Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Engineering management”

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 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

Balancing Predictive and Reactive Science Planning for Mars 2020 Perseverance

The design of the science planning process for a space science mission needs to find a balance between operational and resource constraints and scientific decision-making. Science planning has previously been characterized as either predictive or reactive. Predictive science planning is needed when constraints drive science activities to be planned far in advance. For example, a combination of long one-way light time plus high-stakes science decisions drove the Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn to have an extremely predictive planning process. On the other extreme, reactive science planning is needed when constraints drive science activities to be planned based on the results of the previous plan. For example, the Mars Exploration Rover mission interacted with the surface of Mars, and so the planning team needed to know the state of the rover at the end of each planning cycle before starting the next cycle. Operational and resource constraints that require management on intermediate timescales has led to the development of a science planning process between these two extremes. For example, the Mars Science Laboratory is a technically complex rover and has a parallel predictive process that allows the operations team to manage engineering constraints several days in advance while maintaining the reactive tactical planning process similar to that of MER. The Mars 2020 Perseverance rover is a technically complex rover in the MSL style, but has an added layer of science complexity: it is tasked with collecting a returnable cache of scientifically valuable samples of Mars within prime mission. Thus, the science planning process also needs to accommodate high-stakes longer-term science decisions in the style of Cassini. In order to balance the push-pull of these constraints, we have developed a science campaign-focused operational paradigm for Mars 2020 Perseverance that allows for both predictive planning to accommodate technological complexity and high-stakes science decisions as well as reactive planning to accommodate the realities of interacting with the martian surface. This paradigm influenced the design of operational processes and operational tools.

Spanovich, Nicole↗
NASA NTRS1978

A data management system for engineering and scientific computing

Data elements and relationship definition capabilities for this data management system are explicitly tailored to the needs of engineering and scientific computing. System design was based upon studies of data management problems currently being handled through explicit programming. The system-defined data element types include real scalar numbers, vectors, arrays and special classes of arrays such as sparse arrays and triangular arrays. The data model is hierarchical (tree structured). Multiple views of data are provided at two levels. Subschemas provide multiple structural views of the total data base and multiple mappings for individual record types are supported through the use of a REDEFINES capability. The data definition language and the data manipulation language are designed as extensions to FORTRAN. Examples of the coding of real problems taken from existing practice in the data definition language and the data manipulation language are given.

Elliot, L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Spacecraft Line-Of-Sight Jitter Mitigation and Management Lessons Learned and Engineering Best Practices

Predicting, managing, controlling, and testing spacecraft line-of-sight (LoS) jitter caused by micro-vibrations due to onboard internal disturbance sources is a formidable multidisciplinary engineering task. It is especially challenging for those missions hosting high-performance, vibration-sensitive optical sensor payloads with stringent pointing stability requirements. Both NASA and ESA are planning technically aggressive spaceflight missions that include ultra-high-performance optical payloads with delicate, highly vibration-sensitive scientific and observational instruments. The GN&C community of practice will need to leverage and build upon their collective experiences and lessons learned to better address future micro-vibration challenges. To identify lessons learned and best engineering practices the NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) sponsored a two-day Spacecraft LoS Jitter Workshop in late 2019. The workshop’s goal was to provide a multidisciplinary forum to elicit deeper understanding of the issues related to solving the spacecraft LoS jitter/micro-vibration problem. A primary objective was to identify and share best practices, rules of thumb, and options for jitter-related activities. Representatives from NASA, JPL, ESA, along with NASA’s industrial partners, independent consultant subject matter experts, and members of academia participated in the workshop. This paper will describe the motivation for the NASA Spacecraft LoS Jitter Workshop and summarize the identified findings, observations, and recommendations.

