Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “portfolio optimization”

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 NTRS2007

Computational Support for Technology- Investment Decisions

Strategic Assessment of Risk and Technology (START) is a user-friendly computer program that assists human managers in making decisions regarding research-and-development investment portfolios in the presence of uncertainties and of non-technological constraints that include budgetary and time limits, restrictions related to infrastructure, and programmatic and institutional priorities. START facilitates quantitative analysis of technologies, capabilities, missions, scenarios and programs, and thereby enables the selection and scheduling of value-optimal development efforts. START incorporates features that, variously, perform or support a unique combination of functions, most of which are not systematically performed or supported by prior decision- support software. These functions include the following: Optimal portfolio selection using an expected-utility-based assessment of capabilities and technologies; Temporal investment recommendations; Distinctions between enhancing and enabling capabilities; Analysis of partial funding for enhancing capabilities; and Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. START can run on almost any computing hardware, within Linux and related operating systems that include Mac OS X versions 10.3 and later, and can run in Windows under the Cygwin environment. START can be distributed in binary code form. START calls, as external libraries, several open-source software packages. Output is in Excel (.xls) file format.

Adumitroaie, Virgil↗
NASA NTRS2001

Methodology Development for Assessment of Spaceport Technology Returns and Risks

As part of Kennedy Space Center's (KSC's) challenge to open the space frontier, new spaceport technologies must be developed, matured and successfully transitioned to operational systems. R&D investment decisions can be considered from multiple perspectives. Near mid and far term technology horizons must be understood. Because a multitude of technology investment opportunities are available, we must identify choices that promise the greatest likelihood of significant lifecycle At the same time, the costs and risks of any choice must be well understood and balanced against its potential returns The problem is not one of simply rank- ordering projects in terms of their desirability. KSC wants to determine a portfolio of projects that simultaneously satisfies multiple goals, such as getting the biggest bang for the buck, supporting projects that may be too risky for private funding, staying within annual budget cycles without foregoing the requirements of a long term technology vision, and ensuring the development of a diversity of technologies that, support the variety of operational functions involved in space transportation. This work aims to assist in the development of in methods and techniques that support strategic technology investment decisions and ease the process of determining an optimal portfolio of spaceport R&D investments. Available literature on risks and returns to R&D is reviewed and most useful pieces are brought to the attention of the Spaceport Technology Development Office (STDO). KSC's current project management procedures are reviewed. It is found that the "one size fits all" nature of KSC's existing procedures and project selection criteria is not conducive to prudent decision-making. Directions for improving KSC's - procedures and criteria are outlined. With help of a contractor, STDO is currently developing a tool, named Change Management Analysis Tool (CMAT)/ Portfolio Analysis Tool (PAT), to assist KSC's R&D portfolio determination. A critical review of CMAT/PAT is undertaken. Directions for the improvement of this tool are provided. STDO and KSC intend to follow up on many, if not all, of the recommendations provided.

Joglekar, Prafulla↗
NASA NTRS2005

XML technology planning database : lessons learned

A hierarchical Extensible Markup Language(XML) database called XCALIBR (XML Analysis LIBRary) has been developed by Millennium Program to assist in technology investment (ROI) analysis and technology Language Capability the New return on portfolio optimization. The database contains mission requirements and technology capabilities, which are related by use of an XML dictionary. The XML dictionary codifies a standardized taxonomy for space missions, systems, subsystems and technologies. In addition to being used for ROI analysis, the database is being examined for use in project planning, tracking and documentation. During the past year, the database has moved from development into alpha testing. This paper describes the lessons learned during construction and testing of the prototype database and the motivation for moving from an XML taxonomy to a standard XML-based ontology.

prototype databases↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Framework for NASA Space Relay Satellite Services over the Next Decade: Development and Demonstration of the Commercial Successors to TDRS

