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 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1993

Spacecraft systems engineering: An introduction to the process at GSFC

The main objective in systems engineering is to devise a coherent total system design capable of achieving the stated requirements. Requirements should be rigid. However, they should be continuously challenged, rechallenged and/or validated. The systems engineer must specify every requirement in order to design, document, implement and conduct the mission. Each and every requirement must be logically considered, traceable and evaluated through various analysis and trade studies in a total systems design. Margins must be determined to be realistic as well as adequate. The systems engineer must also continuously close the loop and verify system performance against the requirements. The fundamental role of the systems engineer, however, is to engineer, not manage. Yet, in large, complex missions, where more than one systems engineer is required, someone needs to manage the systems engineers, and we call them 'systems managers.' Systems engineering management is an overview function which plans, guides, monitors and controls the technical execution of a project as implemented by the systems engineers. As the project moves on through Phases A and B into Phase C/D, the systems engineering tasks become a small portion of the total effort. The systems management role increases since discipline subsystem engineers are conducting analyses and reviewing test data for final review and acceptance by the systems managers.

Fragomeni, Tony↗
NASA NTRS2004

Concurrent Engineering for the Management of Research and Development

The Management of Research and Development (R&D) is facing the challenges of reducing time from R&D to customer, reducing the cost of R&D, having higher accountability for results (improved quality), and increasing focus on customers. Concurrent engineering (CE) has shown great success in the automotive and technology industries resulting in significant decreases in cycle time, reduction of total cost, and increases in quality and reliability. This philosophy of concurrency can have similar implications or benefits for the management of R&D organizations. Since most studies on the application of CE have been performed in manufacturing environments, research into the benefits of CE into other environments is needed. This paper presents research conducted at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) investigating the application of CE in the management of an R&D organization. In particular the paper emphasizes possible barriers and enhancers that this environment presents to the successful implementation of CE. Preliminary results and recommendations are based on a series of interviews and subsequent surveys, from which data has been gathered and analyzed as part of the GRC's Continuous Improvement Process.

DelRosario, Ruben↗
DOE OSTI2024

Implementing an Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Approach to Safety and Mission Success at NASA

NASA is developing a “Standard for Assurance of Space Flight Safety and Mission Success” that implements an objectives-driven, risk-informed, and case-assured approach to safety and mission success (S&MS) for NASA space flight programs and projects. The standard aligns with the philosophy of risk leadership that has recently been established in NASA policy to assure acceptable levels of flight crew safety and mission success risk. It is consistent with existing NASA risk management requirements and is compatible with NASA program management and systems engineering requirements. The methodology described in the standard is presented in terms of an S&MS assurance framework that is designed to allow substantial flexibility in the specific means by which programs and projects achieve acceptable mission S&MS risk. Such flexibility is necessary to accommodate the increasingly broad range of acquisition strategies employed by NASA, including commercial transportation services, as well as to accommodate the increasingly rapid evolution of space flight-related technologies and practices. A key feature of the S&MS assurance framework is the specification of S&MS success criteria for each life-cycle review (LCR). The S&MS assurance case is structured around these criteria, the satisfaction of which indicates that the program/project is adhering to the S&MS risk posture. This enables the evolving S&MS assurance case to be used as a fundamental program/project submittal at each LCR, where its inherent structure of argument, supported by evidence, directly supports the evaluation of the program/project with respect to the S&MS success criteria, and by extension, the S&MS risk posture. As such, the S&MS assurance case is integral to program/project systems engineering, risk management, and S&MS oversight activities, and provides the principal basis for S&MS risk acceptance by the Decision Authority throughout the program/project life cycle.

42 ENGINEERING↗
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 NTRS1994

Software engineering and data management for automated payload experiment tool

The Microgravity Projects Office identified a need to develop a software package that will lead experiment developers through the development planning process, obtain necessary information, establish an electronic data exchange avenue, and allow easier manipulation/reformatting of the collected information. An MS-DOS compatible software package called the Automated Payload Experiment Tool (APET) has been developed and delivered. The objective of this task is to expand on the results of the APET work previously performed by UAH and provide versions of the software in a Macintosh and Windows compatible format.

