Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “#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.

At least 271 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1999

NASA Langley Teacher Resource Center at the Virginia Air and Space Center

Nation's education goals through expanding and enhancing the scientific an technological competence of students and educators. To help disseminate NASA instructional materials and educational information, NASA's Education Division has established the Educator Resource Center Network. Through this network (ERCN), educators are provided the opportunity to receive free instructional information, materials, consultation, and training workshops on NASA educational products. The Office of Education at NASA Langley Research Center offers an extension of its Precollege Education program by supporting the NASA LARC Educator Resource Center at the Virginia Air & Space Center, the official visitor center for NASA LARC. This facility is the principal distribution point for educators in the five state service region that includes Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina and South Carolina. The primary goal, to provide expertise and facilities to help educators access and utilize science, mathematics, and technology instructional products aligned with national standards and appropriate state frameworks and based on NASA's unique mission and results, has been accomplished. This ERC had 15,200 contacts and disseminated over 190,000 instructional items during the period of performance. In addition the manager attended 35 conferences, workshops, and educational meetings as an GR, presenter, or participant. The objective to demonstrate and facilitate the use of educational technologies has been accomplished through the following: The ERC's web page has been developed as a cyber-gateway to a multitude of NASA and other educational resources as well as to Our own database of current resource materials. NASA CORE CD-ROM technology is regularly demonstrated and promoted using the center's computers. NASA TV is available, demonstrated to educators, and used to facilitate the downlinking of NASA educational programming.

Maher, Kim L.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Overview of Space Science and Information Research Opportunities at NASA

It is not possible to review all the opportunities that NASA provides to support the Space Science Enterprise, in the short amount of time allotted for this presentation. Therefore, only a few key programs will be discussed. The programs that I will discuss will concentrate on research opportunities for faculty, graduate and postdoctoral candidates in Space Science research and information technologies at NASA. One of the most important programs for research opportunities is the NASA Research Announcement or NRA. NASA Headquarters issues NRA's on a regular basis and these cover space science and computer science activities relating to NASA missions and programs. In the Space Sciences, the most important NRA is called the "Research Opportunities in Space Science or the ROSS NRA. The ROSS NRA is composed of multiple announcements in the areas of structure and evolution of the Universe, Solar System exploration, Sun-Earth connections, and applied information systems. Another important opportunity is the Graduate Student Research Program (GSRP). The GSRP is designed to cultivate research ties between a NASA Center and the academic community through the award of fellowships to promising students in science and engineering. This program is unique since it matches the student's area of research interest with existing work being carried out at NASA. This program is for U.S. citizens who are full-time graduate students. Students who are successful have made the match between their research and the NASA employee who will act as their NASA Advisor/ Mentor. In this program, the student's research is primarily accomplished under the supervision of his faculty advisor with periodic or frequent interactions with the NASA Mentor. These interactions typically involve travel to the sponsoring NASA Center on a regular basis. The one-year fellowships are renewable for up to three years and over $20,000 per year. These and other important opportunities will be discussed.

Green, James L.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Collaborative Aerospace Research and Fellowship Program at NASA Glenn Research Center

During the summer of 2004, a 10-week activity for university faculty entitled the NASA-OAI Collaborative Aerospace Research and Fellowship Program (CFP) was conducted at the NASA Glenn Research Center in collaboration with the Ohio Aerospace Institute (OAI). This is a companion program to the highly successful NASA Faculty Fellowship Program and its predecessor, the NASA-ASEE Summer Faculty Fellowship Program that operated for 38 years at Glenn. The objectives of CFP parallel those of its companion, viz., (1) to further the professional knowledge of qualified engineering and science faculty,(2) to stimulate an exchange of ideas between teaching participants and employees of NASA, (3) to enrich and refresh the research and teaching activities of participants institutions, and (4) to contribute to the research objectives of Glenn. However, CFP, unlike the NASA program, permits faculty to be in residence for more than two summers and does not limit participation to United States citizens. Selected fellows spend 10 weeks at Glenn working on research problems in collaboration with NASA colleagues and participating in related activities of the NASA-ASEE program. This year's program began officially on June 1, 2004 and continued through August 7, 2004. Several fellows had program dates that differed from the official dates because university schedules vary and because some of the summer research projects warranted a time extension beyond the 10 weeks for satisfactory completion of the work. The stipend paid to the fellows was $1200 per week and a relocation allowance of $1000 was paid to those living outside a 50-mile radius of the Center. In post-program surveys from this and previous years, the faculty cited numerous instances where participation in the program has led to new courses, new research projects, new laboratory experiments, and grants from NASA to continue the work initiated during the summer. Many of the fellows mentioned amplifying material, both in undergraduate and graduate courses, on the basis of the summer s experience at Glenn. A number of 2004 fellows indicated that proposals to NASA will grow out of their summer research projects. In addition, some journal articles and NASA publications will result from this past summer s activities. Fellows from past summers continue to send reprints of articles that resulted from work initiated at Glenn. This report is intended primarily to summarize the research activities comprising the 2004 CFP Program at Glenn. Particular research studies include: 1) Development of an Imaging-Based, Computational Fluid Dynamics Tool to Assess Fluid Mechanics in Experimental Models that Simulate Blood Vessels; 2) Analysis of Nanomaterials Produced from Precursors; and 3) LEO Propagation Analysis Tool.

