The Use of Concurrent Engineering in Space Mission Design
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
concurrent engineering Space Mission Design↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “concurrent design space missions”
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.
A concurrent design capability for the development of international space missions
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
concurrent design space missions↗
A concurrent design capability for the development of international space missions
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
concurrent design systems space missions↗
Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Concurrent, Conceptual Design of Space Missions
NASA is expanding its capability to perform PRA. This capability gives insight into the links of a suggested design and drives the refinement of the design by identifying optimal areas for investments. Clearly, it is more viable and less expensive to refine a design at the time that it is being conceived. Hence the utility of conducting PRA at the conceptual design phase. Concurrent engineering teams greatly reduce the design time and costs. However, there is currently no standardized means for building probabilistic risk models to assess risks associated with a design produced by such teams. The capability to produce a consistent and valid risk metric associated with such designs would greatly enhance the value of such design teams. This paper explains the experimental results obtained to date from building probabilistic risk models for sample studies conducted at the concurrent engineering design team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (TeamX).
conceptual designs↗
Use of Concurrent Engineering in Space Mission Design
In recent years, conceptual-phase (proposal level) design of space missions has been improved considerably. Team structures, tool linkage, specialized facilities known as design centers and scripted processes have been demonstrated to cut proposal-level engineering design time from a few months to a few weeks.
concurent Engineering-Space Mission Design↗
A Holistic Approach for Risk Management During Design
In this paper, an approach for the identification, assessment, mitigation and continuous management of risks during the process of designing a space mission is presented. This approach has been developed by observing the risk patterns that occur at the Project Design Center of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (TeamX) which develops conceptual, concurrent design of Space Missions. TeamX develops an end-to-end conceptual design of a Space Mission in a matter of one or two weeks. As the risk chair in TeamX, the author has had the opportunity to observe the risk patterns that occur during design over the course of many design sessions. This paper introduces an abstraction and generalization of those patterns. Risk is defined as anything that can go wrong, along with its approximate likelihood and consequence. The indicators, and causes, and effects of these risks are cross cutting across the multiple levels of people and processes involved in the design, and the actual design product itself.
reliability analysis↗
An Integrated Approach to Risk Assessment for Concurrent Design
This paper describes an approach to risk assessment and analysis suited to the early phase, concurrent design of a space mission. The approach integrates an agile, multi-user risk collection tool, a more in-depth risk analysis tool, and repositories of risk information. A JPL developed tool, named RAP, is used for collecting expert opinions about risk from designers involved in the concurrent design of a space mission. Another in-house developed risk assessment tool, named DDP, is used for the analysis.
defect detection and prevention (DDP)↗
Concurrent engineering, requirements modeling, and team structures in conceptual and formulation phase space mission design
In this paper we describe design centers and show how it has produced remarkable decreases in time and expense of creating preliminary designs.
concurrent engineering requirements modeling team ↗
Relevant Parameter Evolution in Team X Mission Concept Designs
The Advanced Projects Design Team, also known as Team X, is a concurrent engineering team that quickly and cheaply designs space mission architectures including the flight system and subsystems, the trajectory, and ground system. Through the use of ICEMaker, an Excel spreadsheet database, the parameters from each subsystem can be shared and used among the other subsystems. This allows for entire missions to be planned with only a few short design team sessions. Based on the results, the feasibility of the mission concept can be determined. Over the Years since the team was created, the amount of information being shared among subsystems on the database has increased, however many of the parameters are now obsolete. Removal of these unused parameters Will clean UP the database and help to streamline the mission design process. By comparing parameter files from previous Team X mission studies, the parameter usage can be determined. As was initially suspected there are more unused parameters on the database than parameters that are actually used.
Huelman, Brandon N.↗
What is Team X?
Team X is a concurrent engineering team for rapid design and analysis of space mission concepts. It was developed in 1995 by JPL to reduce study time and cost. More than 1100 studies have been completed It is institutionally endorsed and it has been emulated by many institutions. In Concurrent Engineering (i.e., Parallel) diverse specialists work in real time, in the same place, with shared data, to yield an integrated design
Concurrent Engineering↗
How to Quickly Import CAD Geometry into Thermal Desktop
There are several groups at JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) that are committed to concurrent design efforts, two are featured here. Center for Space Mission Architecture and Design (CSMAD) enables the practical application of advanced process technologies in JPL's mission architecture process. Team I functions as an incubator for projects that are in the Discovery, and even pre-Discovery proposal stages. JPL's concurrent design environment is to a large extent centered on the CAD (Computer Aided Design) file. During concurrent design sessions CAD geometry is ported to other more specialized engineering design packages.
Wright, Shonte↗
Proceedings of the Seventh International Space University Alumni Conference
The Seventh Alumni Conference of the International Space University, coordinated by the ISU U.S. Alumni Organization (IUSAO), was held at Cleveland State University in Cleveland, Ohio on Friday, July 24, 1998. These proceedings are a record of the presentations. The following topics are included: Remote sensing education in developing countries; Integrated global observing strategy; NASA's current earth science program; Europe's lunar initiative; Lunarsat: Searching for the South Polar cold traps; Asteroid hazards; ESA exobiological activities; Space testbed for photovoltaics; Teledesic Space infrastructure; Space instrument's concurrent design; NASA advanced fuel program; Mission preparation and training for the European Robotic Arm (ERA); and Global access to remote sensing systems.
