SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This paper describes an approach for qualifying optimal technology portfolios obtained with a multi-attribute decision support system. The goal is twofold: to gauge the degree of confidence in the optimal solution and to provide the decision-maker with an array of viable selection alternatives, which take into account input uncertainties and possibly satisfy non-technical constraints.
Successful projects require an integrated approach to managing cost, schedule, and risk. This is especially true for complex, multi-year projects involving multiple organizations. To explore solutions and leverage valuable lessons learned, NASA's Virtual Project Management Challenge will kick off a three-part series examining some of the challenges faced by project and program managers when it comes to managing these important elements. In this first session of the series, we will look at cost management, with an emphasis on the critical roles of cost estimating and cost reporting. By taking a proactive approach to both of these activities, project managers can better control life cycle costs, maintain stakeholder confidence, and protect other current and future projects in the organization's portfolio. Speakers will be Doug Comstock, Director of NASA's Cost Analysis Division, Kristin Van Wychen, Senior Analyst in the GAO Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, and Mary Beth Zimmerman, Branch Chief for NASA's Portfolio Analysis Branch, Strategic Investments Division. Moderator Ramien Pierre is from NASA's Academy for Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL).
The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center is expanding its current technology assessment methodologies. ACO is developing a framework called TAPP that uses a variety of methods, such as association mining and rule learning from data mining, structure development using a Technological Innovation System (TIS), and social network modeling to measure structural relationships. The role of ACO is to 1) produce a broad spectrum of ideas and alternatives for a variety of NASA's missions, 2) determine mission architecture feasibility and appropriateness to NASA's strategic plans, and 3) define a project in enough detail to establish an initial baseline capable of meeting mission objectives ACO's role supports the decision-making process associated with the maturation of concepts for traveling through, living in, and understanding space. ACO performs concept studies and technology assessments to determine the degree of alignment between mission objectives and new technologies. The first step in technology assessment is to identify the current technology maturity in terms of a technology readiness level (TRL). The second step is to determine the difficulty associated with advancing a technology from one state to the next state. NASA has used TRLs since 1970 and ACO formalized them in 1995. The DoD, ESA, Oil & Gas, and DoE have adopted TRLs as a means to assess technology maturity. However, "with the emergence of more complex systems and system of systems, it has been increasingly recognized that TRL assessments have limitations, especially when considering [the] integration of complex systems." When performing the second step in a technology assessment, NASA requires that an Advancement Degree of Difficulty (AD2) method be utilized. NASA has used and developed or used a variety of methods to perform this step: Expert Opinion or Delphi Approach, Value Engineering or Value Stream, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for the Order of Prioritization by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and other multi‐criteria decision-making methods. These methods can be labor-intensive, often contain cognitive or parochial bias, and do not consider the competing prioritization between mission architectures. Strategic Decision-Making (SDM) processes cannot be properly understood unless the context of the technology is understood. This makes assessing technological change particularly challenging due to the relationships "between incumbent technology and the incumbent (innovation) system in relation to the emerging technology and the emerging innovation system." The central idea in technology dynamics is to consider all activities that contribute to the development, diffusion, and use of innovations as system functions. Bergek defines system functions within a TIS to address what is actually happening and has a direct influence on the ultimate performance of the system and technology development. ACO uses similar metrics and is expanding these metrics to account for the structure and context of the technology. At NASA technology and strategy is strongly interrelated. NASA's Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan (SSTIP) prioritizes those technologies essential to the pursuit of NASA's missions and national interests. The SSTIP is strongly coupled with NASA's Technology Roadmaps to provide investment guidance during the next four years, within a twenty-year horizon. This paper discusses the methods ACO is currently developing to better perform technology assessments while taking into consideration Strategic Alignment, Technology Forecasting, and Long Term Planning.
A hierarchical XML database is being developed by the New Millennium Program to assist in technology Return on Investment (ROI) analysis and technology portfolio optimization.
The programs within NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) conduct research and development to improve the national air transportation system so that Americans can travel as safely as possible. NASA aviation safety systems analysis personnel support various levels of ARMD management in their fulfillment of system analysis and technology prioritization as defined in the agency's program and project requirements. This paper provides a framework for the assessment of aviation safety research and technology portfolios that includes metrics such as projected impact on current and future safety, technical development risk and implementation risk. The paper also contains methods for presenting portfolio analysis and aviation safety Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) output results to management using bubble charts and quantitative decision analysis techniques.
XCALIBR (XML Capability Analysis LIBRary) is a set of Extensible Markup Language (XML) database and spreadsheet- based analysis software tools designed to assist in technology-return-on-investment analysis and optimization of technology portfolios pertaining to outer-space missions. XCALIBR is also being examined for use in planning, tracking, and documentation of projects. An XCALIBR database contains information on mission requirements and technological capabilities, which are related by use of an XML taxonomy. XCALIBR incorporates a standardized interface for exporting data and analysis templates to an Excel spreadsheet. Unique features of XCALIBR include the following: It is inherently hierarchical by virtue of its XML basis. The XML taxonomy codifies a comprehensive data structure and data dictionary that includes performance metrics for spacecraft, sensors, and spacecraft systems other than sensors. The taxonomy contains >700 nodes representing all levels, from system through subsystem to individual parts. All entries are searchable and machine readable. There is an intuitive Web-based user interface. The software automatically matches technologies to mission requirements. The software automatically generates, and makes the required entries in, an Excel return-on-investment analysis software tool. The results of an analysis are presented in both tabular and graphical displays.