Lessons Learned;↗
NASA NTRS2013

Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management

The draft NASA Fault Management (FM) Handbook (2012) states that Fault Management (FM) is a "part of systems engineering", and that it "demands a system-level perspective" (NASAHDBK- 1002, 7). What, exactly, is the relationship between systems engineering and FM? To NASA, systems engineering (SE) is "the art and science of developing an operable system capable of meeting requirements within often opposed constraints" (NASA/SP-2007-6105, 3). Systems engineering starts with the elucidation and development of requirements, which set the goals that the system is to achieve. To achieve these goals, the systems engineer typically defines functions, and the functions in turn are the basis for design trades to determine the best means to perform the functions. System Health Management (SHM), by contrast, defines "the capabilities of a system that preserve the system's ability to function as intended" (Johnson et al., 2011, 3). Fault Management, in turn, is the operational subset of SHM, which detects current or future failures, and takes operational measures to prevent or respond to these failures. Failure, in turn, is the "unacceptable performance of intended function." (Johnson 2011, 605) Thus the relationship of SE to FM is that SE defines the functions and the design to perform those functions to meet system goals and requirements, while FM detects the inability to perform those functions and takes action. SHM and FM are in essence "the dark side" of SE. For every function to be performed (SE), there is the possibility that it is not successfully performed (SHM); FM defines the means to operationally detect and respond to this lack of success. We can also describe this in terms of goals: for every goal to be achieved, there is the possibility that it is not achieved; FM defines the means to operationally detect and respond to this inability to achieve the goal. This brief description of relationships between SE, SHM, and FM provide hints to a modeling approach to provide formal connectivity between the nominal (SE), and off-nominal (SHM and FM) aspects of functions and designs. This paper describes a formal modeling approach to the initial phases of the development process that integrates the nominal and off-nominal perspectives in a model that unites SE goals and functions of with the failure to achieve goals and functions (SHM/FM). This methodology and corresponding model, known as a Goal-Function Tree (GFT), provides a means to represent, decompose, and elaborate system goals and functions in a rigorous manner that connects directly to design through use of state variables that translate natural language requirements and goals into logical-physical state language. The state variable-based approach also provides the means to directly connect FM to the design, by specifying the range in which state variables must be controlled to achieve goals, and conversely, the failures that exist if system behavior go out-of-range. This in turn allows for the systems engineers and SHM/FM engineers to determine which state variables to monitor, and what action(s) to take should the system fail to achieve that goal. In sum, the GFT representation provides a unified approach to early-phase SE and FM development. This representation and methodology has been successfully developed and implemented using Systems Modeling Language (SysML) on the NASA Space Launch System (SLS) Program. It enabled early design trade studies of failure detection coverage to ensure complete detection coverage of all crew-threatening failures. The representation maps directly both to FM algorithm designs, and to failure scenario definitions needed for design analysis and testing. The GFT representation provided the basis for mapping of abort triggers into scenarios, both needed for initial, and successful quantitative analyses of abort effectiveness (detection and response to crew-threatening events).

Patterson, Jonathan D.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management

The draft NASA Fault Management (FM) Handbook (2012) states that Fault Management (FM) is a "part of systems engineering", and that it "demands a system-level perspective" (NASAHDBK- 1002, 7). What, exactly, is the relationship between systems engineering and FM? To NASA, systems engineering (SE) is "the art and science of developing an operable system capable of meeting requirements within often opposed constraints" (NASA/SP-2007-6105, 3). Systems engineering starts with the elucidation and development of requirements, which set the goals that the system is to achieve. To achieve these goals, the systems engineer typically defines functions, and the functions in turn are the basis for design trades to determine the best means to perform the functions. System Health Management (SHM), by contrast, defines "the capabilities of a system that preserve the system's ability to function as intended" (Johnson et al., 2011, 3). Fault Management, in turn, is the operational subset of SHM, which detects current or future failures, and takes operational measures to prevent or respond to these failures. Failure, in turn, is the "unacceptable performance of intended function." (Johnson 2011, 605) Thus the relationship of SE to FM is that SE defines the functions and the design to perform those functions to meet system goals and requirements, while FM detects the inability to perform those functions and takes action. SHM and FM are in essence "the dark side" of SE. For every function to be performed (SE), there is the possibility that it is not successfully performed (SHM); FM defines the means to operationally detect and respond to this lack of success. We can also describe this in terms of goals: for every goal to be achieved, there is the possibility that it is not achieved; FM defines the means to operationally detect and respond to this inability to achieve the goal. This brief description of relationships between SE, SHM, and FM provide hints to a modeling approach to provide formal connectivity between the nominal (SE), and off-nominal (SHM and FM) aspects of functions and designs. This paper describes a formal modeling approach to the initial phases of the development process that integrates the nominal and off-nominal perspectives in a model that unites SE goals and functions of with the failure to achieve goals and functions (SHM/FM).

Johnson, Stephen B.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Leveraging Independent Management and Chief Engineer Hierarchy: Vertically and Horizontally-Derived Technical Authority Value

In the development of complex spacecraft missions, project management authority is usually extended hierarchically from NASA's highest agency levels down to the implementing institution's project team level, through both the center and the program. In parallel with management authority, NASA utilizes a complementary, but independent, hierarchy of technical authority (TA) that extends from the agency level to the project, again, through both the center and the program. The chief engineers (CEs) who serve in this technical authority capacity oversee and report on the technical status and ensure sound engineering practices, controls, and management of the projects and programs. At the lowest level, implementing institutions assign project CEs to technically engage projects, lead development teams, and ensure sound technical principles, processes, and issue resolution. At the middle level, programs and centers independently use CEs to ensure the technical success of their projects and programs. At the agency level, NASA's mission directorate CEs maintain technical cognizance over every program and project in their directorate and advise directorate management on the technical, cost, schedule, and programmatic health of each. As part of this vertically-extended CE team, a program level CE manages a continually varying balance between penetration depth and breadth across his or her assigned missions. Teamwork issues and information integration become critical for management at all levels to ensure value-added use of both the synergy available between CEs at the various agency levels, and the independence of the technical authority at each organization.