Heyward, Ann O.↗
NASA NTRS2005

2004 NASA Seal/Secondary Air System Workshop, Volume 1

The 2004 NASA Seal/Secondary Air System workshop covered the following topics: (1) Overview of NASA s new Exploration Initiative program aimed at exploring the Moon, Mars, and beyond; (2) Overview of the NASA-sponsored Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program; (3) Overview of NASA Glenn s seal program aimed at developing advanced seals for NASA s turbomachinery, space, and reentry vehicle needs; (4) Reviews of NASA prime contractor and university advanced sealing concepts including tip clearance control, test results, experimental facilities, and numerical predictions; and (5) Reviews of material development programs relevant to advanced seals development. The NASA UEET overview illustrated for the reader the importance of advanced technologies, including seals, in meeting future turbine engine system efficiency and emission goals. For example, the NASA UEET program goals include an 8- to 15-percent reduction in fuel burn, a 15-percent reduction in CO2, a 70-percent reduction in NOx, CO, and unburned hydrocarbons, and a 30-dB noise reduction relative to program baselines. The workshop also covered several programs NASA is funding to develop technologies for the Exploration Initiative and advanced reusable space vehicle technologies. NASA plans on developing an advanced docking and berthing system that would permit any vehicle to dock to any on-orbit station or vehicle, as part of NASA s new Exploration Initiative. Plans to develop the necessary mechanism and androgynous seal technologies were reviewed. Seal challenges posed by reusable re-entry space vehicles include high-temperature operation, resiliency at temperature to accommodate gap changes during operation, and durability to meet mission requirements.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2007

NASA's Software Safety Standard

NASA relies more and more on software to control, monitor, and verify its safety critical systems, facilities and operations. Since the 1960's there has hardly been a spacecraft launched that does not have a computer on board that will provide command and control services. There have been recent incidents where software has played a role in high-profile mission failures and hazardous incidents. For example, the Mars Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander, the DART (Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology), and MER (Mars Exploration Rover) Spirit anomalies were all caused or contributed to by software. The Mission Control Centers for the Shuttle, ISS, and unmanned programs are highly dependant on software for data displays, analysis, and mission planning. Despite this growing dependence on software control and monitoring, there has been little to no consistent application of software safety practices and methodology to NASA's projects with safety critical software. Meanwhile, academia and private industry have been stepping forward with procedures and standards for safety critical systems and software, for example Dr. Nancy Leveson's book Safeware: System Safety and Computers. The NASA Software Safety Standard, originally published in 1997, was widely ignored due to its complexity and poor organization. It also focused on concepts rather than definite procedural requirements organized around a software project lifecycle. Led by NASA Headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, the NASA Software Safety Standard has recently undergone a significant update. This new standard provides the procedures and guidelines for evaluating a project for safety criticality and then lays out the minimum project lifecycle requirements to assure the software is created, operated, and maintained in the safest possible manner. This update of the standard clearly delineates the minimum set of software safety requirements for a project without detailing the implementation for those requirements. This allows the projects leeway to meet these requirements in many forms that best suit a particular project's needs and safety risk. In other words, it tells the project what to do, not how to do it. This update also incorporated advances in the state of the practice of software safety from academia and private industry. It addresses some of the more common issues now facing software developers in the NASA environment such as the use of Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Software (COTS), Modified OTS (MOTS), Government OTS (GOTS), and reused software. A team from across NASA developed the update and it has had both NASA-wide internal reviews by software engineering, quality, safety, and project management. It has also had expert external review. This presentation and paper will discuss the new NASA Software Safety Standard, its organization, and key features. It will start with a brief discussion of some NASA mission failures and incidents that had software as one of their root causes. It will then give a brief overview of the NASA Software Safety Process. This will include an overview of the key personnel responsibilities and functions that must be performed for safety-critical software.

Ramsay, Christopher M.↗
NASA NTRS2007

NASA Systems Engineering Handbook

This handbook is intended to provide general guidance and information on systems engineering that will be useful to the NASA community. It provides a generic description of Systems Engineering (SE) as it should be applied throughout NASA. A goal of the handbook is to increase awareness and consistency across the Agency and advance the practice of SE. This handbook provides perspectives relevant to NASA and data particular to NASA. The coverage in this handbook is limited to general concepts and generic descriptions of processes, tools, and techniques. It provides information on systems engineering best practices and pitfalls to avoid. There are many Center-specific handbooks and directives as well as textbooks that can be consulted for in-depth tutorials. This handbook describes systems engineering as it should be applied to the development and implementation of large and small NASA programs and projects. NASA has defined different life cycles that specifically address the major project categories, or product lines, which are: Flight Systems and Ground Support (FS&GS), Research and Technology (R&T), Construction of Facilities (CoF), and Environmental Compliance and Restoration (ECR). The technical content of the handbook provides systems engineering best practices that should be incorporated into all NASA product lines. (Check the NASA On-Line Directives Information System (NODIS) electronic document library for applicable NASA directives on topics such as product lines.) For simplicity this handbook uses the FS&GS product line as an example. The specifics of FS&GS can be seen in the description of the life cycle and the details of the milestone reviews. Each product line will vary in these two areas; therefore, the reader should refer to the applicable NASA procedural requirements for the specific requirements for their life cycle and reviews. The engineering of NASA systems requires a systematic and disciplined set of processes that are applied recursively and iteratively for the design, development, operation, maintenance, and closeout of systems throughout the life cycle of the programs and projects.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2008

NASA Remote Sensing Applications for Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management