• NASA SCaN Program plans to pursue commercial services for communications with Spacecrafts in near-earth Orbit • The Communications Services Project (CSP) formulated at GRC to establish partnerships with commercial SATCOM companies to develop and demonstrate the feasibility of providing SATCOM capabilities that could be offered as a service for future spacecraft users • CSP pursued an Announcement of Proposals (AFP) in 2021 • Awarded 6 industry vendors out of 14 (~ $278 million) • Viasat, SES Government Solutions, SpaceX; Kuiper Government Solutions (KGS), Telesat U.S. Services, Inmarsat Government. (4 RF and 2 Optical) • AFP’s objectives to develop and demonstrate end-to-end operational capabilities that could meet the needs of Government and private sector customers and maximize interoperability between them. • NASA completed assessment and analysis of the 6 industry proposals. • Results identified optimal portfolio that best meet AFP’s Objectives when considering capability coverage, risk spread, levels of confidence, U.S. domestic market stimulation, price and NASA budget.

George Haddad↗
NASA NTRS2024

Cost and Benefit Analysis of Mitigating, Tracking, and Remediating Orbital Debris

Orbital debris may collide with crewed and robotic spacecraft, placing them at risk. The wide range of debris, from 9,000-kilogram rocket bodies to millions of millimeter-size debris, has led to a similarly wide range of proposed actions for addressing the risks posed by debris. However, the costs and benefits of these actions have historically been unknown. This is a challenge for decision makers who are choosing which actions to support through technology development or policy changes. NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy is addressing these technical and economic uncertainties by building a capability to (1) complete rigorous calculations of the net present value of each action, (2) identify an optimal portfolio of actions to reduce risk, and (3) quantitatively analyze policies related to space sustainability. This report describes our progress toward that capability and to solicit feedback from the space and economic communities. Our previous work, referred to here as Phase 1, assessed the costs and benefits of performing debris remediation on operationally relevant timescales. The current analysis contains major updates to the risk model used in Phase 1 and expands the breadth of actions considered to include mitigating the creation of debris, improving the ability to track debris, and more methods for cleaning up existing debris. We demonstrate that our approach of measuring risks in dollars allows for the effectiveness of seemingly incommensurate actions to be compared and generates insights that other approaches to measuring risk have missed.

Jericho Locke↗
NASA NTRS2024

Cost and Benefit Analysis of Mitigating, Tracking, and Remediating Orbital Debris

Presentation accompanying the technical report with the same name. The abstract for the report and the full study is repeated below. Orbital debris may collide with crewed and robotic spacecraft, placing them at risk. The wide range of debris, from 9,000-kilogram rocket bodies to millions of millimeter-size debris, has led to a similarly wide range of proposed actions for addressing the risks posed by debris. However, the costs and benefits of these actions have historically been unknown. This is a challenge for decision makers who are choosing which actions to support through technology development or policy changes. NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy is addressing these technical and economic uncertainties by building a capability to (1) complete rigorous calculations of the net present value of each action, (2) identify an optimal portfolio of actions to reduce risk, and (3) quantitatively analyze policies related to space sustainability. This report describes our progress toward that capability and to solicit feedback from the space and economic communities. Our previous work, referred to here as Phase 1, assessed the costs and benefits of performing debris remediation on operationally relevant timescales. The current analysis contains major updates to the risk model used in Phase 1 and expands the breadth of actions considered to include mitigating the creation of debris, improving the ability to track debris, and more methods for cleaning up existing debris. We demonstrate that our approach of measuring risks in dollars allows for the effectiveness of seemingly incommensurate actions to be compared and generates insights that other approaches to measuring risk have missed.

