Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “readiness review”

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 37 records · Page 2

Apollo experience report the command and service module milestone review process

The sequence of the command and service module milestone review process is given, and the Customer Acceptance Readiness Review and Flight Readiness Review plans are presented. Contents of the System Summary Acceptance Documents for the two formal spacecraft reviews are detailed, and supplemental data required for presentation to the review boards are listed. Typical forms, correspondence, supporting documentation, and minutes of a board meeting are included.

Brendle, H. L.↗

Summary DSG-RQMT-004, Gateway Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Requirements Document, Initial Baseline

The Baseline Readiness Review presentation for DSG-RQMT-004 at a high level summarizes the differences between the originating standards (publicly available) and the Gateway-tailored standards (publicly available per DAA 72653). All data in the presentations are either derived from either MIL-STD-461G, SSP 30237, or SL-E-002 (Shuttle EMI spec). The Baseline Readiness Review presentation identifies why a tailored standard was necessary for Gateway (summarizes the changes made from the originating standard). Communicating this information should lead to IP and vendor Level 3 responders proposing substitute standards more in line with the Gateway requirements.

MIL-STD-464↗

Summary DSG-RQMT-007, Initial Baseline

The Baseline Readiness Review presentations for DSG-RQMT-007 at a high level summarizes the differences between the originating standards (publicly available) and the Gateway-tailored standards (publicly available per DAA 72653). All data in the presentations are either derived from either MIL-STD-461G, SSP 30237, or SL-E-002 (Shuttle EMI spec). The Baseline Readiness Review presentation identifies why a tailored standard was necessary for Gateway (summarizes the changes made from the originating standard). Communicating this information should lead to IP and vendor Level 3 responders proposing substitute standards more in line with the Gateway requirements.

MIL-STD-461↗

Photovoltaic system criteria documents. Volume 4: Review criteria for photovoltaic applications

Guidelines are provided for the organization, preparation and conduct of program reviews for photovoltaic applications. These criteria apply to all photovoltaic applications. They include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Conceptual design review; (2) Preliminary design review; (3) Critical design review; and (4) Operational readiness review. Contract goal's and objectives are met through program monitoring for cost, schedule, and performance for both managerial and technical elements for all PV applications activities.

Koenig, John C.↗

CPAS Preflight Drop Test Analysis Process

Throughout the Capsule Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) drop test program, the CPAS Analysis Team has developed a simulation and analysis process to support drop test planning and execution. This process includes multiple phases focused on developing test simulations and communicating results to all groups involved in the drop test. CPAS Engineering Development Unit (EDU) series drop test planning begins with the development of a basic operational concept for each test. Trajectory simulation tools include the Flight Analysis and Simulation Tool (FAST) for single bodies, and the Automatic Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Systems (ADAMS) simulation for the mated vehicle. Results are communicated to the team at the Test Configuration Review (TCR) and Test Readiness Review (TRR), as well as at Analysis Integrated Product Team (IPT) meetings in earlier and intermediate phases of the pre-test planning. The ability to plan and communicate efficiently with rapidly changing objectives and tight schedule constraints is a necessity for safe and successful drop tests.

Englert, Megan E.↗

[Component and System Level of the FASTRAC Engine]

The primary activities of Lee & Associates during the period 7/20/99 to 12/31/99 as specified in the referenced Purchase Order has been in direct support of the Advanced Space Technology Program OfFice's Core Propulsion Project. An independent review to assess the program readiness to conduct component and system level testing of the FASTRAC Engine and to proceed into Fabrication has been provided. This was accomplished through the identification of program weaknesses and potential failure areas and where applicable recommended solutions were suggested to the Program Office that would mitigate technical and program risk. The approach taken to satisfy the objectives has been for the contractor to provide a team of experts with relevant experience from past programs and a strong background of experience in the fields critical to the success of the program. The team participated in Test Planning, Test Readiness Reviews for system testing at Stennis Space Center, Anomaly Resolution Reviews, an Operations Audit, and data analysis. This approach worked well in satisfying the objectives and providing the Project Office with valuable information in real time and through monthly reports. During the month of December 1999 the primary effort involved the participation in anomaly resolution and the detailed review of the data from the final H3 and H4 test series performed on the FASTRAC engine in the b-2 Horizontal Test Facility at Stennis. The more significant findings and recommendations from this review are presented in this report.

Source record↗

Support to NASA's Advanced Space Technology Program

During the period of May through September 2000, Lee & Associates, LLC completed the following tasks as specified in the purchase order SOW: Assessment of current processes and structure and recommended improvements; Reviewed and commented on restructure options; Participated in closure of the Fastrac Delta Critical Design Review actions; Participated in the Fastrac Test readiness review (TRR) process for test planned at SSC and Rocketdyne; and Participated in the investigation of any anomalies identified during the Fastrac engine test data reviews.

