Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “concurrent engineering design”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

Characterizing Distributed Concurrent Engineering Teams: A Descriptive Framework for Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Design Teams

As aerospace missions grow larger and more technically complex in the face of ever tighter budgets, it will become increasingly important to use concurrent engineering methods in the development of early conceptual designs because of their ability to facilitate rapid assessments and trades in a cost-efficient manner. To successfully accomplish these complex missions with limited funding, it is also essential to effectively leverage the strengths of individuals and teams across government, industry, academia, and international agencies by increased cooperation between organizations. As a result, the existing concurrent engineering teams will need to increasingly engage in distributed collaborative concurrent design. This paper is an extension of a recent white paper written by the Concurrent Engineering Working Group, which details the unique challenges of distributed collaborative concurrent engineering. This paper includes a short history of aerospace concurrent engineering, and defines the terms 'concurrent', 'collaborative' and 'distributed' in the context of aerospace concurrent engineering. In addition, a model for the levels of complexity of concurrent engineering teams is presented to provide a way to conceptualize information and data flow within these types of teams.

Concept Design↗
NASA NTRS2011

Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Design Teams: Current State, Next Steps and a Vision for the Future

Over the past sixteen years, government aerospace agencies and aerospace industry have developed and evolved operational concurrent design teams to create novel spaceflight mission concepts and designs. These capabilities and teams, however, have evolved largely independently. In today's environment of increasingly complex missions with limited budgets it is becoming readily apparent that both implementing organizations and today's concurrent engineering teams will need to interact more often than they have in the past. This will require significant changes in the current state of practice. This paper documents the findings from a concurrent engineering workshop held in August 2010 to identify the key near term improvement areas for concurrent engineering capabilities and challenges to the long-term advancement of concurrent engineering practice. The paper concludes with a discussion of a proposed vision for the evolution of these teams over the next decade.

concurrent engineering design↗
NASA NTRS2021

The Evolution of Team-X: 25 Years of Concurrent Engineering Design Experience

Established in 1995 in response to NASA’s “Faster, Better, Cheaper” era, Team-X was born from a need to perform rapid space mission design for principal investigator-led competed proposals. The success and sustainability of Team-X over the 25 years that have followed is directly attributable to the Team-X business model and its evolution over time. While dozens of organizations and institutions have emulated the Team-X design process, there are nuances to the Team-X business model that are unique to JPL, and explain why it is different than other concurrent design teams. One of the key components of a business model is the customer segments that are served. Team-X was founded to conduct the Pre-Phase A work necessary to formulate a portfolio of multiple planetary mission concepts, but has since expanded to include the capability to conduct studies for Earth science, astrophysics, and heliophysics missions as well as Human Exploration and Operations missions and space technology development. Team-X delivers value to its clients both in terms of speed and cost. Team-X has also added value by creating teams to enable the development of Instrument and SmallSat Concepts. Value has further been enhanced through a revision of its process for reviews and the addition of pre-design architecting capabilities. Other aspects of the Team-X infrastructure, in addition to study process, have enabled it to succeed for over a quarter century. From our most important resource, the people, our tools, especially for cost estimating, as well as our increasing capable IT infrastructure have contributed to our capability to meet the demands of our clients. The Team-X business model and its evolution over time, position it well for success in the decades to come.

Murphy, Jonathan↗
NASA NTRS1990

Concurrent engineering design and management knowledge capture

The topics are presented in viewgraph form and include the following: real-time management, personnel management, project management, conceptual design and decision making; the SITRF design problem; and the electronic-design notebook.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2018

Costing at the Speed of Light: How Your Concurrent Engineering Design Team can Bootstrap Your Organizations Programmatic Capabilities

What do you do when it is necessary to generate reasonable cost estimates at the earliest Concept Maturity Levels and you have never flown any similar missions before? This paper describes the current and future Team X cost processes and methods, how they are being used to expand our data frontiers and cost modelling capabilities, and how this enables the ability to estimate early and estimate often.

Ramirez, Matthew↗
NASA NTRS2020

Estimate Early and Estimate Often: How Your Concurrent Engineering Design Team Can Bootstrap Your Organizations Programmatic Capabilities

What do you do when it is necessary to generate reasonable cost estimates at the earliest Concept Maturity Levels and you have never flown any similar missions before? This paper describes the current and future Team X and A-Team cost processes and methods, how they are being used to expand our data frontiers, cost modelling capabilities and how this enables the ability to estimate early and estimate often.

