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.
Insights and lessons learned into NASA leadership, project management and systems engineering from key NASA, other government and industry leaders and subject matter experts.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Project Manager is one of the key individuals that can determine the success or failure of a project. NASA is fully committed to the training and development of Project Managers across the agency to ensure that highly capable individuals are equipped with the competencies and experience to successfully lead a project. An equally critical position is that of the Project Scientist. The Project Scientist provides the scientific leadership necessary for the scientific success of a project by insuring that the mission meets or exceeds the scientific requirements. Traditionally, NASA Goddard project scientists were appointed and approved by the Center Science Director based on their knowledge, experience, and other qualifications. However the process to obtain the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities was not documented or done in a systematic way. NASA Goddard's current Science Director, Nicholas White saw the need to create a pipeline for developing new projects scientists, and appointed a team to develop a process for training potential project scientists. The team members were Dr. Harley Thronson, Chair, Dr. Howard Kea, Mr. Mark Goldman, DACUM facilitator and the late Dr. Michael VanSteenberg. The DACUM process, an occupational analysis and evaluation system, was used to produce a picture of the project scientist's duties, tasks, knowledge, and skills. The output resulted in a 3-Day introductory course detailing all the required knowledge, skills and abilities a scientist must develop over time to be qualified for selections as a Project Scientist.
The management lessons learned during the implementation of a corporate mandate to develop and deliver an effective Ada training program to all divisions are discussed. The management process involved in obtaining cooperation from all levels in the development of a corporate-wide project is described. The problem areas are identified along with some possible solutions.
The crew of the International Space Station (ISS) receives extensive ground‐training in order to safely and effectively respond to any potential emergency event while on‐orbit, but few people realize that their training is not concluded when they launch into space. The evolution of the emergency On‐ Board Training events (OBTs) has recently moved from paper "scripts" to an intranet‐based software simulation that allows for the crew, as well as the flight control teams in Mission Control Centers across the world, to share in an improved and more realistic training event. This emergency OBT simulator ensures that the participants experience the training event as it unfolds, completely unaware of the type, location, or severity of the simulated emergency until the scenario begins. The crew interfaces with the simulation software via iPads that they keep with them as they translate through the ISS modules, receiving prompts and information as they proceed through the response. Personnel in the control centers bring up the simulation via an intranet browser at their console workstations, and can view additional telemetry signatures in simulated ground displays in order to assist the crew and communicate vital information to them as applicable. The Chief Training Officers and emergency instructors set the simulation in motion, choosing the type of emergency (rapid depressurization, fire, or toxic atmosphere) and specific initial conditions to emphasize the desired training objectives. Project development, testing, and implementation was a collaborative effort between ISS emergency instructors, Chief Training Officers, Flight Directors, and the Crew Office using commercial off the shelf (COTS) hardware along with simulation software created in‐house. Due to the success of the Emergency OBT simulator, the already‐developed software has been leveraged and repurposed to develop a new emulator used during fire response ground‐training to deliver data that the crew receives from the handheld Compound Specific Analyzer for Combustion Products (CSA‐CP). This CSA‐CP emulator makes use of a portion of codebase from the Emergency OBT simulator dealing with atmospheric contamination during fire scenarios, and feeds various data signatures to crew via an iPod Touch with a flight‐like CSA‐CP display. These innovative simulations, which make use of COTS hardware with custom in‐house software, have yielded drastic improvements to emergency training effectiveness and risk reduction for ISS crew and flight control teams during on‐orbit and ground training events.