Goetz, Otto↗

Effect of Carbon Dioxide Exposure on Physical and Cognitive Performance in a Simulated Spaceflight Contingency Scenario

Introduction: Carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by astronauts inside space suits can accumulate to levels that affect health and performance. The human health and performance risks associated with different levels of CO2 exposure in the flight environment remain an area of debate. The purpose of this study is to characterize the limit of acceptable performance (cognitive and physical) decrements and symptom severity for mission operations when subjected to elevated inspired CO2 levels in the spacesuit during contingency EVA scenarios. Methods: This study will create a simulation of a 1-hour contingency EVA walk back to the habitat, incorporating a passive treadmill and a fully immersive virtual reality (VR) simulation of a lunar EVA. Subjects will be asked to walk on a treadmill while breathing partial pressures of CO2 of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30mmHg for 1 hour at a time. Cognitive performance will be quantified using validated cognitive tests and measures of functional task performance embedded within the VR environment. Test subject symptoms and self-assessment of performance will be evaluated via survey. Results: This study currently has approval from NASA’s Institutional Review Board and has completed the Test Readiness Review process. Next steps for this research study include test subject recruitment, data collection, and analysis. Data collection is planned for calendar year 2022 and 2023. Discussion: This study will provide valuable information regarding how various partial pressures of CO2 exposure impact acute health, as well as cognitive and physical performance during simulated lunar EVA. This information will be vital in the assessment of overall risk associated with current hardware (vehicle and suit) design for upcoming exploration missions. It will also be invaluable for informing future standards and requirements.

carbon dioxide↗

Effect of Carbon Dioxide Exposure on Physical and Cognitive Performance in A Simulated Spaceflight Contingency Scenario

INTRODUCTION: Carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by astronauts inside space suits can accumulate to levels that may affect health and performance. The human health and performance risks associated with different levels of CO2 exposure in the flight environment remain an area of debate. The purpose of this study is to characterize the limit of acceptable performance (cognitive and physical) decrements and symptom severity for mission operations when subjected to elevated inspired CO2 levels in simulated contingency lunar extravehicular activity (EVA) scenarios. METHODS: This study will create a simulation of a 1-hour, ~2km contingency EVA walk back to a habitat, incorporating a passive treadmill and a fully immersive virtual reality (VR) simulation of a lunar EVA environment. Subjects will be asked to walk on a treadmill while breathing partial pressures of CO2 of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30mmHg for 1 hour at a time. Cognitive performance will be quantified using validated cognitive tests and measures of functional task performance embedded within the VR environment. Test subject symptoms and self-assessment of performance will be evaluated via survey. RESULTS: This study currently has approval from NASA’s Institutional Review Board and has completed the Test Readiness Review process. Next steps for this research study include test subject recruitment, data collection, and analysis. Data collection is planned for calendar year 2023 and 2024. DISCUSSION: This study will provide valuable information regarding how various partial pressures of CO2 exposure impact acute health, as well as cognitive and physical performance during simulated contingency lunar EVA. This information will enable assessment of health and performance risk associated with spacesuit systems and operations concepts for future exploration missions as well as informing definition of future standards and requirements.

D. M. Nusbaum↗

Effect of Carbon Dioxide Exposure on Physical and Cognitive Performance in A Simulated Spaceflight Contingency Scenario

INTRODUCTION: Carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by astronauts inside space suits can accumulate to levels that may affect health and performance. The human health and performance risks associated with different levels of CO2 exposure in the flight environment remain an area of debate. The purpose of this study is to characterize the limit of acceptable performance (cognitive and physical) decrements and symptom severity for mission operations when subjected to elevated inspired CO2 levels in simulated contingency lunar extravehicular activity (EVA) scenarios. METHODS: This study will create a simulation of a 1-hour, ~2km contingency EVA walk back to a habitat, incorporating a passive treadmill and a fully immersive virtual reality (VR) simulation of a lunar EVA environment. Subjects will be asked to walk on a treadmill while breathing partial pressures of CO2 of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30mmHg for 1 hour at a time. Cognitive performance will be quantified using validated cognitive tests and measures of functional task performance embedded within the VR environment. Test subject symptoms and self-assessment of performance will be evaluated via survey. RESULTS: This study currently has approval from NASA’s Institutional Review Board and has completed the Test Readiness Review process. Next steps for this research study include test subject recruitment, data collection, and analysis. Data collection is planned for calendar year 2023 and 2024. DISCUSSION: This study will provide valuable information regarding how various partial pressures of CO2 exposure impact acute health, as well as cognitive and physical performance during simulated contingency lunar EVA. This information will enable assessment of health and performance risk associated with spacesuit systems and operations concepts for future exploration missions as well as informing definition of future standards and requirements.