An application of high-performance computing tothe analysis and solution of an R&D portfolio strategy problem is described. A study conducted ten years earlier is revisited and used as a benchmark.
In this paper, the authors review the FAA s current program investments and lay out a preliminary analytical framework to undertake projects that may address some of the noted deficiencies. By drawing upon the well developed theories from corporate finance, an analytical framework is offered that can be used for choosing FAA s investments taking into account risk, expected returns and inherent dependencies across NAS programs. The framework can be expanded into taking multiple assets and realistic values for parameters in drawing an efficient risk-return frontier for the entire FAA investment programs.
Hypersonic propulsion work supported by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration had a primary focus on Space Transportation during the period from 1995 to 2005. The framework for these advances was established by policy and pursued with substantial funding. Many noteworthy advances were made, highlighted by the pinnacle flights of the X-43. This paper reviews and summarizes the programs and accomplishments of this era. The accomplishments are compared to the goals and objectives to lend an overarching perspective to what was achieved. At least dating back to the early days of the Space Shuttle program, NASA has had the objective of reducing the cost of access to space and concurrently improving safety and reliability. National Space Transportation Policy in 1994 coupled with a base of prior programs such as the National Aerospace Plane and the need to look beyond the Space Shuttle program set the stage for NASA to pursue Space Transportation Advances. Programs defined to pursue the advances represented a broad approach addressing classical rocket propulsion as well as airbreathing propulsion in various combinations and forms. The resulting portfolio of activities included systems analysis and design studies, discipline research and technology, component technology development, propulsion system ground test demonstration and flight demonstration. The types of propulsion systems that were pursued by these programs included classical rocket engines, "aerospike" rocket engines, high performance rocket engines, scram jets, rocket based combined cycles, and turbine based combined cycles. Vehicle architectures included single and two stage vehicles. Either single types of propulsion systems or combinations of the basic propulsion types were applied to both single and two stage vehicle design concepts. Some of the propulsion system design concepts were built and tested at full scale, large scale and small scale. Many flight demonstrators were conceptually defined, fewer designed and some built and one flown to demonstrate several technical advancements including propulsion. The X-43 flights were a culmination of these efforts for airbreathing propulsion. During the course of that period, there was a balance of funding and emphasis toward rocket propulsion but still very substantial airbreathing propulsion effort. The broad objectives of these programs were to both advance and test the state of the art so as to provide a basis for options to be pursued for broad space transportation needs, most importantly focused on crew carrying capability. NASA cooperated with the Department of Defense in planning and implementation of these programs to make efficient use of objectives and capabilities where appropriate. Much of the work was conducted in industry and academia as well as Government laboratories. Many test articles and data-bases now exist as a result of this work. At the conclusion of the period, the body of work made it clear that continued research and technology development was warranted, because although not ready for a NASA system development decision, results continued to support the promise of air-breathing propulsion for access to space.
"The implementation of NASA GSFC's portfolio of mission projects relies upon inter-connected, multi-tiered supply chains of organizations operating under direct and indirect contracts and other agreements throughout the U.S. and around the world. These supply chains are subject to an inter-related array of technical/production, business, market and security risks that are amplified by the ongoing globalization of industry and technology and which can disrupt or threaten the production and delivery of products and services when needed and in conformance with requirements. In recognition of such risks and associated challenges, GSFC's SMA directorate launched an innovative Supplier Research and Analysis (SRA) capability three years ago to gain greater insight into the operating environment, performance, capabilities and viability of current and prospective suppliers for GSFC projects and proposals. The capability uses business intelligence techniques and primarily open source information resources as part of a cost-effective, non-intrusive methodology to produce several types of research and analysis reports. The reports are based on a holistic analytical framework encompassing key technical/production, business enterprise management, market and security factors, and feature in-depth information, summary information profiles, SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis, and candidate risk concerns in order to pro-actively support SMA and project management needs. The SRA capability, which is designed to complement and support ongoing SMA/project management activities and practices, has produced over 95 reports since its start-up in early 2015. This presentation addresses the approach, methodology and performance of the Supplier Research and Analysis (SRA) capability and its value in assuring the success of NASA mission projects. In doing so, the presentation provides lessons-learned, best practices, case examples and address how it fits into the development of an enterprise-level Supply Chain Risk Management capability."