NASA's Earth Science Mission Directorate recently completed the deployment of the Earth Observation System (EOS) which is a coordinated series of polar-orbiting and low inclination satellites for long-term global observations of the land surface, biosphere, solid Earth, atmosphere, and oceans. One of the many applications derived from EOS is the advancement of archaeological research and applications. Using satellites, manned and unmanned airborne platform, NASA scientists and their partners have conducted archaeological research using both active and passive sensors. The NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) located in south Mississippi, near New Orleans, has been a leader in space archaeology since the mid-1970s. Remote sensing is useful in a wide range of archaeological research applications from landscape classification and predictive modeling to site discovery and mapping. Remote sensing technology and image analysis are currently undergoing a profound shift in emphasis from broad classification to detection, identification and condition of specific materials, both organic and inorganic. In the last few years, remote sensing platforms have grown increasingly capable and sophisticated. Sensors currently in use, including commercial instruments, offer significantly improved spatial and spectral resolutions. Paired with new techniques of image analysis, this technology provides for the direct detection of archaeological sites. As in all archaeological research, the application of remote sensing to archaeology requires a priori development of specific research designs and objectives. Initially targeted at broad archaeological issues, NASA space archaeology has progressed toward developing practical applications for cultural resources management (CRM). These efforts culminated with the Biloxi Workshop held by NASA and the University of Mississippi in 2002. The workshop and resulting publication specifically address the requirements of cultural resource managers through the use of remote sensing. In 2007, NASA awarded six competitively chosen projects in Space Archaeology through an open solicitation whose purpose, among several, was to addresses the potential benefits to modern society that can be derived through a better understanding of how past cultures succeeded or failed to adapt to local, regional, and global change. A further objective of NASA's space archaeology is the protection and preservation of cultural heritage sites while planning for the sustainable development of cultural resources. NASA s archaeological approach through remote sensing builds on traditional methods of aerial archaeology (i.e. crop marks) and utilizes advanced technologies for collecting and analyzing archaeological data from digital imagery. NASA s archaeological research and application projects using remote sensing have been conducted throughout the world. In North America, NASA has imaged prehistoric mound sites in Mississippi; prehistoric shell middens in Louisiana, Puebloan sites in New Mexico and more recently the sites associated with the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery Expedition (1804-1806). In Central America, NASA archaeologists have researched Mayan sites throughout the region, including the Yucatan and Costa Rica, as well as Olmec localities in Veracruz. Other data has been collected over Angkor, Cambodia, Giza in Egypt, the lost city of Ubar on the Arabian Peninsula.

Giardino, Marco J.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Human Factors Interface with Systems Engineering for NASA Human Spaceflights

This paper summarizes the past and present successes of the Habitability and Human Factors Branch (HHFB) at NASA Johnson Space Center s Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) in including the Human-As-A-System (HAAS) model in many NASA programs and what steps to be taken to integrate the Human-Centered Design Philosophy (HCDP) into NASA s Systems Engineering (SE) process. The HAAS model stresses systems are ultimately designed for the humans; the humans should therefore be considered as a system within the systems. Therefore, the model places strong emphasis on human factors engineering. Since 1987, the HHFB has been engaging with many major NASA programs with much success. The HHFB helped create the NASA Standard 3000 (a human factors engineering practice guide) and the Human Systems Integration Requirements document. These efforts resulted in the HAAS model being included in many NASA programs. As an example, the HAAS model has been successfully introduced into the programmatic and systems engineering structures of the International Space Station Program (ISSP). Success in the ISSP caused other NASA programs to recognize the importance of the HAAS concept. Also due to this success, the HHFB helped update NASA s Systems Engineering Handbook in December 2007 to include HAAS as a recommended practice. Nonetheless, the HAAS model has yet to become an integral part of the NASA SE process. Besides continuing in integrating HAAS into current and future NASA programs, the HHFB will investigate incorporating the Human-Centered Design Philosophy (HCDP) into the NASA SE Handbook. The HCDP goes further than the HAAS model by emphasizing a holistic and iterative human-centered systems design concept.

Wong, Douglas T.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Learning Without Boundaries: A NASA - National Guard Bureau Distance Learning Partnership

With a variety of high-quality live interactive educational programs originating at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas and other space and research centers, the US space agency NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has a proud track record of connecting with students throughout the world and stimulating their creativity and collaborative skills by teaching them underlying scientific and technological underpinnings of space exploration. However, NASA desires to expand its outreach capability for this type of interactive instruction. In early 2002, NASA and the National Guard Bureau -- using the Guard's nationwide system of state-ofthe-art classrooms and high bandwidth network -- began a collaboration to extend the reach of NASA content and educational programs to more of America's young people. Already, hundreds of elementary, middle, and high school students have visited Guard e-Learning facilities and participated in interactive NASA learning events. Topics have included experimental flight, satellite imagery-interpretation, and Mars exploration. Through this partnership, NASA and the National Guard are enabling local school systems throughout the United States (and, increasingly, the world) to use the excitement of space flight to encourage their students to become passionate about the possibility of one day serving as scientists, mathematicians, technologists, and engineers. At the 54th International Astronautical Conference MAJ Stephan Picard, the guiding visionary behind the Guard's partnership with NASA, and Chris Chilelli, an educator and senior instructional designer at NASA, will share with attendees background on NASA's educational products and the National Guard's distributed learning network; will discuss the unique opportunity this partnership already has provided students and teachers throughout the United States; will offer insights into the formation by government entities of e-Learning partnerships with one another; and will suggest a possible future for the NASA - National Guard Bureau partnership, one potentially to include live multi-party interaction of hundreds of students in several countries with astronauts, scientists, engineers and designers. To inspire the next generation of explorers as only NASA can!