Approximately 65-70% of the crew members now experience motion sickness of some degree during the first 72 h of orbital flight on the Space Shuttle. Lack of congruence among signals from spatial orientation systems leads to sensory conflict, which appears to be the basic cause of space motion sickness. A project to develop training devices and procedures to preadapt astronauts to the stimulus rearrangements of microgravity is currently being pursued. The preflight adaptation trainers (PATs) are intended to: demonstrate sensory phenomena likely to be experienced in flight, allow astronauts to train preflight in an altered sensory environment, alter sensory-motor reflexes, and alleviate or shorten the duration of space motion sickness. Four part-task PATs are anticipated. The trainers are designed to evoke two adaptation processes, sensory compensation and sensory reinterpretation, which are necessary to maintain spatial orientation in a weightless environment. Recent investigations using one of the trainers indicate that self-motion perception of linear translation is enhanced when body tilt is combined with visual surround translation, and that a 270 degrees phase angle relationship between tilt and surround motion produces maximum translation perception.
To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is developing the next set of vehicles that will take men back to the moon under the Constellation Program. The Constellation Training Facility (CxTF) is a project in development that will be used to train astronauts, instructors, and flight controllers on the operation of Constellation Program vehicles. It will also be used for procedure verification and validation of flight software and console tools. The CxTF will have simulations for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Crew Module (CM), CEV Service Module (SM), Launch Abort System (LAS), Spacecraft Adapter (SA), Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), Pressurized Cargo Variant CM, Pressurized Cargo Variant SM, Cargo Launch Vehicle, Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM). The Facility will consist of part-task and full-task trainers, each with a specific set of mission training capabilities. Part task trainers will be used for focused training on a single vehicle system or set of related systems. Full task trainers will be used for training on complete vehicles and all of its subsystems. Support was provided in both software development and project planning areas of the CxTF project. Simulation software was developed for the hydraulic system of the Thrust Vector Control (TVC) of the ARES I launch vehicle. The TVC system is in charge of the actuation of the nozzle gimbals for navigation control of the upper stage of the ARES I rocket. Also, software was developed using C standards to send and receive data to and from hand controllers to be used in CxTF cockpit simulations. The hand controllers provided movement in all six rotational and translational axes. Under Project Planning & Control, support was provided to the development and maintenance of integrated schedules for both the Constellation Training Facility and Missions Operations Facilities Division. These schedules maintain communication between projects in different levels. The CxTF support provided is one that requires continuous maintenance since the project is still on initial development phases.
Project organization and communications for training Korean personnel in technology transfer methods and resources
Future space missions will be significantly longer than current shuttle missions and new systems will be more complex than current systems. Increasing communication delays between crews and Earth-based support means that astronauts need to be prepared to handle the unexpected on their own. As crews become more autonomous, their potential span of control and required expertise must grow to match their autonomy. It is not possible to train for every eventuality ahead of time on the ground, or to maintain trained skills across long intervals of disuse. To adequately prepare NASA personnel for these challenges, new training approaches, methodologies, and tools are required. This research project aims at developing these training capabilities. By researching established training principles, examining future needs, and by using current practices in space flight training as test beds, both in Flight Controller and Crew Medical domains, this research project is mitigating program risks and generating templates and requirements to meet future training needs. Training efforts in Fiscal Year 08 (FY08) strongly focused on crew medical training, but also began exploring how Space Flight Resource Management training for Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Flight Controllers could be integrated with systems training for optimal Mission Control Center (MCC) operations. The Training Task addresses Program risks that lie at the intersection of the following three risks identified by the Project: (1) Risk associated with poor task design (2) Risk of error due to inadequate information (3) Risk associated with reduced safety and efficiency due to poor human factors design
Future space missions will be significantly longer than current shuttle missions and new systems will be more complex than current systems. Increasing communication delays between crews and Earth-based support means that astronauts need to be prepared to handle the unexpected on their own. As crews become more autonomous, their potential span of control and required expertise must grow to match their autonomy. It is not possible to train for every eventuality ahead of time on the ground, or to maintain trained skills across long intervals of disuse. To adequately prepare NASA personnel for these challenges, new training approaches, methodologies, and tools are required. This research project aims at developing these training capabilities. By researching established training principles, examining future needs, and by using current practices in space flight training as test beds, both in Flight Controller and Crew Medical domains, this research project is mitigating program risks and generating templates and requirements to meet future training needs. Training efforts in Fiscal Year 09 (FY09) strongly focused on crew medical training, but also began exploring how Space Flight Resource Management training for Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Flight Controllers could be integrated with systems training for optimal Mission Control Center (MCC) operations. The Training Task addresses Program risks that lie at the intersection of the following three risks identified by the Project: 1) Risk associated with poor task design; 2) Risk of error due to inadequate information; and 3) Risk associated with reduced safety and efficiency due to poor human factors design.