Jericho Locke↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Cost and Benefit Analysis of Orbital Debris Remediation, Mitigation,Tracking, and Characterization

Orbital debris may collide with crewed and robotic spacecraft, placing them at risk. The wide range of debris, from 9,000-kilogram rocket bodies to millions of millimeter-size debris, has led to a similarly wide range of proposed actions for addressing the risks posed by debris. However, the costs and benefits of these actions have historically been unknown. This is a challenge for decision makers who are choosing which actions to support through technology development or policy changes. NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy is addressing these technical and economic uncertainties by building a capability to (1) complete rigorous calculations of the net present value of each action, (2) identify an optimal portfolio of actions to reduce risk, and (3) quantitatively analyze policies related to space sustainability. This report describes our progress toward that capability and to solicit feedback from the space and economic communities. Our previous work(Colvin, Karcz, and Wusk. 2023), referred to here as Phase 1, assessed the costs and benefits of performing debris remediation on operationally relevant timescales. The current paper summarizes the work of Locke and Colvin (2024), which contains major updates to the risk model used in Phase 1 and expands the breadth of actions considered to include mitigating the creation of debris, improving the ability to track debris, and more methods for cleaning up existing debris. We demonstrate that our approach of measuring risks in dollars allows for the effectiveness of seemingly incommensurate actions to be compared and generates insights that other approaches to measuring risk have missed.

Orbital Debris↗
NASA NTRS2006

Postoptimality analysis in the selection of technology portfolios

This paper describes an approach for qualifying optimal technology portfolios obtained with a multi-attribute decision support system. The goal is twofold: to gauge the degree of confidence in the optimal solution and to provide the decision-maker with an array of viable selection alternatives, which take into account input uncertainties and possibly satisfy non-technical constraints.

portfolios↗
NASA NTRS2010

Marshall Application Realignment System (MARS) Architecture

The Marshall Application Realignment System (MARS) Architecture project was established to meet the certification requirements of the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) V2.0 Federal Enterprise Architecture Certification (FEAC) Institute program and to provide added value to the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Application Portfolio Management process. The MARS Architecture aims to: (1) address the NASA MSFC Chief Information Officer (CIO) strategic initiative to improve Application Portfolio Management (APM) by optimizing investments and improving portfolio performance, and (2) develop a decision-aiding capability by which applications registered within the MSFC application portfolio can be analyzed and considered for retirement or decommission. The MARS Architecture describes a to-be target capability that supports application portfolio analysis against scoring measures (based on value) and overall portfolio performance objectives (based on enterprise needs and policies). This scoring and decision-aiding capability supports the process by which MSFC application investments are realigned or retired from the application portfolio. The MARS Architecture is a multi-phase effort to: (1) conduct strategic architecture planning and knowledge development based on the DoDAF V2.0 six-step methodology, (2) describe one architecture through multiple viewpoints, (3) conduct portfolio analyses based on a defined operational concept, and (4) enable a new capability to support the MSFC enterprise IT management mission, vision, and goals. This report documents Phase 1 (Strategy and Design), which includes discovery, planning, and development of initial architecture viewpoints. Phase 2 will move forward the process of building the architecture, widening the scope to include application realignment (in addition to application retirement), and validating the underlying architecture logic before moving into Phase 3. The MARS Architecture key stakeholders are most interested in Phase 3 because this is where the data analysis, scoring, and recommendation capability is realized. Stakeholders want to see the benefits derived from reducing the steady-state application base and identify opportunities for portfolio performance improvement and application realignment.