Anderson, Susan H.↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Risk Management Handbook

The purpose of this handbook is to provide guidance for implementing the Risk Management (RM) requirements of NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) document NPR 8000.4A, Agency Risk Management Procedural Requirements [1], with a specific focus on programs and projects, and applying to each level of the NASA organizational hierarchy as requirements flow down. This handbook supports RM application within the NASA systems engineering process, and is a complement to the guidance contained in NASA/SP-2007-6105, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook [2]. Specifically, this handbook provides guidance that is applicable to the common technical processes of Technical Risk Management and Decision Analysis established by NPR 7123.1A, NASA Systems Engineering Process and Requirements [3]. These processes are part of the \Systems Engineering Engine. (Figure 1) that is used to drive the development of the system and associated work products to satisfy stakeholder expectations in all mission execution domains, including safety, technical, cost, and schedule. Like NPR 7123.1A, NPR 8000.4A is a discipline-oriented NPR that intersects with product-oriented NPRs such as NPR 7120.5D, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements [4]; NPR 7120.7, NASA Information Technology and Institutional Infrastructure Program and Project Management Requirements [5]; and NPR 7120.8, NASA Research and Technology Program and Project Management Requirements [6]. In much the same way that the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook is intended to provide guidance on the implementation of NPR 7123.1A, this handbook is intended to provide guidance on the implementation of NPR 8000.4A. 1.2 Scope and Depth This handbook provides guidance for conducting RM in the context of NASA program and project life cycles, which produce derived requirements in accordance with existing systems engineering practices that flow down through the NASA organizational hierarchy. The guidance in this handbook is not meant to be prescriptive. Instead, it is meant to be general enough, and contain a sufficient diversity of examples, to enable the reader to adapt the methods as needed to the particular risk management issues that he or she faces. The handbook highlights major issues to consider when managing programs and projects in the presence of potentially significant uncertainty, so that the user is better able to recognize and avoid pitfalls that might otherwise be experienced.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Activity Update for the 2013 Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (UVSI) Yearbook

This year s report offers a high level perspective on some of the UAS related activities in which NASA is involved, both internal and external to the agency. Internally, NASA issued UAS operational policy on certification of NASA UAS and aircrew. A team of NASA UAS experts and operators analyzed all current procedures and best practices to design the policy. An update to the agencies Aircraft Operations Management Manual incorporated a new chapter to address UAS planning, preflight operations, flight operations, flight crew requirements, airworthiness and flight safety reviews. NASA UAS are classified into three categories based on weight and airspeed. Aircrews, including observers, are classified by how they interface with the UAS, and the policy defines qualifications, training, and currency. The NASA flight readiness approval process identifies risks and mitigations in order to reduce the likelihood and/or consequence of the risk to an acceptable level. The UAS operations process incorporates all aspects of airworthiness, flight standards and range safety exactly the same processes used for NASA manned aircraft operations. NASA has two internal organizations that routinely operate UAS. The Science Mission Directorate utilizes UAS as part of its Airborne Science Program and is the most frequent operator of NASA UAS in both national and international airspace. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate conducts UAS flight operations in addition to conducting research important to the UAS community. This past year the Science Mission Directorate supported the Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentimental (HS3) Mission with two NASA Global Hawk platforms. HS3 is a five-year mission specifically targeted to investigate the processes that underlie hurricane formation. During the 2012 portion of this mission the Global Hawk overflew hurricanes Leslie and Nadine in the Atlantic Ocean completing 6 flights and accumulating more than 148 flight hours. Another multi-year mission was initiated last year when the Sensor Integrated Environmental Remote Research Aircraft (SIERRA) UAS began surveying faults in California s Surprise Valley. A team of scientists and engineers from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), NASA Ames Research Center, Central Washington University, and Carnegie Mellon University will measure magnetic fields using ground surveys and the SIERRA to map the geophysics below the surface of Surprise Valley. The data collected will be used to generate 3D maps of the geophysical data of the area. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate continues its collaboration with Boeing to conduct UAS flight operations of the X-48C, a modified version of the X-48B originally built by Cranfield Aerospace, United Kingdom. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate utilizes vehicles of this size for a wide variety of research studies. Most of these operations are conducted within restricted airspace. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate also sponsors the UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project, which is working in close cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to address critical challenges associated with routine UAS operations in civil airspace. The project is focused on separation assurance and collision avoidance systems and algorithms, command and control for non-military operations including spectrum allocation requirements, human system interaction issues, and safety and certification topics.

Bauer, Jeffrey E.↗
NASA NTRS2017

The Myth, the Truth, the NASA IRB

The purpose of the NASA Institutional Review Board (IRB) is to review research activities involving human subjects to ensure that ethical standards for the care and protection of human subjects have been met and research activities are in compliance with all pertinent federal, state and local regulations as well as NASA policies. NASA IRB's primary role is the protection of human subjects in research studies. Protection of human subjects is the shared responsibility of NASA, the IRB, and the scientific investigators. Science investigators who plan to conduct NASA-funded human research involving NASA investigators, facilities, or funds must submit and coordinate their research studies for review and approval by the NASA IRB prior to initiation. The IRB has the authority to approve, require changes in, or disapprove research involving human subjects. Better knowledge of the NASA IRB policies, procedures and guidelines should help facilitate research protocol applications and approvals. In this presentation, the myths and truths of NASA IRB policies and procedures will be discussed. We will focus on the policies that guide a protocol through the NASA IRB and the procedures that principal investigators must take to obtain required IRB approvals for their research studies. In addition, tips to help ensure a more efficient IRB review will be provided. By understanding the requirements and processes, investigators will be able to more efficiently prepare their protocols and obtain the required NASA IRB approval in a timely manner.

