Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “NASA Standards”

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 505 records · Page 28
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

NASA Scientific and Technical Information Standards

This document presents general recommended standards for documenting scientific and technical information (STI) from a number of scientific and engineering disciplines. It is a companion publication to NASA SP-7084, "Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization: A Handbook for Technical Writers and Editors," and is intended primarily for STI personnel and publishing personnel within NASA and who support NASA STI publishing. Section 1 gives an overview of NASA STI publications. Section 2 discusses figure preparation considerations. Section 3 covers table design, and Section 4 gives information about symbols and math related to STI publishing. Section 5 covers units of measure. Section 6 discusses References, and Section 7 discusses electronic documents. Section 8 covers information related to the review of STI prior to publication; this covers both technical and dissemination review and approval, including data quality. Section 9 discusses printing and dissemination related to STI, and Section 10 gives abbreviations and acronyms used in the document.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1981

Overview of the current MITRE effort

A logical view of the applications data service (ADS) as a distributed system was adopted. A hierarchical classification scheme of ADS features comprising 70 modes was developed. The framework for a preliminary assessment of the applicability Federal, national, and international standards to ADS was provided by the classification. Approximately 300 standards were gathered, screened, and documented. The survey was enlarged to incorporate standards from NASA headquarters and centers. Two efforts were initiated to (1) survey methodologies of the three ADS pilots, and (2) identify the requirements for standards of ADS members based on a survey of the pilots and on representative future members. Preliminary results of the requirements survey were used in the development of criteria for the evaluation of candidate standards. An evaluation process was designed incorporating these criteria.

Kuch, T.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Understanding Risk Tolerance and Building an Effective Safety Culture

Estimates range from 65-90 percent of catastrophic mishaps are due to human error. NASA's human factors-related mishaps causes are estimated at approximately 75 percent. As much as we'd like to error-proof our work environment, even the most automated and complex technical endeavors require human interaction... and are vulnerable to human frailty. Industry and government are focusing not only on human factors integration into hazardous work environments, but also looking for practical approaches to cultivating a strong Safety Culture that diminishes risk. Industry and government organizations have recognized the value of monitoring leading indicators to identify potential risk vulnerabilities. NASA has adapted this approach to assess risk controls associated with hazardous, critical, and complex facilities. NASA's facility risk assessments integrate commercial loss control, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Process Safety, API (American Petroleum Institute) Performance Indicator Standard, and NASA Operational Readiness Inspection concepts to identify risk control vulnerabilities.

Loyd, David↗
NASA NTRS2012

Revision of ISO 15859 Aerospace Fluid Standards

A detailed review of ISO 15859 "Space Systems - Fluid Characteristics, Sampling and Test Methods" was performed An approach to revising Parts 1-9 and 11-13 was developed and concurred by the NASA Technical Standards Program Office. The approach was to align them with the highest level source documents, and not to program-specific requirements. The updated documents were prepared and presented.

Greene, Benjamin↗
NASA NTRS2009

"Fly-by-Wireless" Vehicles and Evaluations of ISA 100 Applications to Space-Flight

"Fly-by-Wireless" (What is it?) Vision: To minimize cables and connectors and increase functionality across the aerospace industry by providing reliable, lower cost, modular, and higher performance alternatives to wired data connectivity to benefit the entire vehicle/program life-cycle. Focus Areas: 1. System Engineering and Integration to reduce cables and connectors. 2. Provisions for modularity and accessibility in the vehicle architecture. 3. Develop Alternatives to wired connectivity (the "tool box").NASA and Aerospace depend more and more on cost-effective solutions that can meet our requirements. ISA-100.11 a is a promising new standard and NASA wants to evaluate it. NASA should be involved in understanding and contributing to other ISA-100 efforts that contribute to "Fly-by-Wireless" and it's objectives. ISA can engage other aerospace groups that are working on similar goals and obtain more aerospace industry perspective.

Studor, George F.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Advanced Gas Turbine (AGT) Technology Development Project, ceramic component developments

The ceramic component technology development activity conducted by Standard Oil Engineered Materials Company while performing as a principal subcontractor to the Garrett Auxiliary Power Division for the Advanced Gas Turbine (AGT) Technology Development Project (NASA Contract DEN3-167) is summarized. The report covers the period October 1979 through July 1987, and includes information concerning ceramic technology work categorized as common and unique. The former pertains to ceramic development applicable to two parallel AGT projects established by NASA contracts DEN3-168 (AGT100) and DEN3-167 (AGT101), whereas the unique work solely pertains to Garrett directed activity under the latter contract. The AGT101 Technology Development Project is sponsored by DOE and administered by NASA-Lewis. Standard Oil directed its efforts toward the development of ceramic materials in the silicon-carbide family. Various shape forming and fabrication methods, and nondestructive evaluation techniques were explored to produce the static structural components for the ceramic engine. This permitted engine testing to proceed without program slippage.