Barley, Bryan↗
NASA NTRS2019

Space Research Project Management Can Benefit from Engineering Technology Selection Methods

Many engineering methods have been developed to help management select technology for a system design or further research. The simplest way to compare technologies is to use a checklist containing all the more or less important selection criteria, so that nothing is overlooked. The criteria usually include cost, safety, reliability and maintainability, and potential problems such as noise generation and microgravity sensitivity. The next step typically is to weight and score all the criteria. The process of weighting and scoring is helpful in bringing out different priorities and reaching a shared point of view. Group technology selection methods are designed to highlight initial disagreements and produce a shared consensus. Often a frank discussion led by management rather than decision analysts can be more effective. The final selection depends on management and engineering judgment and may include programmatic and organizational factors that are beyond the engineering checklist. The objective of engineering technology selection methods is to provide engineering information to assist management in making sound decisions. Project management and technology selection are assumed to use rational engineering analytic methods, but they often do not. The reason is that human insight, intuition, and “gut feel,” rather than logic, more frequently determine our decisions. Project selection and management are strongly influenced by nonrational psychological influences, which can produce unjustified confidence and determination. Nevertheless, there is a strong need for space projects to do rational project analysis and selection. Demonstrating a rational spirit is necessary for a scientific and technical organization. Professional ethics at its best requires an open, honest, and fair process, without damaging politics. Rational analysis can help improve good projects and avoid selecting bad ones. A sanity check using rational analysis guided by a checklist can help avoid egregious and damaging errors.

Jones, Harry W.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Management issues in systems engineering

When applied to a system, the doctrine of successive refinement is a divide-and-conquer strategy. Complex systems are sucessively divided into pieces that are less complex, until they are simple enough to be conquered. This decomposition results in several structures for describing the product system and the producing system. These structures play important roles in systems engineering and project management. Many of the remaining sections in this chapter are devoted to describing some of these key structures. Structures that describe the product system include, but are not limited to, the requirements tree, system architecture and certain symbolic information such as system drawings, schematics, and data bases. The structures that describe the producing system include the project's work breakdown, schedules, cost accounts and organization.

Shishko, Robert↗
NASA NTRS1997

An Engineering Approach to Management of Occupational and Community Noise Exposure at NASA Lewis Research Center

Workplace and environmental noise issues at NASA Lewis Research Center are effectively managed via a three-part program that addresses hearing conservation, community noise control, and noise control engineering. The Lewis Research Center Noise Exposure Management Program seeks to limit employee noise exposure and maintain community acceptance for critical research while actively pursuing engineered controls for noise generated by more than 100 separate research facilities and the associated services required for their operation.

Cooper, Beth A.↗
NASA NTRS2005

ESMD Risk Management Workshop: Systems Engineering and Integration Risks

This report has been developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) Risk Management team in close coordination with the Systems Engineering Team. This document provides a point-in-time, cumulative, summary of key lessons learned derived from the SE RFP Development process. Lessons learned invariably address challenges and risks and the way in which these areas have been addressed. Accordingly the risk management thread is woven throughout the document.

Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2004

Development of an Information Fusion System for Engine Diagnostics and Health Management

Aircraft gas-turbine engine data are available from a variety of sources including on-board sensor measurements, maintenance histories, and component models. An ultimate goal of Propulsion Health Management (PHM) is to maximize the amount of meaningful information that can be extracted from disparate data sources to obtain comprehensive diagnostic and prognostic knowledge regarding the health of the engine. Data Fusion is the integration of data or information from multiple sources, to achieve improved accuracy and more specific inferences than can be obtained from the use of a single sensor alone. The basic tenet underlying the data/information fusion concept is to leverage all available information to enhance diagnostic visibility, increase diagnostic reliability and reduce the number of diagnostic false alarms. This paper describes a basic PHM Data Fusion architecture being developed in alignment with the NASA C17 Propulsion Health Management (PHM) Flight Test program. The challenge of how to maximize the meaningful information extracted from disparate data sources to obtain enhanced diagnostic and prognostic information regarding the health and condition of the engine is the primary goal of this endeavor. To address this challenge, NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) have formed a team with several small innovative technology companies to plan and conduct a research project in the area of data fusion as applied to PHM. Methodologies being developed and evaluated have been drawn from a wide range of areas including artificial intelligence, pattern recognition, statistical estimation, and fuzzy logic. This paper will provide a broad overview of this work, discuss some of the methodologies employed and give some illustrative examples.