Belshe, Andrea↗
NASA NTRS2014

Flight Avionics Hardware Roadmap

The Avionics Technology Roadmap takes an 80% approach to technology investment in spacecraft avionics. It delineates a suite of technologies covering foundational, component, and subsystem-levels, which directly support 80% of future NASA space mission needs. The roadmap eschews high cost, limited utility technologies in favor of lower cost, and broadly applicable technologies with high return on investment. The roadmap is also phased to support future NASA mission needs and desires, with a view towards creating an optimized investment portfolio that matures specific, high impact technologies on a schedule that matches optimum insertion points of these technologies into NASA missions. The roadmap looks out over 15+ years and covers some 114 technologies, 58 of which are targeted for TRL6 within 5 years, with 23 additional technologies to be at TRL6 by 2020. Of that number, only a few are recommended for near term investment: 1. Rad Hard High Performance Computing 2. Extreme temperature capable electronics and packaging 3. RFID/SAW-based spacecraft sensors and instruments 4. Lightweight, low power 2D displays suitable for crewed missions 5. Radiation tolerant Graphics Processing Unit to drive crew displays 6. Distributed/reconfigurable, extreme temperature and radiation tolerant, spacecraft sensor controller and sensor modules 7. Spacecraft to spacecraft, long link data communication protocols 8. High performance and extreme temperature capable C&DH subsystem In addition, the roadmap team recommends several other activities that it believes are necessary to advance avionics technology across NASA: center dot Engage the OCT roadmap teams to coordinate avionics technology advances and infusion into these roadmaps and their mission set center dot Charter a team to develop a set of use cases for future avionics capabilities in order to decouple this roadmap from specific missions center dot Partner with the Software Steering Committee to coordinate computing hardware and software technology roadmaps and investment recommendations center dot Continue monitoring foundational technologies upon which future avionics technologies will be dependent, e.g., RHBD and COTS semiconductor technologies

Some, Raphael↗
NASA NTRS2000

Applying Technology Ranking and Systems Engineering in Advanced Life Support

According to the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Program Plan, the Systems Modeling and Analysis Project (SMAP) has two important tasks: 1) prioritizing investments in ALS Research and Technology Development (R&TD), and 2) guiding the evolution of ALS systems. Investments could be prioritized simply by independently ranking different technologies, but we should also consider a technology's impact on system design. Guiding future ALS systems will require SMAP to consider many aspects of systems engineering. R&TD investments can be prioritized using familiar methods for ranking technology. The first step is gathering data on technology performance, safety, readiness level, and cost. Then the technologies are ranked using metrics or by decision analysis using net present economic value. The R&TD portfolio can be optimized to provide the maximum expected payoff in the face of uncertain future events. But more is needed. The optimum ALS system can not be designed simply by selecting the best technology for each predefined subsystem. Incorporating a new technology, such as food plants, can change the specifications of other subsystems, such as air regeneration. Systems must be designed top-down starting from system objectives, not bottom-up from selected technologies. The familiar top-down systems engineering process includes defining mission objectives, mission design, system specification, technology analysis, preliminary design, and detail design. Technology selection is only one part of systems analysis and engineering, and it is strongly related to the subsystem definitions. ALS systems should be designed using top-down systems engineering. R&TD technology selection should consider how the technology affects ALS system design. Technology ranking is useful but it is only a small part of systems engineering.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2009

Spreadsheets for Analyzing and Optimizing Space Missions

XCALIBR (XML Capability Analysis LIBRary) is a set of Extensible Markup Language (XML) database and spreadsheet- based analysis software tools designed to assist in technology-return-on-investment analysis and optimization of technology portfolios pertaining to outer-space missions. XCALIBR is also being examined for use in planning, tracking, and documentation of projects. An XCALIBR database contains information on mission requirements and technological capabilities, which are related by use of an XML taxonomy. XCALIBR incorporates a standardized interface for exporting data and analysis templates to an Excel spreadsheet. Unique features of XCALIBR include the following: It is inherently hierarchical by virtue of its XML basis. The XML taxonomy codifies a comprehensive data structure and data dictionary that includes performance metrics for spacecraft, sensors, and spacecraft systems other than sensors. The taxonomy contains >700 nodes representing all levels, from system through subsystem to individual parts. All entries are searchable and machine readable. There is an intuitive Web-based user interface. The software automatically matches technologies to mission requirements. The software automatically generates, and makes the required entries in, an Excel return-on-investment analysis software tool. The results of an analysis are presented in both tabular and graphical displays.

