Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “SCIENCE”

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 451 records · Page 25
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗
NASA NTRS2016

NASA's Earth Science Flight Program Meets the Challenges of Today and Tomorrow

NASA's Earth science flight program is a dynamic undertaking that consists of a large fleet of operating satellites, an array of satellite and instrument projects in various stages of development, a robust airborne science program, and a massive data archiving and distribution system. Each element of the flight program is complex and present unique challenges. NASA builds upon its successes and learns from its setbacks to manage this evolving portfolio to meet NASA's Earth science objectives. NASA fleet of 16 operating missions provide a wide range of scientific measurements made from dedicated Earth science satellites and from instruments mounted to the International Space Station. For operational missions, the program must address issues such as an aging satellites operating well beyond their prime mission, constellation flying, and collision avoidance with other spacecraft and orbital debris. Projects in development are divided into two broad categories: systematic missions and pathfinders. The Earth Systematic Missions (ESM) include a broad range of multi-disciplinary Earth-observing research satellite missions aimed at understanding the Earth system and its response to natural and human-induced forces and changes. Understanding these forces will help determine how to predict future changes, and how to mitigate or adapt to these changes. The Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) program provides frequent, regular, competitively selected Earth science research opportunities that accommodate new and emerging scientific priorities and measurement capabilities. This results in a series of relatively low-cost, small-sized investigations and missions. Principal investigators whose scientific objectives support a variety of studies lead these missions, including studies of the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, polar ice regions, or solid Earth. This portfolio of missions and investigations provides opportunity for investment in innovative Earth science that enhances NASA's capability for better understanding the current state of the Earth system. ESM and ESSP projects often involve partnerships with other US agencies and/or international organizations. This adds to the complexity of mission development, but allows for a greater scientific return on NASA's investments. The Earth Science Airborne Science Program provides manned and unmanned aircraft systems that further science and advance the use of satellite data. NASA uses these assets worldwide in campaigns to investigate extreme weather events, observe Earth system processes, obtain data for Earth science modeling activities, and calibrate instruments flying aboard Earth science spacecraft. The Airborne Science Program has six dedicated aircraft and access to many other platforms. The Earth Science Multi-Mission Operations program acquires, preserves, and distributes observational data from operating spacecraft to support Earth Science research focus areas. The Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS), which has been in operations since 1994, primarily accomplishes this. EOSDIS acquires, processes, archives, and distributes Earth Science data and information products. The archiving of NASA Earth Science information happens at eight Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) and four disciplinary data centers located across the United States. The DAACs specialize by topic area, and make their data available to researchers around the world. The DAACs currently house over 9 petabytes of data, growing at a rate of 6.4 terabytes per day. NASA's current Earth Science portfolio is responsive to the National Research Council (NRC) 2007 Earth Science Decadal Survey and well as the 2010 NASA Response to President Obama's Climate Plan. As the program evolves into the future it will leverage the lessons learned from the current missions in operations and development, and plan for adjustments to future objectives in response to the anticipated 2017 NRC Decadal Survey.