Volponi, Allan J.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Data Fusion for Enhanced Aircraft Engine Prognostics and Health Management

Aircraft gas-turbine engine data is available from a variety of sources, including on-board sensor measurements, maintenance histories, and component models. An ultimate goal of Propulsion Health Management (PHM) is to maximize the amount of meaningful information that can be extracted from disparate data sources to obtain comprehensive diagnostic and prognostic knowledge regarding the health of the engine. Data fusion is the integration of data or information from multiple sources for the achievement of improved accuracy and more specific inferences than can be obtained from the use of a single sensor alone. The basic tenet underlying the data/ information fusion concept is to leverage all available information to enhance diagnostic visibility, increase diagnostic reliability and reduce the number of diagnostic false alarms. This report describes a basic PHM data fusion architecture being developed in alignment with the NASA C-17 PHM Flight Test program. The challenge of how to maximize the meaningful information extracted from disparate data sources to obtain enhanced diagnostic and prognostic information regarding the health and condition of the engine is the primary goal of this endeavor. To address this challenge, NASA Glenn Research Center, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, and Pratt & Whitney have formed a team with several small innovative technology companies to plan and conduct a research project in the area of data fusion, as it applies to PHM. Methodologies being developed and evaluated have been drawn from a wide range of areas including artificial intelligence, pattern recognition, statistical estimation, and fuzzy logic. This report will provide a chronology and summary of the work accomplished under this research contract.

Volponi, Al↗
NASA NTRS2008

Intelligent Engine Systems: Thermal Management and Advanced Cooling

The objective is to provide turbine-cooling technologies to meet Propulsion 21 goals related to engine fuel burn, emissions, safety, and reliability. Specifically, the GE Aviation (GEA) Advanced Turbine Cooling and Thermal Management program seeks to develop advanced cooling and flow distribution methods for HP turbines, while achieving a substantial reduction in total cooling flow and assuring acceptable turbine component safety and reliability. Enhanced cooling techniques, such as fluidic devices, controlled-vortex cooling, and directed impingement jets, offer the opportunity to incorporate both active and passive schemes. Coolant heat transfer enhancement also can be achieved from advanced designs that incorporate multi-disciplinary optimization of external film and internal cooling passage geometry.

Bergholz, Robert↗
NASA NTRS2004

Sensor Needs for Control and Health Management of Intelligent Aircraft Engines

NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense are conducting programs which support the future vision of "intelligent" aircraft engines for enhancing the affordability, performance, operability, safety, and reliability of aircraft propulsion systems. Intelligent engines will have advanced control and health management capabilities enabling these engines to be self-diagnostic, self-prognostic, and adaptive to optimize performance based upon the current condition of the engine or the current mission of the vehicle. Sensors are a critical technology necessary to enable the intelligent engine vision as they are relied upon to accurately collect the data required for engine control and health management. This paper reviews the anticipated sensor requirements to support the future vision of intelligent engines from a control and health management perspective. Propulsion control and health management technologies are discussed in the broad areas of active component controls, propulsion health management and distributed controls. In each of these three areas individual technologies will be described, input parameters necessary for control feedback or health management will be discussed, and sensor performance specifications for measuring these parameters will be summarized.

Simon, Donald L.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Space systems engineering and risk management - joined at the hip

This paper explores the separate skills and capabilities practiced until now, and the powerful coupling to be achieved, practically and effectively, in implementing a space mission, from inception (pre-phase A) to the end of Operations (phase E). The use of risk assessment techniques in balancing cost risk against performance risk, and the application of the systems engineering team in these trades, is the key to achieving this new implementation paradigm.

systems engineering↗
NASA NTRS2008

Intelligent Engine Systems: Thermal Management and Advanced Cooling

The objective of the Advanced Turbine Cooling and Thermal Management program is to develop intelligent control and distribution methods for turbine cooling, while achieving a reduction in total cooling flow and assuring acceptable turbine component safety and reliability. The program also will develop embedded sensor technologies and cooling system models for real-time engine diagnostics and health management. Both active and passive control strategies will be investigated that include the capability of intelligent modulation of flow quantities, pressures, and temperatures both within the supply system and at the turbine component level. Thermal management system concepts were studied, with a goal of reducing HPT blade cooling air supply temperature. An assessment will be made of the use of this air by the active clearance control system as well. Turbine component cooling designs incorporating advanced, high-effectiveness cooling features, will be evaluated. Turbine cooling flow control concepts will be studied at the cooling system level and the component level. Specific cooling features or sub-elements of an advanced HPT blade cooling design will be downselected for core fabrication and casting demonstrations.

Bergholz, Robert↗