Hihn, Jairus↗
NASA NTRS2006

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↗
NASA NTRS2006

Next-generation concurrent engineering: developing models to complement point designs

Concurrent Engineering Design (CED) 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; in addition to a point design, the Team develops a model of the local trade space. The process is a balance between the power of a model developing tools and the creativity of humal experts, enabling the development of a variety of trade models for any space mission. This paper reviews the modeling method and its practical implementation in the ED environment. Example results illustrate the benefit of this approach.

concurrent engineering↗
NASA NTRS2001

A Software Tool for Integrated Optical Design Analysis

Design of large precision optical systems requires multi-disciplinary analysis, modeling, and design. Thermal, structural and optical characteristics of the hardware must be accurately understood in order to design a system capable of accomplishing the performance requirements. The interactions between each of the disciplines become stronger as systems are designed lighter weight for space applications. This coupling dictates a concurrent engineering design approach. In the past, integrated modeling tools have been developed that attempt to integrate all of the complex analysis within the framework of a single model. This often results in modeling simplifications and it requires engineering specialist to learn new applications. The software described in this presentation addresses the concurrent engineering task using a different approach. The software tool, Integrated Optical Design Analysis (IODA), uses data fusion technology to enable a cross discipline team of engineering experts to concurrently design an optical system using their standard validated engineering design tools.

Moore, Jim↗
NASA NTRS2004

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↗
NASA NTRS2011

Concurrent Engineering Working Group White Paper Distributed Collaborative Design: The Next Step in Aerospace Concurrent Engineering

As aerospace missions grow larger and more technically complex in the face of ever tighter budgets, it will become increasingly important to use concurrent engineering methods in the development of early conceptual designs because of their ability to facilitate rapid assessments and trades of performance, cost and schedule. To successfully accomplish these complex missions with limited funding, it is essential to effectively leverage the strengths of individuals and teams across government, industry, academia, and international agencies by increased cooperation between organizations. As a result, the existing concurrent engineering teams will need to increasingly engage in distributed collaborative concurrent design. The purpose of this white paper is to identify a near-term vision for the future of distributed collaborative concurrent engineering design for aerospace missions as well as discuss the challenges to achieving that vision. The white paper also documents the advantages of creating a working group to investigate how to engage the expertise of different teams in joint design sessions while enabling organizations to maintain their organizations competitive advantage.

Hihn, Jairus↗
NASA NTRS1991

Lessons learned for composite structures

Lessons learned for composite structures are presented in three technology areas: materials, manufacturing, and design. In addition, future challenges for composite structures are presented. Composite materials have long gestation periods from the developmental stage to fully matured production status. Many examples exist of unsuccessful attempts to accelerate this gestation period. Experience has shown that technology transition of a new material system to fully matured production status is time consuming, involves risk, is expensive and should not be undertaken lightly. The future challenges for composite materials require an intensification of the science based approach to material development, extension of the vendor/customer interaction process to include all engineering disciplines of the end user, reduced material costs because they are a significant factor in overall part cost, and improved batch-to-batch pre-preg physical property control. Historical manufacturing lessons learned are presented using current in-service production structure as examples. Most producibility problems for these structures can be traced to their sequential engineering design. This caused an excessive emphasis on design-to-weight and schedule at the expense of design-to-cost. This resulted in expensive performance originated designs, which required costly tooling and led to non-producible parts. Historically these problems have been allowed to persist throughout the production run. The current/future approach for the production of affordable composite structures mandates concurrent engineering design where equal emphasis is placed on product and process design. Design for simplified assembly is also emphasized, since assembly costs account for a major portion of total airframe costs. The future challenge for composite manufacturing is, therefore, to utilize concurrent engineering in conjunction with automated manufacturing techniques to build affordable composite structures. Composite design experience has shown that significant weight savings have been achieved, outstanding fatigue and corrosion resistance have been demonstrated, and in-service performance has been very successful. Currently no structural design show stoppers exist for composite structures. A major lesson learned is that the full scale static test is the key test for composites, since it is the primary structural 'hot spot' indicator. The major durability issue is supportability of thin skinned structure. Impact damage has been identified as the most significant issue for the damage tolerance control of composite structures. However, delaminations induced during assembly operations have demonstrated a significant nuisance value. The future challenges for composite structures are threefold. Firstly, composite airframe weight fraction should increase to 60 percent. At the same time, the cost of composite structures must be reduced by 50 percent to attain the goal of affordability. To support these challenges it is essential to develop lower cost materials and processes.

Whitehead, R. S.↗
NASA NTRS2010

GLobal Integrated Design Environment (GLIDE): A Concurrent Engineering Application

The GLobal Integrated Design Environment (GLIDE) is a client-server software application purpose-built to mitigate issues associated with real time data sharing in concurrent engineering environments and to facilitate discipline-to-discipline interaction between multiple engineers and researchers. GLIDE is implemented in multiple programming languages utilizing standardized web protocols to enable secure parameter data sharing between engineers and researchers across the Internet in closed and/or widely distributed working environments. A well defined, HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) based Application Programming Interface (API) to the GLIDE client/server environment enables users to interact with GLIDE, and each other, within common and familiar tools. One such common tool, Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation), paired with its add-in API for GLIDE, is discussed in this paper. The top-level examples given demonstrate how this interface improves the efficiency of the design process of a concurrent engineering study while reducing potential errors associated with manually sharing information between study participants.

McGuire, Melissa L.↗
NASA NTRS2005

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↗