Maddux, Gary A.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Software engineering and data management for automated payload experiment tool

The Microgravity Projects Office identified a need to develop a software package that will lead experiment developers through the development planning process, obtain necessary information, establish an electronic data exchange avenue, and allow easier manipulation/reformatting of the collected information. An MS-DOS compatible software package called the Automated Payload Experiment Tool (APET) has been developed and delivered. The objective of this task is to expand on the results of the APET work previously performed by University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and provide versions of the software in a Macintosh and Windows compatible format. Appendix 1 science requirements document (SRD) Users Manual is attached.

Maddux, Gary A.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Development of a NASA Integrated Technical Workforce Career Development Model Entitled Requisite Occupation Competencies and Knowledge -- the ROCK

This paper shares the findings of NASA's Integrated Learning and Development Program (ILDP) in its effort to reinvigorate the HANDS-ON practice of space systems engineering and project/program management through focused coursework, training opportunities, on-the job learning and special assignments. Prior to March 2005, NASA responsibility for technical workforce development (the program/project manager, systems engineering, discipline engineering, discipline engineering and associated communities) was executed by two parallel organizations. In March 2005 these organizations merged. The resulting program-ILDP-was chartered to implement an integrated competency-based development model capable of enhancing NASA's technical workforce performance as they face the complex challenges of Earth science, space science, aeronautics and human spaceflight missions. Results developed in collaboration with NASA Field Centers are reported on. This work led to definition of the agency's first integrated technical workforce development model known as the Requisite Occupation Competence and Knowledge (the ROCK). Critical processes and products are presented including: 'validation' techniques to guide model development, the Design-A-CUrriculuM (DACUM) process, and creation of the agency's first systems engineering body-of-knowledge. Findings were validated via nine focus groups from industry and government, validated with over 17 space-related organizations, at an estimated cost exceeding $300,000 (US). Masters-level programs and training programs have evolved to address the needs of these practitioner communities based upon these results. The ROCK reintroduced rigor and depth to the practitioner's development in these critical disciplines enabling their ability to take mission concepts from imagination to reality.

Menrad, Robert J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

IT Project Management and Systems Engineering Internship

In the summer of 2009 I had the privilege of participating in the NASA INSPIRE program and during the summer of 2010 I was hired by ASRC Aerospace, a NASA contractor on the USTDC contract, as an Engineering Aide. These experiences combined inspired me to pursue a career in engineering and a goal to work as a NASA engineer and astronaut.

Cardamone, Lauren↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Planning for Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Ground Operations

The NASA Orion Ground Processing Team was originally formed by the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Constellation (Cx) Project Office's Orion Division to define, refine and mature pre-launch and post-landing ground operations for the Orion human spacecraft. The multidisciplined KSC Orion team consisted of KSC civil servant, SAIC, Productivity Apex, Inc. and Boeing-CAPPS engineers, project managers and safety engineers, as well as engineers from Constellation's Orion Project and Lockheed Martin Orion Prime contractor. The team evaluated the Orion design configurations as the spacecraft concept matured between Systems Design Review (SDR), Systems Requirement Review (SRR) and Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The team functionally decomposed prelaunch and post-landing steps at three levels' of detail, or tiers, beginning with functional flow block diagrams (FFBDs). The third tier FFBDs were used to build logic networks and nominal timelines. Orion ground support equipment (GSE) was identified and mapped to each step. This information was subsequently used in developing lower level operations steps in a Ground Operations Planning Document PDR product. Subject matter experts for each spacecraft and GSE subsystem were used to define 5th - 95th percentile processing times for each FFBD step, using the Delphi Method. Discrete event simulations used this information and the logic network to provide processing timeline confidence intervals for launch rate assessments. The team also used the capabilities of the KSC Visualization Lab, the FFBDs and knowledge of the spacecraft, GSE and facilities to build visualizations of Orion pre-launch and postlanding processing at KSC. Visualizations were a powerful tool for communicating planned operations within the KSC community (i.e., Ground Systems design team), and externally to the Orion Project, Lockheed Martin spacecraft designers and other Constellation Program stakeholders during the SRR to PDR timeframe. Other operations planning tools included Kaizen/Lean events, mockups and human factors analysis. The majority of products developed by this team are applicable as KSC prepares 21st Century Ground Systems for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System.