Future space missions will be significantly longer than current Shuttle missions and new systems will be more complex than current systems. Increasing communication delays between crews and Earth-based support means that astronauts need to be prepared to handle the unexpected on their own. As crews become more autonomous, their potential span of control and required expertise must grow to match their autonomy. It is not possible to train for every eventuality ahead of time on the ground, or to maintain trained skills across long intervals of disuse. To adequately prepare NASA personnel for these challenges, new training approaches, methodologies, and tools are required. This research project aims at developing these training capabilities. Training efforts in FY07 strongly focused on crew medical training, but also began exploring how Space Flight Resource Management training for Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Flight Controllers could be integrated with systems training for optimal Mission Control Center operations. Beginning in January 2008, the training research effort will include team training prototypes and tools. The Training Task addresses Program risks that lie at the intersection of the following three risks identified by the Project: 1) Risk associated with poor task design; 2) Risk of error due to inadequate information; 3) Risk associated with reduced safety and efficiency due to poor human factors design.
In roughly two years time, Marshall Space Flight Center's (MSFC) Mission Operations Laboratory (MOL) has incubated a personnel training and certification program for about 1000 learners and multiple phases of the Ares I Upper Stage (US) project. Previous MOL-developed training programs focused on about 100 learners with a focus on operations, and had enough full-time training staff to develop courseware and provide training administration. This paper discusses 1) how creation of a broad, structured training program unfolded as feedback from more narrowly defined tasks, 2) how training philosophy, development methods, and administration are being simplified and tailored so that many Upper Stage organizations can grow their own training yet maintain consistency, accountability, and traceability across the project, and 3) possibilities for interfacing with the production contractor's training system and staff.
In roughly two years time, Marshall Space Flight Center s (MSFC) Mission Operations Laboratory (MOL) has incubated a personnel training and certification program for about 1000 learners and multiple phases of the Ares I Upper Stage (US) project. Previous MOL-developed training programs focused on about 100 learners with a focus on operations, and had enough full-time training staff to develop courseware and provide training administration. This paper discusses 1) the basics of MOL's training philosophy, 2) how creation of a broad, structured training program unfolded as feedback from more narrowly defined tasks, 3) how training philosophy, development methods, and administration are being simplified and tailored so that many Upper Stage organizations can "grow their own" training yet maintain consistency, accountability, and traceability across the project, 4) interfacing with the production contractor's training system and staff, and 5) reaping training value from existing materials and events.
In FY 2004, JPL launched an initiative to improve the way it practices systems engineering. The Lab's senior management formed the Systems Engineering Advancement (SEA) Project in order to "significantly advance the practice and organizational capabilities of systems engineering at JPL on flight projects and ground support tasks." The scope of the SEA Project includes the systems engineering work performed in all three dimensions of a program, project, or task: 1. the full life-cycle, i.e., concept through end of operations 2. the full depth, i.e., Program, Project, System, Subsystem, Element (SE Levels 1 to 5) 3. the full technical scope, e.g., the flight, ground and launch systems, avionics, power, propulsion, telecommunications, thermal, etc. The initial focus of their efforts defined the following basic systems engineering functions at JPL: systems architecture, requirements management, interface definition, technical resource management, system design and analysis, system verification and validation, risk management, technical peer reviews, design process management and systems engineering task management, They also developed a list of highly valued personal behaviors of systems engineers, and are working to inculcate those behaviors into members of their systems engineering community. The SEA Project is developing products, services, and training to support managers and practitioners throughout the entire system lifecycle. As these are developed, each one needs to be systematically deployed. Hence, the SEA Project developed a deployment process that includes four aspects: infrastructure and operations, communication and outreach, education and training, and consulting support. In addition, the SEA Project has taken a proactive approach to organizational change management and customer relationship management - both concepts and approaches not usually invoked in an engineering environment. This paper'3 describes JPL's approach to advancing the practice of systems engineering at the Lab. It describes the general approach used and how they addressed the three key aspects of change: people, process and technology. It highlights a list of highly valued personal behaviors of systems engineers, discusses the various products, services and training that were developed, describes the deployment approach used, and concludes with several lessons learned.