Bailey, Sheila↗
Model-Based Engineering Design for Trade Space Exploration throughout the Design Cycle
This paper presents ongoing work to standardize model-based system engineering as a complement to point design development in the conceptual design phase of deep space missions. It summarizes two first steps towards practical application of this capability within the framework of concurrent engineering design teams and their customers. The first step is standard generation of system sensitivities models as the output of concurrent engineering design sessions, representing the local trade space around a point design. A review of the chosen model development process, and the results of three case study examples, demonstrate that a simple update to the concurrent engineering design process can easily capture sensitivities to key requirements. It can serve as a valuable tool to analyze design drivers and uncover breakpoints in the design. The second step is development of rough-order- of-magnitude, broad-range-of-validity design models for rapid exploration of the trade space, before selection of a point design. At least one case study demonstrated the feasibility to generate such models in a concurrent engineering session. The experiment indicated that such a capability could yield valid system-level conclusions for a trade space composed of understood elements. Ongoing efforts are assessing the practicality of developing end-to-end system-level design models for use before even convening the first concurrent engineering session, starting with modeling an end-to-end Mars architecture.
models↗
The International Space Station human life sciences experiment implementation process
The selection, definition, and development phases of a Life Sciences flight research experiment has been consistent throughout the past decade. The implementation process, however, has changed significantly within the past two years. This change is driven primarily by the shift from highly integrated, dedicated research missions on platforms with well defined processes to self contained experiments with stand alone operations on platforms which are being concurrently designed. For experiments manifested on the International Space Station (ISS) and/or on short duration missions, the more modular, streamlined, and independent the individual experiment is, the more likely it is to be successfully implemented before the ISS assembly is completed. During the assembly phase of the ISS, science operations are lower in priority than the construction of the station. After the station has been completed, it is expected that more resources will be available to perform research. The complexity of implementing investigations increases with the logistics needed to perform the experiment. Examples of logistics issues include- hardware unique to the experiment; large up and down mass and volume needs; access to crew and hardware during the ascent or descent phases; maintenance of hardware and supplies with a limited shelf life,- baseline data collection schedules with lengthy sessions or sessions close to the launch or landing; onboard stowage availability, particularly cold stowage; and extensive training where highly proficient skills must be maintained. As the ISS processes become better defined, experiment implementation will meet new challenges due to distributed management, on-orbit resource sharing, and adjustments to crew availability pre- and post-increment. c 2001. Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Research↗
Concurrent Mission and Systems Design at NASA Glenn Research Center: The Origins of the COMPASS Team
Established at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in 2006 to meet the need for rapid mission analysis and multi-disciplinary systems design for in-space and human missions, the Collaborative Modeling for Parametric Assessment of Space Systems (COMPASS) team is a multidisciplinary, concurrent engineering group whose primary purpose is to perform integrated systems analysis, but it is also capable of designing any system that involves one or more of the disciplines present in the team. The authors were involved in the development of the COMPASS team and its design process, and are continuously making refinements and enhancements. The team was unofficially started in the early 2000s as part of the distributed team known as Team JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) in support of the multi-center collaborative JIMO spacecraft design during Project Prometheus. This paper documents the origins of a concurrent mission and systems design team at GRC and how it evolved into the COMPASS team, including defining the process, gathering the team and tools, building the facility, and performing studies.
McGuire, Melissa L.↗
Lessons Learned in Remote Participant Concurrent Engineering Concept Development Studies
Team-X was born from a need to perform rapid space mission design for principal investigator-led competed proposals in the mid-1990s. Throughout the last 25 years, Team-X at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has expanded its application of the collaborative, concurrent study approach into every facet necessary to win competed proposals. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 created an immediate and new constraint on these studies – the need to conduct them with remote participants, both on the client side requesting the study, but also on the provider side producing the study. This paper provides lessons learned from dozens of design studies run by Team-X at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic. These lessons span all aspects of the information infrastructure: the people, processes, procedures, methods, tools, and “facilities”. These lessons learned will have applicability post-pandemic, as they have shown how best to incorporate participants, both on the provider side, and on the client side, who cannot travel or otherwise be co-located during collaborative, concurrent study sessions.
Nash, Alfred↗
Planetary Probe Entry Models for Concurrent and Integrated Interplanetary Mission Design
There are many prospective mission opportunities involving atmospheric entry probes. The Planetary Science Deep Space SmallSat Studies (PSDS3) re-cently selected probe missions to Venus, Mars, and the outer planets as part of the 10 selected studies. Two of the six themes in the most recent New Fron-tiers call were a Saturn probe and a Venus in situ explorer. The 2013-2022 Planetary Science Decadal Survey includes probe missions at Venus, Mars, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, and Neptune. Across mission destinations and mission classes there is growing interest in planetary probes. While interplanetary trajectory specialists may like to use a broad sweep of low-fidelity solutions to find a wide array of trajectory options, probe specialists typically start off with mid- to high-fidelity point designs for the entry probe since the equations of motion for atmospheric probes require numerical integration and are so directly linked with some of the probe's subsystem design. Cur-rently, there are no alternatives to this design ap-proach as there are no tools capable of automatical-ly and concurrently designing interplanetary and atmospheric trajectories. Unfortunately, this makes us reliant on point designs in the early stages of the mission design process. The reliance on point de-signs for atmospheric probes hinders the flexibility of the design, making the design process cumber-some and restricting decision-making down the road. The research presented here addresses this problem by providing low-fidelity models for the automated, rapid design of atmospheric trajectories and probe's models which may be solved concur-rently with the interplanetary trajectory.
atmospheric probes↗
Next-generation concurrent engineering: developing models to complement point designs
Concurrent Engineering Design teams have made routine the rapid development of point designs for space missions. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Team X is now evolving into a next generation CED; nin addition to a point design, the team develops a model of the local trade space. The process is a balance between the power of model-developing tools and the creativity of human experts, enabling the development of a variety of trade models for any space mission.
trade space exploration↗