Letchworth, Gary↗
NASA NTRS2013

Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management

This paper describes a new representation that enables rigorous definition and decomposition of both nominal and off-nominal system goals and functions: the Goal-Function Tree (GFT). GFTs extend the concept and process of functional decomposition, utilizing state variables as a key mechanism to ensure physical and logical consistency and completeness of the decomposition of goals (requirements) and functions, and enabling full and complete traceabilitiy to the design. The GFT also provides for means to define and represent off-nominal goals and functions that are activated when the system's nominal goals are not met. The physical accuracy of the GFT, and its ability to represent both nominal and off-nominal goals enable the GFT to be used for various analyses of the system, including assessments of the completeness and traceability of system goals and functions, the coverage of fault management failure detections, and definition of system failure scenarios.

Johnson, Stephen B.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Asteroid, Lunar and Planetary Regolith Management A Layered Engineering Defense

During missions on asteroid and lunar and planetary surfaces, space systems and crew health may be degraded by exposure to dust and dirt. Furthermore, for missions outside the Earth‐Moon system, planetary protection must be considered in efforts to minimize forward and backward contamination. This paper presents an end‐to‐end approach to ensure system reliability, crew health, and planetary protection in regolith environments. It also recommends technology investments that would be required to implement this layered engineering defense.

Wagner, Sandra↗
NASA NTRS2014

Analysis and Perspective from the Complex Aerospace Systems Exchange (CASE) 2013

NASA Langley Research Center embedded four rapporteurs at the Complex Aerospace Systems Exchange (CASE) held in August 2013 with the objective to capture the essence of the conference presentations and discussions. CASE was established to provide a discussion forum among chief engineers, program managers, and systems engineers on challenges in the engineering of complex aerospace systems. The meeting consists of invited presentations and panels from industry, academia, and government followed by discussions among attendees. This report presents the major and reoccurring themes captured throughout the meeting and provides analysis and insights to further the CASE mission.

Jones, Kennie H.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Implementing an Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Approach to Safety and Mission Success at NASA

NASA is developing a “Standard for Assurance of Space Flight Safety and Mission Success” that implements an objectives-driven, risk-informed, and case-assured approach to safety and mission success (S&MS) for NASA space flight programs and projects. The standard aligns with the philosophy of risk leadership that has recently been established in NASA policy to assure acceptable levels of flight crew safety and mission success risk. It is consistent with existing NASA risk management requirements and is compatible with NASA program management and systems engineering requirements. The methodology described in the standard is presented in terms of an S&MS assurance framework that is designed to allow substantial flexibility in the specific means by which programs and projects achieve acceptable mission S&MS risk. Such flexibility is necessary to accommodate the increasingly broad range of acquisition strategies employed by NASA, including commercial transportation services, as well as to accommodate the increasingly rapid evolution of space flight-related technologies and practices. A key feature of the S&MS assurance framework is the specification of S&MS success criteria for each life-cycle review (LCR). The S&MS assurance case is structured around these criteria, the satisfaction of which indicates that the program/project is adhering to the S&MS risk posture. This enables the evolving S&MS assurance case to be used as a fundamental program/project submittal at each LCR, where its inherent structure of argument, supported by evidence, directly supports the evaluation of the program/project with respect to the S&MS success criteria, and by extension, the S&MS risk posture. As such, the S&MS assurance case is integral to program/project systems engineering, risk management, and S&MS oversight activities, and provides the principal basis for S&MS risk acceptance by the Decision Authority throughout the program/project life cycle.

Risk Posture↗