The mission of CLASS was to provide education and training in NASA-related mathematics, technology and science to US. students who are underrepresented. In these areas and to encourage them to pursue advanced degrees. The project has three goals which support this mission: research training, curriculum development and outreach. All project activities are designed to meet a concrete objective which directly advances one of these goals. The common theme of all project activities is NASA's Earth Science Enterprise, in particular, the use of laser-based remote sensing systems (lidars) to monitor and understand the earth's environment
The objective of this project is to develop a portable, eye-safe, ground-based ozone lidar instrument specialized for ozone differential absorption lidar (DIAL) measurements in the troposphere. This prototype instrument is intended to operate at remote field sites and to serve as the basic unit for monitoring projects requiring multi-instrument networks, such as that discussed in the science plan for the Global Tropospheric Ozone Project (GTOP). This instrument will be based at HU for student training in lidar technology as well as atmospheric ozone data analysis and interpretation. It will be also available for off-site measurement campaigns and will serve as a test bed for further instrument development. Later development beyond this grant to extend the scientific usefulness of the instrument may include incorporation of an aerosol channel and upgrading the laser to make stratospheric ozone measurements. Undergraduate and graduate students have been and will be active participants in this research effort.
The research focus of this project is to assist in the closure of Measurement, Monitoring and Control System (MMCS) and other electrical requirements in support of the B2 Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage Green Run Test Project. Alongside this goal I am to understand project management tools to analyze and control activities/tasks associated with those items. The project I am working on will assist electrical engineers in developing and or identifying closure rationale for the MMCS and electrical requirements. Also as serving the role of a training project manager, I am to develop and maintain a method for tracking progress with estimate completion dates specifically identifying those items during this performance window. The methods I used in order to perform the research consisted of worddocuments, excel sheets, and pdf documents needed for review. For example, documents consisted of: a SLS Core Stage Green Run Facility Requirement Document (FRD) identifying the SSC MMCS and electrical requirements, a Stage Controller to SSC Interface Control Document (ICD) identifying the SSC requirements, and the B2 SLS Core Stage Green Run Test project System Requirements Document (SRD) which identifies the MMCS and electrical requirements. The files were sent to me by both mentors, Mr. Barry Robinson and Ms. Dawn Davis. Overall, the review process for the word documents and excel spreadsheets proved to be successful. The data for the electrical components were accurate and were consistent with the original recorded data. However, the consistency with the pdf documents did not follow up all the way. Attention to this mistake was made and further revisions were done in order for the data to agree with each other. Furthermore, an itinerary was designed using Microsoft Outlook in order to track progress with estimated completion dates. This project contributes to NASA/Center Missions and Goals through the Waterfall Model. The Waterfall Model is a linear system used for engineering design. In the Waterfall Model, the fourth step is Verification and Validation. This involves installation, testing, and debugging of the B2 SLS Core Stage electrical components. For the SLS Core Stage Green Run Test Project, each requirement contained in this approved requirements set will have at least one Verification Item (VI) assigned to it. During the design phase, VIs will mostly consist of Analysis or Inspection types. Design phase VIs and closure information will be documented in Dynamics Data Management System (DDMS) in the form of analysis reports and design documentation.