Covington, M. D.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Evolving Management Strategies to Improve NASA Flagship's Cost and Schedule Performance: LUVOIR as a Case Study

The LUVOIR study process has brought to fruition an extremely exciting scientific mission concept. The 3.5 year LUVOIR study duration enabled an unprecedented level of scientific, engineering, and technology thoroughness prior to the Astro2020 Decadal. This detail also shed light on many technical and programmatic challenges for efficiently developing a mission of this scale. While NASA's flagships perform exquisitely once on-orbit, there is understandable growing frustration in their development cost and schedule overruns. We felt it incumbent upon ourselves to ask how we could improve on delivering LUVOIR (or any of NASA's future flagships) on schedule and on budget, not just for the next mission, but for all NASA large strategic missions to come. We researched past and current NASA flagship's lessons learned publications and other large government projects that pointed to some systemic challenges that will only grow with larger and more complex strategic missions. Our findings pointed us to some ways that could potentially evolve NASA's current flagship management practices to help improve on their development cost and schedule performance despite their growing complexity.. This paper briefly comments on the science motivation for NASA's flagships and on the science motivation for a LUVOIR-like mission. We argue the motivation for improving NASA's flagships development cost and schedule performance. We review the specific challenges of NASA's flagships to acknowledge their specific issues. We then examine the most repeated systemic challenges we found from previous NASA flagship and other large government project lessons learned/observed. Lastly, we offer recommendations to tackle these repeated systemic challenges facing NASA's flagships. The recommendations culminate into a proactive integrated development and funding framework to enable improving the execution of NASA's future flagship's cost and schedule performance.

Crooke, Julie A.↗
NASA NTRS2020

History and Logic Model NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Instrument and Payload Systems Engineering Technical Performance Study

Historically, some NASA missions have exceeded schedule and cost commitments. Studies suggest technical performance is a contributor. The 1980 NASA Project Management Study concluded, "one of the most significant contributors to cost and schedule growth is inadequate definition of technical and management aspects of a program..." (as cited in GAO/NSIAD-93-97, p. 11). The 1991 NASA Roles and Missions Report identified a "need for increased emphasis on technological readiness and requirements on the front end of a program" (as cited in GAO/NSIAD-93-97, p. 11). The 1992 NASA Program Costs Report stated that NASA officials identified, among other things, "insufficient definition studies... [and] program redesigns and technical complexities" as reasons for cost and schedule overruns (GAO/NSAID-93-97, p. 11). The 2002 Task Force on Acquisition of National Security Space Programs found "requirements definition and control issues, unhealthy cost bias in proposal evaluation, widespread lack of budget reserves required to implement high risk programs on schedule, and an overall underappreciation of the importance of appropriately staffed and trained system engineering staff to manage the technologically demanding and unique aspects of space programs" (DoD, 2003, p.i.) In 2007, The NASA Office of the Chief Engineer chartered the NASA Instrument Capability Study (NICS) “to determine whether NASA instrument developers are facing challenges that impact the capability to design and build quality instruments or whether there are flaws in the acquisition strategy evidenced by schedule delays, cost overruns, and increased technical risk via design deficiencies. The... team was also chartered to determine if occurrences [are]... isolated cases or if there are generic issues... If the issues [are] found to be generic, the team [is] to offer solutions to recover such capability" (NICS Report, 2008, p. vi). The 2008 NICS Report, led by Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), identified challenges to instrument technical performance consistent with findings from previous reports. In 2017, the Instrument Project Division (IPD) Implementation Study was initiated to determine if there was a change in meeting schedule and cost commitments after implementing certain NICS recommendations. In 2018, the Instrument Technical Performance Study was initiated to determine the current state of Instrument Technical Performance in the GSFC Payload & Instrument Systems Engineering Branch. The purpose of the combined studies is to answer the question, "Is there a relationship between meeting NASA scientific instrument technical success and meeting schedule and cost commitments? If yes, what is the relationship?" References Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. (2003). The report of the defense science board/ air force scientific advisory board joint task force on acquisition of national security space programs. Washington DC. Government Accounting Office. (1992). NASA program costs: Space missions require substantially more funding than initially estimated. GAO/NSIAD-93-97. Washington DC. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, Department of Defense. (2008). The NASA instrument capability study final report. NP-2008-11-058-GSFC. Washington DC.

Robbins, Geraldine↗
NASA NTRS2019

Shockwave/Boundary-Layer Interaction Studies Performed in the NASA Langley 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel

This paper highlights results from a collaborative study performed by The University of Tennessee Space Institute (UTSI) and NASA Langley Research Center on the Shockwave/Boundary-Layer Interaction (SWBLI) generated by a cylindrical protuberance on a flat plate in a Mach 6 flow. The study was performed in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center and consisted of two separate entries. In the first entry, simultaneous high-speed schlieren and high-speed pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) imaging – which was performed for the first time in the 20-Inch Mach 6 facility at NASA Langley – were performed as well as simultaneous high-speed schlieren and oil-flow imaging. In the second entry, the model configuration was modified to increase the size of the interaction region. High-speed schlieren and infrared thermography (IR) surface imaging were performed in this second entry. The goal of these tests was to characterize the SBLI in the presence of a laminar, transitional, and turbulent boundary layer using high-speed optical imaging techniques. AoA = sting angle-of-attack (°) dcylinder = cylinder diameter (mm) dtrip = cylindrical tripping element diameter (mm) Δshock = shock stand-off distance (mm) hcylinder = cylinder height (mm) htrip = cylindrical tripping element height (mm) HSS = high-speed schlieren M∞ = freestream Mach number PSP = pressure-sensitive paint Re∞ = freestream unit Reynolds number (m-1) SWBLI = shockwave/boundary-layer interaction θplate = model plate angle (°) Introduction his paper highlights two experimental entries performed in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Blowdown Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center in collaboration with The University of Tennessee Space Institute (UTSI). The purpose of these entries was to characterize the dynamic shockwave/boundary-layer interaction (SWBLI) between a vertical cylinder on a flat plate and laminar, transitional (XSWBLI), and turbulent (SWTBLI) boundary layers with a freestream Mach number of 6 using non-intrusive optical diagnostics. Experiments performed by Murphree et al.1,2 were among the first to specifically characterize XSWBLI induced by a vertical cylinder on a flat plate geometry using several optical measurement techniques. Recent optical studies of XSWBLI phenomenon have been performed by UTSI at Mach 2 in their low-enthalpy blow wind tunnel3-8 and by Texas A&M University and UTSI at Mach numbers of 6 and 7 in their Adjustable Contour Expansion wind tunnel.9 The experiments described in this paper were intended to complement previous studies by expanding the freestream unit Reynolds number range, Re∞, over which the XSWBLI phenomena has been observed. Additionally these experiments, made possible under NASA’s new facility funding model under the Aeronautics Evaluation and Test Capabilities (AETC) project, promoted collaboration between university and NASA researchers. The initial entry in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley occurred in December of 2016. Originally, testing was to occur in November of 2016 in the 31-Inch Mach 10 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley. This facility was chosen so that the XSWBLI phenomenon could be observed at much higher Mach numbers than had previously been attempted in ground test experiments. The model selected for this experiment, a 10° half-angle wedge with a sharp leading edge (described in detail in section II.B), had previously been used by Danehy et al. [10] for boundary layer transition studies using the nitric oxide planar laser-induced fluorescence (NO PLIF) flow visualization technique. In that work, it was determined that transition could be induced downstream of a single htrip = 1-mm tall, dtrip = 4-mm diameter cylindrical tripping element and that the streamwise location of the transition could be changed for a single Re∞ by changing the model angle-of-attack (AoA) (see Fig. A3 in Ref. [10] for more details). Based on the findings of that work, a decision was made to use the wedge model with the cylindrical tripping element to trip the boundary layer flow ahead of a cylindrical protuberance in order to achieve a XSWBLI. Unfortunately, the 31-Inch Mach 10 facility had been taken offline for repairs in October of 2016 and a decision was made to move the test to the 20-Inch Mach 6 facility. Since the behavior of the boundary layer with the chosen model configuration had not been studied before in that facility and the available test time was limited, the entry was considered to be exploratory and was used to collect spatially-resolved and time-resolved flow and surface visualization data that would be used to inform a second entry. Test techniques included simultaneous high-speed schlieren (HSS) captured at 160 kHz and high-speed pressure sensitive paint captured at 10 kHz as well as oil flow visualization, captured at 750 Hz. The second entry in the 20-Inch Mach 6 facility occurred in June and July of 2017. In this follow-on test, modifications to the wind tunnel model were made based on observations made during the first entry and included removing the cylindrical tripping element, increasing the size of the cylinder used to induce the SWBLI to increase the size of the interaction while simultaneously improving spatial resolution, and using a swept ramp array, similar to that described in Ref. [11], to trip the flow to turbulence. Simultaneous HSS (captured at 140 kHz, 100 kHz, and 40 kHz) and conventional IR thermography (captured at 30 Hz) imaging were performed simultaneously in this follow-on entry. This paper is intended to serve as a summary of the work performed during these two entries, to detail lessons learned from each entry, and to highlight some of the datasets acquired. Details on the experimental setup, model configuration, and techniques used are provided. Papers providing a more rigorous analysis of data acquired during the second entry, including statistical, spectral, and modal decomposition methods, can be found in Refs. [12,13]. An entry examining XSWBLI in the 31-Inch Mach 10 Blowdown Wind Tunnel facility is currently planned for mid-to-late calendar year 2019, pending the success of facility repairs. The work performed and described in this paper and the upcoming entry in the 31-Inch Mach 10 facility at NASA Langley have been made possible by NASA’s new facility funding model under the Aeronautics Evaluation and Test Capabilities (AETC) project. Wind Tunnel Facility All experiments discussed in this paper were performed in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center. Specific details pertaining to this facility can be found in Refs. [14,15], with only a brief description of the facility provided here. For both entries, the nominal freestream unit Reynolds number was varied between 1.8×106 m-1 (0.5×106 ft-1) and 26.3×106 m-1 (8×106 ft-1). The nominal stagnation pressure was varied between 0.21 MPa and 3.33 MPa and the nominal stagnation temperature was varied between 480 K and 520 K to achieve the desired Re∞ condition. For all runs, the nominal freestream Mach number was 6. The nearly square test section is 520.7-mm (20.5-inches) wide by 508-mm (20-inches) high. Two 431.8-mm (17-inch) diameter windows made of Corning 7940, Grade 5F schlieren-quality glass serve as the side walls of the tunnel and provide optical access for the high-speed schlieren measurements. A rectangular window made of the same material as the side windows served as the top wall of the test section and provided optical access for the high-speed PSP and oil flow measurements. For the second entry, this top window was replaced with a Zinc Selenide (ZnSe) window with an anti-reflection coating capable of passing IR wavelengths between 8μm and 12μm with greater than 98% transmittance. The model was sting supported by a strut attached to a hydraulic system that allows for the model pitch angle to be adjusted between -5° to +55°. For the first entry, an initial pitch/pause sweep of the model AoA was performed to observe the resulting SWBLI. Ultimately, however, the sting pitch angle for this entry was fixed at +10.0° so that the angle of the top surface of the wedge relative to the streamwise axis of the tunnel (referred to herein as the plate angle, θplate), was θplate = 0°. For the second entry, θplate = 0° and θplate = -13.25° were initially tested with the swept ramp array (discussed in the following section) to determine which orientation produced conditions most favorable for XSWBLI to occur based on the heating signatures observed over the top surface of the model in the IR thermography images. Based on these initial tests, θplate = -13.25° was set for the remainder of the runs in the second entry. For both entries, any model changes were performed in a housing located beneath the closed test section. Prior to performing a run of the tunnel, the housing was sealed and the tunnel started. Once the appropriate freestream conditions were achieved, the model was injected into the test section using a hydraulic injection system. B. Model Geometry For all runs, a 10° half-angle (20° full-angle) wedge model with a sharp leading edge was used. The model is described in detail in Refs. [10,16]. The top surface of the sharp leading edge of the model extended 47.8 mm from its upstream-most edge to a junction with the upstream edge of a stainless steel top plate that then extended an (a) (c) (b) Fig. 1 (a) Schematic of top surface of wedge model with gas seeding insert, (b) perspective view of the model in the 20-Inch Mach 6 tunnel with centerline pressure orifices on sharp leading edge, and (c) a perspective view of the model with stainless steel (top) and SLA middle insert (bottom) during the first entry. Flow occurs from left to right.