Teneyck, M. O.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancing Dust Tolerant Mechanisms for a Sustained Exploration of the Moon

Introduction: “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the Moon. I think we can overcome other physio-logical or physical or mechanical problems except dust.”– Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 Technical Debrief The Apollo missions revealed the impact of lu-nar dust on mechanisms. Lunar dust particles are jagged and electrostatically charged, giving them the ability to bind or damage mechanisms and alter thermal properties. Reports documented clogged equipment and jammed mechanisms in every mission, regardless of surface duration, as well as clogged mechanisms in the Extravehicular Mobility Suit (EMS), including zippers, wrist and hose locks, faceplates, and sunshades [1-2]. Several astronauts remarked they could not have sustained surface activity much longer because clogged joints would have frozen up completely [2]. Effective dust mitigation strategies are need-ed to support longer duration stays on the lunar surface [3-4]. State of the Art: Technology for mechanisms able to operate in dusty enviroments is advancing rapidly due to the needs of both Mars rovers and the Artemis program. Vacuum-tight connectors are essential for spacesuits and habitats, and their performance can be dependent on cleaning technologies, which have proven difficult on the lunar surface. Several TRL 3-5 technologies are undergoing tests with the expectation to reach TRL 6 within 1-2 years. Some mechanisms will be infused and tested on the VIPER (Volatiles Inves-tigating Polar Exploration Rover) mission planned for mid-2020s. NASA Funded Efforts: NASA has recognized the need for dust tolerant mechanisms, and has partnered with industry to advance the state-of-the-art. At NASA GRC, KSC, and JSC, the Dust Tolerant Mechanisms Project is working to devel-op advanced actuator seals for rotary joints and rotary bearing technologies for long-term sus-tained operation in lunar dust environments. An-other NASA project at NASA GRC, partnered with GSFC, JPL, and KSC is Motors for Dusty & Ex-treme Cold Environments (MDECE). MDECE is developing an unheated magnetically-geared mo-tor that can operate continuously for a long dura-tion at an ambient temperature of -243 ºC (33 K). NASA GRC has the capability to characterize the effects of dust on seals, mechanisms, and other mating surfaces and components under lunar conditions [5]. Through the SBIR/STTR program, NASA has funded several companies to advance dust toler-ant mechanisms via the Dust Tolerant Mecha-nisms sub-topic with applications in surface mobil-ity, spacesuits, connectors, joints, and more. LSIC and Community Efforts: The Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC) Dust Miti-gation focus group has fostered collaborations across NASA, industry, and academia to develop solutions that minimizes the impact of lunar dust on robotic and human systems. Community ef-forts have included topical meetings on dust tol-erant mechanisms, featured technology presenta-tions, and feedback to NASA on potential gaps and needs. Testing: In 2021, NASA released NASA-STD-1008 [6]. This NASA Technical Standard estab-lishes minimum requirements and provides guid-ance for testing systems and hardware to be ex-posed to dust in planetary environments. The standard has specific sections dedicated to Mechanisms Testing (e.g. bearings, gears) as well as Seals and Mating Surfaces Testing (e.g. hatches, docking systems). Gaps and Needs: NASA is tracking dust tol-erant mechanisms as a gap in a cross-directorate analysis of capability areas needed to enable fu-ture human space-flight architectures. Two high-priority gap areas include additional facilities for testing mechanisms in lunar-surface conditions, and a better understanding of vulnerabilities to the smallest, nanometer-scale dust particles. Conclusion: Understanding and mitigating lu-nar dust is critical to successful, sustained opera-tions on the lunar surface – whether autonomous or otherwise. This presentation will discuss both the state-of-the-art and open needs in lunar dust tolerant mechanisms, technology impacts, mitiga-tion approaches, testing, LSIC community efforts, and more. References: [1] Gaier, J. R. (2020). The Im-pact of Dust on Lunar Surface Equipment During Apollo. Lunar Dust 2020. [2] GRC, & Gaier, J. R. (2005). The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Sys-tems During the Apollo Missions. [3] Johansen, M. R. (2020). An Update on NASA’s Lunar Dust Mitigation Strategy. Lunar Dust 2020. [4] ASI, CSA, ESA, JAXA, & NASA. (2016). Dust Mitiga-tion Gap Assessment Report. [5] Jimenez, N. et al (2022), LPSC Abstract 2572. [6] NASA-STD-1008, 2021.