NASA's Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) develops and advances methodologies and technologies to improve air transportation safety. The Safety Analysis and Integration Team (SAIT) conducts a safety technology portfolio assessment (PA) to analyze the program content, to examine the benefits and risks of products with respect to program goals, and to support programmatic decision making. The PA process includes systematic identification of current and future safety risks as well as tracking several quantitative and qualitative metrics to ensure the program goals are addressing prominent safety risks accurately and effectively. One of the metrics within the PA process involves using quantitative aviation safety models to gauge the impact of the safety products. This paper demonstrates the role of aviation safety modeling by providing model outputs and evaluating a sample of portfolio elements using the Flightdeck Automation Problems (FLAP) model. The model enables not only ranking of the quantitative relative risk reduction impact of all portfolio elements, but also highlighting the areas with high potential impact via sensitivity and gap analyses in support of the program office. Although the model outputs are preliminary and products are notional, the process shown in this paper is essential to a comprehensive PA of NASA's safety products in the current program and future programs/projects.
This paper focuses on the analysis and identification of technology development portfolios designed to meet the scientific and mission objectives of the Mars Exploration Program.
This paper focuses on the analysis and identification of technology development portfolios designed to meet the scientific and mission objectives of the Mars Exploration Program.
The Space Launch System (SLS) will launch NASA's Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). This launch vehicle will provide American launch capability for human exploration and travelling beyond Earth orbit. SLS is designed to be flexible for crew or cargo missions. The first test flight is scheduled for December 2017. The SLS SRR/SDR provided insight into the project development life cycle. NASA IV&V ran the standard Risk Based Assessment and Portfolio Based Risk Assessment to identify analysis tasking for the SLS program. This presentation examines the SLS System Requirements Review/System Definition Review (SRR/SDR), IV&V findings for IV&V process validation correlation to/from the selected IV&V tasking and capabilities. It also provides a reusable IEEE 1012 scorecard for programmatic completeness across the software development life cycle.
NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) supports research to reduce human health and performance risks inherent in future human space exploration missions. Understanding risk outcomes and contributing factors in an integrated manner allows HRP research to support development of efficient and effective mitigations from cross‐disciplinary perspectives, and to enable resilient human and engineered systems for spaceflight. The purpose of this work is to support scientific collaborations and research portfolio management by utilizing modeling for analysis and visualization of current and potential future interdisciplinary efforts.
NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) is working to increase the likelihoods of human health and performance success during long-duration missions, and subsequent crew long-term health. To achieve these goals, there is a need to develop an integrated understanding of how the complex human physiological-socio-technical mission system behaves in spaceflight. This understanding will allow HRP to provide cross-disciplinary spaceflight countermeasures while minimizing resources such as mass, power, and volume. This understanding will also allow development of tools to assess the state of and enhance the resilience of individual crewmembers, teams, and the integrated mission system. We will discuss a set of risk-reduction questions that has been identified to guide the systems approach necessary to meet these needs. In addition, a framework of factors influencing human health and performance in space, called the Contributing Factor Map (CFM), is being applied as the backbone for incorporating information addressing these questions from sources throughout HRP. Using the common language of the CFM, information from sources such as the Human System Risk Board summaries, Integrated Research Plan, and HRP-funded publications has been combined and visualized in ways that allow insight into cross-disciplinary interconnections in a systematic, standardized fashion. We will show examples of these visualizations. We will also discuss applications of the resulting analysis capability that can inform science portfolio decisions, such as areas in which cross-disciplinary solicitations or countermeasure development will potentially be fruitful.
The NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) vision falls into six strategic thrusts that are aimed to support the challenges of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). In order to achieve the goals of the ARMD vision, the Airspace Operations and Safety Program (AOSP) is committed to developing and delivering new technologies. To meet the dual challenges of constrained resources and timely technology delivery, program portfolio risk assessment is critical for communication and decision-making. This paper describes how Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) is applied to assess the probability of a technology meeting the expected outcome. The network takes into account the different risk factors of technology development and implementation phases. The use of BBNs allows for all technologies of projects in a program portfolio to be separately examined and compared. In addition, the technology interaction effects are modeled through the application of object-oriented BBNs. The paper discusses the development of simplified project risk BBNs and presents various risk results. The results presented include the probability of project risks not meeting success criteria, the risk drivers under uncertainty via sensitivity analysis, and what-if analysis. Finally, the paper shows how program portfolio risk can be assessed using risk results from BBNs of projects in the portfolio.
Making good decisions concerning research and development portfolios-and concerning the best systems concepts to pursue - as early as possible in the life cycle of advanced technologies is a key goal of R&D management This goal depends upon the effective integration of information from a wide variety of sources as well as focused, high-level analyses intended to inform such decisions Life-cycle Analysis System (ATLAS) methodology and tool kit. ATLAS encompasses a wide range of methods and tools. A key foundation for ATLAS is the NASA-created Technology Readiness. The toolkit is largely spreadsheet based (as of August 2003). This product is being funded by the Human and Robotics The presentation provides a summary of the Advanced Technology Level (TRL) systems Technology Program Office, Office of Exploration Systems, NASA Headquarters, Washington D.C. and is being integrated by Dan O Neil of the Advanced Projects Office, NASA/MSFC, Huntsville, AL