Some, Raphael R.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Strategic Technology Investment Analysis: An Integrated System Approach

Complex technology investment decisions within NASA are increasingly difficult to make such that the end results are satisfying the technical objectives and all the organizational constraints. Due to a restricted science budget environment and numerous required technology developments, the investment decisions need to take into account not only the functional impact on the program goals, but also development uncertainties and cost variations along with maintaining a healthy workforce. This paper describes an approach for optimizing and qualifying technology investment portfolios from the perspective of an integrated system model. The methodology encompasses multi-attribute decision theory elements and sensitivity analysis. The evaluation of the degree of robustness of the recommended portfolio provides the decision-maker with an array of viable selection alternatives, which take into account input uncertainties and possibly satisfy nontechnical constraints. The methodology is presented in the context of assessing capability development portfolios for NASA technology programs.

decision support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Identifying Optimal Site Location for Wind Energy Farms Considering Ecological and Social Impacts

With the increasing cost and declining availability of fossil fuels, renewable energy, specifically wind power, has become one of the fastest growing sources of energy in New Mexico. To assist with the goals set by the state’s Renewables Standard Portfolio established in 2004, the NASA DEVELOP team created three Optimal Wind Farm Suitability maps that consider social impact, ecological impact, and power production efficiency. The team utilized datasets from February 2013 – May 2018 that show vulnerable species, average wind patterns, and US Air Force Base locations. These three maps were combined into a final suitability map for optimal wind farm placement.

Joy Marich↗
NASA NTRS2015

Simulation and Analysis of Technology and Operational Procedures to Reduce the Combined Effects of Emissions and Contrails

The development and evaluation of concepts and technology to support future air traffic management systems require a hierarchy of models ranging from real-time simulations to extensive field evaluations. Air traffic simulation models such as Airspace Concept Evaluation System, Center Tracon Automation System, Future Air traffic management Concept Evaluation Tool and others are used to design air traffic systems balancing the conflicting objectives of maximizing safety, meeting future demands for airports and airspace and increase efficiency of traffic flows in the presence of uncertain weather. The impact of aviation emissions and contrails on climate imposes another constraint on the design of aircraft and aviation operations. The understanding of the complex interaction between physical climate system, the carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and aviation activity can be improved by the development of integrated assessment models that include emission and climate models together with air traffic simulations. The modeling of aircraft emissions and their interaction with each other to change the concentration levels of different gasses in the atmosphere and the resulting impact of the radiative forcing on the equilibrium of the Earth's atmosphere is complex and requires the use of coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models together with three-dimensional models of carbon cycle and chemistry of other non-CO2 greenhouse gases. These models are computationally intensive and unsuitable for studies involving the generation of multiple scenarios. Simple emission and climate models, based on the input-output relations of linear systems, capture the fundamental emission to climate impact behavior by careful selection of key variables and their dynamics. The impact of various greenhouse gases depends on the total concentration, effect per unit change in atmospheric concentration and the spatial distribution of the gas. All these quantities are influenced by the lifetime of the gas. The impact of a greenhouse gas depends on the interval of assessment, which may vary from a few decades to a few centuries. Climate metrics are aimed at providing a common scale to compare different greenhouse gases. If the metrics are to be used as a tool in developing and evaluating aviation operations, they should be transparent and easy to apply. Global Warming Potential and Aggregate Global Temperature Potential are some of the commonly used metrics. This paper integrates a national-level air traffic simulation and optimization capability with simple climate models and carbon cycle models, and climate metrics to assess the impact of aviation on climate. The capability brings together metrics, which are useful in aviation operations together with metrics used in climate studies. The capability can be used to make trade-offs between extra fuel cost and reduction in climate impact. There is considerable uncertainty in our understanding of the radiative forcing associated with emissions and contrails. The parameters in the simulation can be used to evaluate the effect of various uncertainties in emission models and contrails. It can also be used to evaluate the impact of different decision horizons. Alternatively, the optimization results from the simulation can be used as inputs to other tools that monetize global climate impacts like the FAA's Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool for Impacts.

impact of aviation on the environment↗