Bathel, Brett F.↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA Utilization of Space Nuclear Systems for Robotic and Human Exploration Missions: Response to EO 13972: Promoting Small Nuclear Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration

Space Nuclear Systems (SNS) technology development offers a wide range of capabilities to support NASA’s current and future missions. Executive Order (EO) 13972, “Promoting Small Modular Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration” [1], issued 5 January 2021, directs NASA to define requirements for NASA utilization of nuclear energy systems for human and robotic exploration missions through 2040 and analyze the costs and benefits of such requirements.” Although it is premature to define requirements and cost for future exploration missions that have not yet been formulated, this report describes planned objectives and missions by 2040 that are enabled or enhanced by nuclear systems while taking into account a number of unique considerations for nuclear energy in the space environment. Nuclear energy systems are enabling for space missions and critical capabilities where conventional forms of energy production are impractical or impossible due to mass constraints, mission duration, or distance from the Sun. Space nuclear technologies available or in development for use by 2040 utilize radioisotope decay or nuclear fission and fall into three categories: heat, power, and propulsion. Current applications utilize radioisotope power systems that provide consistent and reliable performance in the sub-kilowatt power range. More advanced SNS can enable new mission objectives where high energy density solutions are critical, or where access to solar solutions is prohibitive. Higher power radioisotope and fission systems are under development within NASA for a wide variety of human exploration and science mission applications. Planned missions designed to use radioisotope systems include Dragonfly, a rotorcraft that will explore the surface of Titan, and Persephone, a mission concept for a Pluto orbiter. Nuclear fission systems have the key advantage of providing significantly higher power, lower mass solutions from tens to even thousands of kilowatts. Fission power is enabling to a sustained human presence on the Moon and developing a robust lunar economy. Fission propulsion is enabling for missions within and beyond cis-lunar space. This report examines NASA-envisioned mission applications and associated performance needs for SNS over the next twenty years leading to 2040 along with the unique technical considerations posed by space nuclear technology development. This includes engineering and operational logistics for ground handling, thermal management, survival of the space environment, operational safety, power requirements, and service longevity. Safety to the public, the NASA work force, and agency assets remains a top priority for NASA and particular attention is given to this aspect in the design, hardware assembly, ground operation, launch, and mission operation of an SNS. NASA relies on the Department of Energy as nuclear authority and its legacy of rigorous safety procedures as standards for ground development, test, transportation, and launch site operation. The principal concern is preventing unintended radiological release to the public or environment. Radioisotope system experience has established processes, including ground operation, transportation, and launch, that are considered directly applicable to emerging fission systems; however, fission systems have unique design needs that impact the safety and performance requirements. High efficiency power conversion from both fission and radioisotope systems requires high operating temperatures necessitating both passive and active thermal management to maintain safe and nominal operating conditions. Effective cooling and waste heat rejection have special considerations for space applications, whether in zero-g or reduced gravity. Fluid and heat transfer within the reactor system is not anticipated to be impacted by reduced or zero-g environments. Cryogenic working fluids and propellant supplies utilized in some space nuclear applications will need low mass, high capacity cryocoolers to meet the long-term storage and near zero-boiloff needs. Integrated, high power density SNS capable of being packaged in a single vehicle is a key consideration for NASA. Due to concerns for complexity and reliability, in space reactor assembly and reactor refueling are not current design considerations. Expanding into a new era for space exploration depends on mass-efficient, high-energy solutions to power deep-space vehicles, operate in harsh environments, and increase mission flexibility. NASA nuclear technology investments are targeting power for surface operations and propulsion for fast-transit, deep-space missions, all with the ability to reliably operate without the need for repair or refueling. NASA’s goals, enabled by nuclear technologies, provide for exciting advances in scientific objectives and human exploration, ushering in a new space age that enables a human presence on bodies beyond our Earth.

nuclear↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing the Needs of NASA's Near Real-Time Earth Observation Products