carbon dioxide↗

Space Shuttle Program Update

Bruce Buckingham, from NASA Public Affairs, introduces Wayne Hale, Space Shuttle Program Manager, and Mike Leinbach, NASA launch Director. Wayne Hale begins discussing the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) that has just occurred to see if they were ready to fly. He points out that the review was a debris verification review (DVR). This review was done to ascertain how well they have done to eliminate the potential for debris to come off of the External Tank (ET), or any other part of the launch vehicle. He expresses that they have made significant improvements to the ET. He gives a description of the ET that is presently on the launch pad. Mike Leinbach discusses hardware processing and the condition of the launch vehicle. Questions from the news media about possible modifications to the ice frost ramp, Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) electrical problems, ET foam loss, amount of debris loss expectation during ascent, and return to flight costs are all addressed.

Source record↗

NASA Astronauts on Soyuz: Experience and Lessons for the Future

The U. S., Russia, and, China have each addressed the question of human-rating spacecraft. NASA's operational experience with human-rating primarily resides with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Space Shuttle, and International Space Station. NASA s latest developmental experience includes Constellation, X38, X33, and the Orbital Space Plane. If domestic commercial crew vehicles are used to transport astronauts to and from space, Soyuz is another example of methods that could be used to human-rate a spacecraft and to work with commercial spacecraft providers. For Soyuz, NASA's normal assurance practices were adapted. Building on NASA's Soyuz experience, this report contends all past, present, and future vehicles rely on a range of methods and techniques for human-rating assurance, the components of which include: requirements, conceptual development, prototype evaluations, configuration management, formal development reviews (safety, design, operations), component/system ground-testing, integrated flight tests, independent assessments, and launch readiness reviews. When constraints (cost, schedule, international) limit the depth/breadth of one or more preferred assurance means, ways are found to bolster the remaining areas. This report provides information exemplifying the above safety assurance model for consideration with commercial or foreign-government-designed spacecraft. Topics addressed include: U.S./Soviet-Russian government/agency agreements and engineering/safety assessments performed with lessons learned in historic U.S./Russian joint space ventures

Source record↗

Time Critical

NASA's decision to slip launch of the space shuttle return-to-flight mission to no earlier than May 22 will provide engineers more time to complete final, rigorous assessments before the orbiter Discovery's final Flight Readiness Review (FRR). That FRR is now planned for May 10-11. It will be used by NASA and contractor managers to reaffirm the readiness of all program elements to support the new target to return the U.S. space program to manned launch operations. It will also enable them to better raise any final issues that could slip the target again, if necessary, to complete more work and documentation.

Covault, Craig↗

Organization, Management and Function of International Space Station (ISS) Multilateral Medical Operations

Long duration crews have inhabited the ISS since November of 2000. The favorable medical outcomes of its missions can be largely attributed to sustained collective efforts of all ISS Partners medical organizations. In-flight medical monitoring and support, although crucial, is just a component of the ISS system of Joint Medical Operations. The goal of this work is to review the principles, design, and function of the multilateral medical support of the ISS Program. The governing documents, which describe the relationships among all ISS partner medical organizations, were evaluated, followed by analysis of the roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes of the ISS medical boards, panels, and working groups. The degree of integration of the medical support system was evaluated by reviewing the multiple levels of the status reviews and mission assurance activities carried out throughout the last six years. The Integrated Medical Group, consisting of physicians and other essential personnel in the mission control centers represents the front-line medical support of the ISS. Data from their day-to-day activities are presented weekly at the Space Medicine Operations Team (SMOT), where known or potential concerns are addressed by an international group of physicians. A broader status review is conducted monthly to project the state of crew health and medical support for the following month, and to determine measures to return to nominal state. Finally, a comprehensive readiness review is conducted during preparations for each ISS mission. The Multilateral Medical Policy Board (MMPB) issues medical policy decisions and oversees all health and medical matters. The Multilateral Space Medicine Board (MSMB) certifies crewmembers and visitors for training and space flight to the Station, and physicians to practice space medicine for the ISS. The Multilateral Medical Operations Panel (MMOP) develops medical requirements, defines and supervises implementation of operational countermeasures, environmental monitoring, medical care, and emergency medical services. MMOP assures the medical readiness of the Station for each subsequent mission or critical event. All boards and panels have functioned effectively and without interruptions even in various challenging circumstances. Based on the experience of the authors, consensus has prevailed as the primary nature of decisions made by all ISS medical groups, at all levels. The six first years of piloted operation have demonstrated the ability of the ISS medical authority groups and the medical infrastructure to implement medical policies and requirements, effectively interface with non-medical groups, and maintain the health and productivity of the crew in an integrated, multilaterally coordinated fashion. The medical support system appears to be mature and ready for further expansion of all Partners roles, and for the anticipated increase in the size of ISS crews.

