Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Lincoln, William

Publications and source records attributed to Lincoln, William.

10 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Titan Science Return Quantification

Each proposal for a NASA mission concept includes a Science Traceability Matrix (STM), intended to show that what is being proposed would contribute to satisfying one or more of the agency's top-level science goals. But the information traditionally provided cannot be used directly to quantitatively compare anticipated science return. We added numerical elements to NASA's STM and developed a software tool to process the data. We then applied this methodology to evaluate a group of competing concepts for a proposed mission to Saturn's moon, Titan.

Saturn↗
NASA NTRS2013

Mars Biosignature - Detection Capabilities: A Method for Objective Comparison of In Situ Measurements and Sample Return

A Mars sample-return mission has been proposed within NASA's Mars Exploration Program. Studying Martian samples in laboratories on Earth could address many important issues in planetary science, but arguably none is as scientifically compelling as the question of whether biosignatures indicative of past or present life exist on that planet. It is reasonable to ask before embarking on a sample-return mission whether equivalent investigation of Martian biosignatures could be conducted in situ. This study presents an approach to (1)identifying an optimal instrument suite for in situ detection of biosignatures on Mars,and (2)comparing the projected confidence level of in situ detection in a 2026 timeframe to that of Earth-based analysis. We identify a set of candidate instruments, the development of which is projected to be achievable by 2026 well within a $200 million cost cap. Assuming that any biosignatures near the surface of Mars are similar to those of terrestrial life, we find that this instrument suite, if successfully developed and deployed, would enable in situ biosignature detection at essentially the same level of confidence as that of Earth-based analysis of the same samples. At a cost cap of half that amount,the confidence level of in situbiosignature detection analysis could reach about 90% that of Earth-based investigations.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)↗
NASA NTRS2011

Geo-Statistical Approach to Estimating Asteroid Exploration Parameters

NASA's vision for space exploration calls for a human visit to a near earth asteroid (NEA). Potential human operations at an asteroid include exploring a number of sites and analyzing and collecting multiple surface samples at each site. In this paper two approaches to formulation and scheduling of human exploration activities are compared given uncertain information regarding the asteroid prior to visit. In the first approach a probability model was applied to determine best estimates of mission duration and exploration activities consistent with exploration goals and existing prior data about the expected aggregate terrain information. These estimates were compared to a second approach or baseline plan where activities were constrained to fit within an assumed mission duration. The results compare the number of sites visited, number of samples analyzed per site, and the probability of achieving mission goals related to surface characterization for both cases.

probability↗
NASA NTRS2010

Reconciling Scientific Aspirations and Engineering Constraints for a Lunar Mission via Hyperdimensional Interpolation

Virtually every NASA space-exploration mission represents a compromise between the interests of two expert, dedicated, but very different communities: scientists, who want to go quickly to the places that interest them most and spend as much time there as possible conducting sophisticated experiments, and the engineers and designers charged with maximizing the probability that a given mission will be successful and cost-effective. Recent work at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) seeks to enhance communication between these two groups, and to help them reconcile their interests, by developing advanced modeling capabilities with which they can analyze the achievement of science goals and objectives against engineering design and operational constraints. The analyses conducted prior to this study have been point-design driven. Each analysis has been of one hypothetical case which addresses the question: Given a set of constraints, how much science can be done? But the constraints imposed by the architecture team-e.g., rover speed, time allowed for extravehicular activity (EVA), number of sites at which science experiments are to be conducted- are all in early development and carry a great deal of uncertainty. Variations can be incorporated into the analysis, and indeed that has been done in sensitivity studies designed to see which constraint variations have the greatest impact on results. But if a very large number of variations can be analyzed all at once, producing a table that includes virtually the entire trade space under consideration, then we have a tool that enables scientists and mission architects to ask the inverse question: For a given desired level of science (or any other objective), what is the range of constraints that would be needed? With this tool, mission architects could determine, for example, what combinations of rover speed, EVA duration, and other constraints produce the desired results. Further, this tool would help them identify which technology-improvement investments would be likely to produce the largest or most important return. However, the number of variations that need to be considered for such analysis quickly balloons to an unwieldy size. If three variations are considered for each of six constraints-a very modest example-there are a total of 243 variations to consider. If it takes 40 minutes to compute each variation, as it does with HURON, our automated optimization system, then it would take 162 hours or nearly 7 days of round-the-clock computing to calculate the results. Adding further constraints or variations exponentially increases the amount of time that is needed.

Weisbin, Charles R.↗
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 NTRS2006

Technology Assessment in Support of the Presidential Vision for Space Exploration

This paper discusses the process and results of technology assessment in support of the United States Vision for Space Exploration of the Moon, Mars and Beyond. The paper begins by reviewing the Presidential Vision: a major endeavor in building systems of systems. It discusses why we wish to return to the Moon, and the exploration architecture for getting there safely, sustaining a presence, and safely returning. Next, a methodology for optimal technology investment is proposed with discussion of inputs including a capability hierarchy, mission importance weightings, available resource profiles as a function of time, likelihoods of development success, and an objective function. A temporal optimization formulation is offered, and the investment recommendations presented along with sensitivity analyses. Key questions addressed are sensitivity of budget allocations to cost uncertainties, reduction in available budget levels, and shifting funding within constraints imposed by mission timeline.

technology↗
NASA NTRS2006

Capability Investment Strategy to Enable JPL Future Space Missions

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) formulates and conducts deep space missions for NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration). The Chief Technologist of JPL has responsibility for strategic planning of the laboratory's advanced technology program to assure that the required technological capabilities to enable future missions are ready as needed. The responsibilities include development of a Strategic Plan (Antonsson, E., 2005). As part of the planning effort, a structured approach to technology prioritization, based upon the work of the START (Strategic Assessment of Risk and Technology) (Weisbin, C.R., 2004) team, was developed. The purpose of this paper is to describe this approach and present its current status relative to the JPL technology investment.

investment strategies↗
NASA NTRS2006

START Analysis for ESAS Capability Needs Prioritization

START is a tool to optimize research and development primarily for NASA missions. It was developed within the Strategic Systems Technology Program Office, a division of the Office of the Chief Technologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. START is capable of quantifying and comparing the risks, costs, and potential returns of technologies that are candidates for funding. START can be enormously helpful both in selecting technologies for development -- within the constraints of budget, schedule, and other resources -- and in monitoring their progress. START's methods are applicable to everything from individual tasks to multiple projects comprising entire programs of investigation. They can address virtually any technology assessment and capability prioritization issue. In this report, START is used to analyze the capability needs using data from NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS).

optimization↗