"The 2017-2027 Decadal Survey for Earth Science and Applications from Space stated that NASA's Earth Science with planned implementation of applications provides sustained earth observations for societal benefits [1]. The Decadal Survey indicated that data latency is invaluable for time-sensitive applications including disaster risk reduction, wildland fire carbon emissions quantification, real-time measurements of the state of the hydrologic systems and many more. Data latency refers to the time between earth observation and data products available to users. During the past 13 years, NASA's Land, Atmosphere Near Real-Time Capability for Earth Observing Systems (LANCE) continues to provide free access to earth observation products that are made available much quicker than routine processing allows. The latency of most LANCE data products is Near Real-time (NRT) which is defined as less than three hours from satellite observations [2]. LANCE is managed by the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Project at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center [3], and a User Working Group (UWG) is responsible for providing guidance to LANCE. LANCE data are used by direct users and brokers who add value to the data [4]. NASA Earth Applied Sciences Program (ASP) is one of the primary users of LANCE, which collaborates with partner organizations and provides support to scientists to solve problems in applications of earth observations. ASP promotes the use of LANCE NRT data products to demonstrate applications in decision making, facilitates end-user feedback to the science team to improve data products, and provides information on future demands for research. LANCE supports applications that need a rapid response including detecting wildland fires and volcanic eruptions, tracking smoke, ash and dust plumes, monitoring air quality and tracking extreme weather events such as hurricanes, landslides, and floods. To gather feedback regarding the availability, accessibility and actionability of NASA's NRT data products for societal benefit, three surveys and a few discussions with experts involved in the topic within ASP were conducted from the perspective of users. Feedback has been collected from users who are interested in using low latency NASA data within application communities of agriculture, disasters, water resources, health and air quality, ecological conservation, wildland fires and capacity building. Analysis-ready NRT data products in a variety of formats have been mentioned many times in the collected feedback, especially for applied users with little to no experience using research-grade earth observation products. Users prefer to have products that can be easily integrated into their existing workflows and take their analysis to the data. HDF5 is a commonly used data format for research, but typically requires some conversion to a more friendly format for applications and regular use in decision-making. Users prefer the GeoTIFF data format that can be directly ingested into a GIS mapping software and platform for data analysis and visualization. For example, LANCE’s fire, flood, SO2 and Black Marble Nighttime Blue/Yellow Composite data products have been integrated into NASA Disasters Mapping Portal, which is an GIS-based open data portal, for users in the disaster management community. There are 291 LANCE NRT layers available through GIBS and Worldview, where users can download a snapshot in GeoTIFF format. Operational users expect data to be processed as close to the user as possible. The collected feedback indicates that LANCE fire products within 3 hours latency would meet the needs of the wildland fire community. The ideal latency for volcanic application is 10-15 minutes. Users in Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAAC) reported that the first forecast volcanic product should be issued within 75 minutes from the volcano eruption [5]. Overall, for disaster applications, data latency within 3 hours is useful while latency greater than 12 hours is not timely enough for operational use. Capacity building and training are critical for users to be able to access, interpret and use data products and tools for their decision making, especially for applied users with limited experience using earth observation products. LANCE data products have been used in a number of capacity building projects domestically and internationally [6]. As LANCE continues to bring new products into the system, users request training to utilize LANCE new and upcoming data products and capabilities in their applications. Due to the limitation of bandwidth and downstream flow paths, users in some developing countries need tools to select and download data for a specific area of interest instead of bulk downloads. The collected feedback also shows the lack of available SAR satellite low latency data products. The advantages of SAR to monitor conditions and changes on the ground through darkness, clouds, volcanic ash, and other atmospheric conditions, are appealing to low latency users. For example, terabytes of low latency but cloudy optical images are not helpful in rapidly identifying the extent of flood or fire impacts. LANCE could be complemented with low latency measurements via the upcoming NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) mission [7]. Requests for higher spatial resolution products are expressed. A user from the wildland fire management community reported that products with 30-m spatial resolution could be used to detect small fires. The 30-m Landsat OLI fire data is now part of NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) US/Canada [8]. Within the open and free NASA resources, LANCE disseminates NRT data products in a manner that allows them to be accessible and understandable to both scientific and applied users. In many application areas, latency plays an important or even decisive role where low latency earth observations help people to observe areas of interest, detect and track changes in the environment and make timely decisions. NASA’s Earth Applied Sciences Program promotes the use of LANCE NRT products and builds a bridge between application users and research teams. The collected feedback indicates data latency within 3 hours is useful for most of the applications, and shows the needs of user-friendly, analysis-ready products, and requests training on LANCE’s new and upcoming data products. User feedback has been provided to LANCE UWG for guidance and recommendations, and for translating findings into something actionable.

Tian Yao↗
NASA NTRS1966

New developments in NASA quality assurance

The purpose of this talk is to examine and discuss NASA's basic quality concept, the policy and procedures which define and implement this concept and subsequently explore the NASA-Industry quality relationships which are essential to the success of NASA's quality assurance concept. It is important to emphasize that NASA's Quality Assurance program is predicated on the concept of an individually tailored quality program for each significant NASA procurement - particularly, large space systems. As a result, NASA's Quality Assurance program - to be effective - must be responsive to various technologies, hardware systems, and space missions. In addition, the program must be responsive to changing policies and practices in research, engineering and procurement. Key issues in the NASA-Contractor quality relationships in the framework of an over all NASA-Industry partnership include: (1) the necessity for NASA to effectively discharge its responsibility for providing clear and complete definition of quality requirements at all phases of the procurement cycle; (2) the right of the contractor to expect an explicit definition of NASA quality requirements in each RFP and contract and to request same if it is not provided; (3) the necessity for the contractor to have a dynamic and responsive quality program which is directed towards assuring that the hardware meets all technical requirements and to accomplish this in an effective and efficient manner; and (4) the critical need for investigation and study of the economic aspects of quality and an evaluation of our policies and practices based upon the results of such a study.

Condon, John E.↗