Flight Program↗
NASA NTRS2016

Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team (A-Team). The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an ATeam study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels (CML) are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram (SRD). In the process of developing the SRD, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid towards developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions and reveal the mission concept’s most compelling science. This paper will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.In June of 2011 a new collaborative engineering approach forearly concept formulation began in the JPL InnovationFoundry [1], six months later becoming the “A-Team” [2].Responding to a need for exploring mission architecturelevel trades [3], the A-Team precedes Team X [4,5] in asequence of concurrent engineering teams at JPL that can beused to mature a concept from a “cocktail napkin” level ideato a complete mission point design. The A-Team efficientlyexplores the science, implementation, and programmatictrade space in early concept formulation. Small, facilitatedgroups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitativelyassess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the tradespace through collaborative analysis and use of advancedmethods and tools. The A-Team process builds off theexperience within JPL and other recent approaches to earlyconcept formulation [6] including best practices of the JPLInnovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering &Formulation Section, Team Eureka and the Rapid MissionArchitecture Team[7].The A-Team is a focal point for innovative formulationapproaches and people within JPL. It relies on a largebackground of study resources, creative thinkers and “greybeard” scrutinizers, advanced tools, and subject matterexperts with both breadth and depth in experience andexpertise that are all available at JPL. The A-Team isdesigned to be a rapid and efficient process takingapproximately 6 weeks (the entire process can be as short asjust a few days or as long as up to three months) and costingthe equivalent of a work-month of a full-time employee orless. Studies begin with detailed planning and client reviewfollowed by study sessions, analysis work, and reporting.The staffing on each study is customized to the study goalsand objectives, and it is addressed early in the A-Teamprocess. Sessions are generally half-day or whole-day eventsand conducted over a series of days with focused agendas thatare moderated by a trained facilitator. Preliminary results andknowledge capture are available within hours of each session,and a final report is generally available two weeks later.One of the biggest challenges facing early conceptdevelopment is understanding the gradient in science returnversus various available mission scenarios and payload options. Often times, major areas of scientific inquiry havealready been prioritized by science groups, including throughthe National Research Council’s Decadal Studies inAstronomy, Planetary, and Earth Science. Yet science teamscontinue to struggle, especially in competitive missionsolicitations, to capture the right amount of scope that’sachievable within the cost constraints of the opportunity.Often the desire to completely and comprehensively study ascience area in just one mission (after all, true missionopportunities are rare) drives teams to take on too much,providing requirements that are unachievable within theresources of the opportunity without inducing unacceptableimplementation risk. Alternatively, science teams can seekto reduce risk by using an established instrument, but havenot thought through the traceability and key aspects of thescience question to justify its use. Both scenarios lead to badassumptions at the beginning of the concept development thatcan then ripple through implementation option choices,potentially preventing what would have been a good scienceinvestigation from being selected.The purpose of this paper is first to provide some additionalbackground and summary of the A-Team process, tools,people, and facilities. We then focus on the A-Teammethodology for overcoming the barriers of defining thescience scope well at the early concept development stage.This includes understanding the science story andtraceability, and then examining the gradient in science returnversus key characteristics of observables, developing theright payload and mission requirement specification throughexamining the science and implementation trade space.

Ziemer, John K.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Summary of the Science Performed Onboard the International Space Station within the United States Orbital Segment during Increments 16 and 17

With the launch of the STS-122 on February 7, 2008, which delivered the European Columbus science module and the upcoming STS-124 flight, which will deliver the Japanese Kibo science module in May 2008, the International Space Station will become truly International with Europe and Japan joining the United States of America and Russia to perform science on a continuous basis in a wide spectrum of science disciplines. The last science module, Kibo, of the United States Orbital Segment (USOS) will be mated to the station on time to celebrate its first decade in low Earth orbit in October 2008 (end of Increment 17), thus ushering in the second decade of the station with all the USOS science modules mated and performing science. The arrival of the Kibo science module will also mark continuous human presence on the station for eighty eight (88) months, and, with the addition of the ESA science module during the STS-122 flight, the USOS will be made up of four space agencies: CSA, ESA, JAXA and NASA, spanning three continents. With the additional partners coming onboard with different research needs, every effort is being made to coordinate science across the USOS segment in an integrated manner for the benefit of all parties. One of the objectives of this paper is to discuss the integrated manner in which science planning/replanning and prioritization during the execution phase of an increment is being done. The main focus, though, of this paper is to summarize and to discuss the science performed during Increments 16 and 17 (October 2007 to October 2008). The discussion will focus mainly on the primary objectives of each investigation and their associated hypotheses that were investigated during these two Increments. Also, preliminary science results will be discussed for each of the investigation as science results availability permit. Additionally, the paper will briefly touch on what the science complement for these two increments was and what was actually accomplished due to real time science implementation and constraints. Finally, the paper will briefly discuss the science research complements for the next three Increments: Increments 18 to 20, in order to preview how much science might be accomplished during these three upcoming Increments of the station next decade.

Jules, Kenol↗