centers;3. Reuse and recycling of orbital debris as a possible feedstock for robotic 3D fabrication potentially in the vacuum as well as inside facilities;4. The story behind the original WakeShield wafer fabrication facility and its relevance to todays activities;5. Energy needs for on-orbit manufacturing6. Environmental value proposition of on-orbit manufacturing for products with toxic byproducts or excessively large green house gases footprints;7. Longer term scenario of flexible, connected, automated, intelligent and sustainable orbital factories of the future.Opening up a less-appreciated aspect of NewSpace, this webinar will be of high interest to CTOs, Directors and Managers from product development to RD, Innovation Strategy leaders, and investors, across many different industrial verticals (materials, electronics, pharmaceuticals, advanced sustainable manufacturing, bioengineering, etc.)and anyone trying to understand what value space can have for their business in the near and far future.

Cozmuta, Ioana↗

NASA NTRS2002

An economic analysis of space solar power and its cost competitiveness as a supplemental source of energy for space and ground markets

Economic Growth has been historically associated with nations that first made use of each new energy source. There is no doubt that Solar Power Satellites is high as a potential energy system for the future. A conceptual cost model of the economics value of space solar power (SSP) as a source of complementary power for in-space and ground applications will be discussed. Several financial analysis will be offered based on present and new technological innovations that may compete with or be complementary to present energy market suppliers depending on various institutional arrangements for government and the private sector in a Global Economy. Any of the systems based on fossil fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and synthetic fuels share the problem of being finite resources and are subject to ever-increasing cost as they grow ever more scarce with drastic increase in world population. Increasing world population and requirements from emerging underdeveloped countries will also increase overall demand. This paper would compare the future value of SSP with that of other terrestrial renewable energy in distinct geographic markets within the US, in developing countries, Europe, Asia, and Eastern Europe.

electric power inter-regional electricity trading↗

NASA NTRS1991

George M. Low Trophy: NASA's quality and excellence award

NASA's major goal is the preservation of America's position as a leader in the aerospace industry. To maintain that status, it is crucial that the products and services we depend upon from NASA contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers meet the highest quality standards to ensure the space program's success. The George M. Low Trophy: NASA's Quality and Excellence Award is the result of NASA's desire to encourage continuous improvement and Total Quality Management (TQM) in the aerospace industry and is awarded to members of NASA's contractor community that have demonstrated sustained excellence, customer orientation, and outstanding achievements in a Total Quality Management (TQM) environment. The purpose in presenting this award is to increase public awareness of the importance of quality and productivity to the nation's aerospace industry and the nation's leadership position overall; encourage domestic business to continuously pursue efforts that enhance quality and increase productivity which will strengthen the nation's competitiveness in the international arena; and provide a forum for sharing the successful techniques and strategies used by applicants with other American organizations. Awards to Rockwell International and Marotta Scientific Controls, Inc. are announced and discussed.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2002

ISO 9000 and/or Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model?

For businesses and organizations to remain competitive today they must have processes and systems in place that will allow them to first identify customer needs and then develop products/processes that will meet or exceed the customers needs and expectations. Customer needs, once identified, are normally stated as requirements. Designers can then develop products/processes that will meet these requirements. Several functions, such as quality management and systems engineering management are used to assist product development teams in the development process. Both functions exist in all organizations and both have a similar objective, which is to ensure that developed processes will meet customer requirements. Are efforts in these organizations being duplicated? Are both functions needed by organizations? What are the similarities and differences between the functions listed above? ISO 9000 is an international standard of goods and services. It sets broad requirements for the assurance of quality and for management's involvement. It requires organizations to document the processes and to follow these documented processes. ISO 9000 gives customers assurance that the suppliers have control of the process for product development. Systems engineering can broadly be defined as a discipline that seeks to ensure that all requirements for a system are satisfied throughout the life of the system by preserving their interrelationship. The key activities of systems engineering include requirements analysis, functional analysis/allocation, design synthesis and verification, and system analysis and control. The systems engineering process, when followed properly, will lead to higher quality products, lower cost products, and shorter development cycles. The System Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM) will allow companies to measure their system engineering capability and continuously improve those capabilities. ISO 9000 and SE-CMM seem to have a similar objective, which is to document the organization's processes and certify to potential customers the capability of a supplier to control the processes that determine the quality of the product or services being produced. The remaining sections of this report examine the differences and similarities between ISO 9000 and SE-CMM and make recommendations for implementation.

Sampson E. Gholston↗