Duncan, James M.↗

U.S. Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster - Return to flight

The Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) redesign program instituted in the wake of the Challenger accident encompassed a design requirements review, a failure modes effect analysis/critical items list determination, a hazards analysis, an operational maintenance and requirements specification study, the definition of operational maintenance instructions and launch commit criteria, and design certification and flight readiness reviews. Attention is presently given to the SRB's thrust vector control, separation, and recovery functions, as well as its electrical and instrumentation systems and its case assembly and hardware interfaces.

Coates, K. D.↗

NASA Standing Review Board Handbook

This handbook provides guidance based on best practices for the planning, preparation, review, reporting, and closeout of Standing Review Board (SRB) activities. Revision C updates the Revision B version of the SRB Handbook published in 2016 to incorporate updates to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5F, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements. These updates include: - Changing the Dissenting Opinion process to the Formal Dissent process, which retains the current process augmented with an expedited escalation path. - Updates to requirements for establishing an Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC) and for performing Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level (JCL) analyses for tightly coupled programs. - Additional requirements for performing a JCL analysis for single-project programs and projects over $1B Life-Cycle Cost (LCC). - Use of initial capability cost estimates instead of LCC estimates in specific, identified instances for single-project programs and projects that plan continuing operations and production, including integration of capability upgrades, with an unspecified Phase E end point. These single-project programs and projects define an initial capability during Phase A and develop an initial capability cost that establishes the ABC at Key Decision Point (KDP) C. Initial capability is the first operational mission flight (or as defined in the KDP B Review Plan) and is documented in the KDP B Decision Memorandum. Initial capability cost includes operations cost for the initial capability. The Phase E cost estimate for continuing operations and production is established separately as part of the Operational Readiness Review (ORR) and KDP E for the 5 years after initial capability and subsequently updated and documented annually for the next 5-year period. Upgrades during Phase E that meet the Agency criteria for a major project for external reporting are treated as projects for the purposes of establishing their own development ABC outside the Phase E cost estimate. The Phase E cost estimate is updated to include production and operations costs associated with these upgrades. Development, production, and operations costs of other (i.e., non-major) upgrades are included in the Phase E cost estimate. (See NPR 7120.5, Sections 2.4.1.5 and 2.4.1.6 and the NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Handbook (PM Handbook), Section 5.5.4 for additional information.) The scope of the SRB’s assessment with respect to initial capability, Phase E cost estimate, and major upgrades for these single-project programs and projects is defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR).

Kevin Michael Gilligan↗

Design of Test Support Hardware for Advanced Space Suits

As a member of the Space Suit Assembly Development Engineering Team, I designed and built test equipment systems to support the development of the next generation of advanced space suits. During space suit testing it is critical to supply the subject with two functions: (1) cooling to remove metabolic heat, and (2) breathing air to pressurize the space suit. The objective of my first project was to design, build, and certify an improved Space Suit Cooling System for manned testing in a 1‐G environment. This design had to be portable and supply a minimum cooling rate of 2500 BTU/hr. The Space Suit Cooling System is a robust, portable system that supports very high metabolic rates. It has a highly adjustable cool rate and is equipped with digital instrumentation to monitor the flowrate and critical temperatures. It can supply a variable water temperature down to 34 deg., and it can generate a maximum water flowrate of 2.5 LPM. My next project was to design and build a Breathing Air System that was capable of supply facility air to subjects wearing the Z‐2 space suit. The system intakes 150 PSIG breathing air and regulates it to two operating pressures: 4.3 and 8.3 PSIG. It can also provide structural capabilities at 1.5x operating pressure: 6.6 and 13.2 PSIG, respectively. It has instrumentation to monitor flowrate, as well as inlet and outlet pressures. The system has a series of relief valves to fully protect itself in case of regulator failure. Both projects followed a similar design methodology. The first task was to perform research on existing concepts to develop a sufficient background knowledge. Then mathematical models were developed to size components and simulate system performance. Next, mechanical and electrical schematics were generated and presented at Design Reviews. After the systems were approved by the suit team, all the hardware components were specified and procured. The systems were then packaged, fabricated, and thoroughly tested. The next step was to certify the equipment for manned used, which included generating a Hazard Analysis and giving a presentation to the Test Readiness Review Board. Both of these test support systems will perform critical roles in the development of next‐generation space suits. They will used on a regular basis to test the NASA's new Z‐2 Space Suit. The Space Suit Cooling System is now the primary cooling system for all advanced suit tests.

Watters, Jeffrey A.↗