J I Nunez↗
NASA NTRS2011

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners (Second Edition)

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a comprehensive, structured, and logical analysis method aimed at identifying and assessing risks in complex technological systems for the purpose of cost-effectively improving their safety and performance. NASA's objective is to better understand and effectively manage risk, and thus more effectively ensure mission and programmatic success, and to achieve and maintain high safety standards at NASA. NASA intends to use risk assessment in its programs and projects to support optimal management decision making for the improvement of safety and program performance. In addition to using quantitative/probabilistic risk assessment to improve safety and enhance the safety decision process, NASA has incorporated quantitative risk assessment into its system safety assessment process, which until now has relied primarily on a qualitative representation of risk. Also, NASA has recently adopted the Risk-Informed Decision Making (RIDM) process [1-1] as a valuable addition to supplement existing deterministic and experience-based engineering methods and tools. Over the years, NASA has been a leader in most of the technologies it has employed in its programs. One would think that PRA should be no exception. In fact, it would be natural for NASA to be a leader in PRA because, as a technology pioneer, NASA uses risk assessment and management implicitly or explicitly on a daily basis. NASA has probabilistic safety requirements (thresholds and goals) for crew transportation system missions to the International Space Station (ISS) [1-2]. NASA intends to have probabilistic requirements for any new human spaceflight transportation system acquisition. Methods to perform risk and reliability assessment in the early 1960s originated in U.S. aerospace and missile programs. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is an example. It would have been a reasonable extrapolation to expect that NASA would also become the world leader in the application of PRA. That was, however, not to happen. Early in the Apollo program, estimates of the probability for a successful roundtrip human mission to the moon yielded disappointingly low (and suspect) values and NASA became discouraged from further performing quantitative risk analyses until some two decades later when the methods were more refined, rigorous, and repeatable. Instead, NASA decided to rely primarily on the Hazard Analysis (HA) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) methods for system safety assessment.

Stamatelatos,Michael↗
NASA NTRS1980

Applications of Spacelab Payload Standard Modular Electronics /SPSME/

The NASA sponsored Spacelab Payload Standard Modular Electronics program has been designed with the basic objective of providing a space-qualified set of standardized modular electronics to support investigations identified for Spacelab payloads. These units are reusable, have functional, physical, and interface characteristics which allow them to be conveniently assembled in a multitude of configurations, and functionally interchangeable with their ground-based equivalents. The interfacing and control modules are described and typical hardware applications are presented.

Wilkinson, D. D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of Lunar EVA Fitness for Duty Standards for Aerobic Capacity and Muscle Strength

Current aerobic Fitness Standards for NASA astronauts are based on peak aerobic capacity (i.e. VO2peak (ml/kg/min))and are related to aerobic metabolic requirements for Extravehicular Activity (EVA) in microgravity and in 1 g operational environments. Standards for muscle strength need to be developed. Fitness for Duty Standards for partial gravity EVA (e.g. 1/6 g EVA on the Lunar surface) are not developed in terms of aerobic fitness and muscle strength. Defining thresholds for aerobic fitness and muscle strength will help to provide guidance in determining recommendations for optimal fitness necessary for partial g EVA success.

D Frisco↗
NASA NTRS2016

ESDIS Standards Office (ESO): Requirements, Standards and Practices

The ESDIS Standards Office assists the ESDIS Project in formulating standards policy for NASA Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS), coordinates standards activities within ESDIS, and provides technical expertise and assistance with standards related tasks within the NASA Earth Science Data System Working Groups (ESDSWG). This poster summarizes information found on the earthdata.nasa.gov site that describes the ESO.

Interoperability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

What is the Role of Usability and Trust in Autonomy?

Usability encompasses learnability, efficiency, memorability, effectiveness, and satisfaction. NASA’s standards for usability acceptance criteria focus on interfaces that help operators achieve their tasks efficiently, effectively, and with satisfaction. However, discussions on usability, especially regarding future highly automated and autonomous systems, rarely include trust. As NASA plans for long-duration exploration missions, it envisions astronauts operating more independently from Mission Control on Earth. This independence will drive the development of these highly automated and autonomous systems that astronauts will use daily. To prepare for this future, our team has developed a scheduling and execution software tool that facilitates self-scheduling, allowing astronauts to independently manage their own schedule without Mission Control’s involvement. Over many years, we have developed, matured, and evaluated our software tool in extreme environments, prioritizing user-centered design and high usability. These evaluations have included multiple campaigns in NASA analogs, including NEEMO, BASALT, and HERA, as well as technology demonstrations onboard the International Space Station. Our recent research on software interfaces for future astronaut autonomy revealed a strong correlation between usability and trust measures. In a controlled lab experiment, we asked novice users to perform a complex scheduling task, during which the software immediately validated the schedule’s constraints and checked for violations. We collected usability (User Experience Questionnaire, UEQ) and trust (Trust in Automated Systems scale, TAS) measures; significant, strong, and moderate correlations emerged between several of the UEQ metrics and TAS. These results support the argument for investing in usability early to enable and sustain trust in highly automated and autonomous systems.

usability↗
NASA NTRS2026

Machine Learning for Predicting Team Functioning in HERA Missions

Team functioning is integral to success in future long term space exploration missions. Proactively detecting declines in team functioning can mitigate conflict and ensure mission success. This project developed a speech-based artificial intelligence (AI) system that unobtrusively predicts degradation in team functioning, including performance and cohesion, in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaigns 4 and 5. The AI system conducted automated analysis of the prosodic (tone of voice) and linguistic (language content) components of speech, modeling interpersonal dynamics at both the turn-taking and day-wide levels. We investigated team functioning via observing structured interactions (i.e., multi-mission space exploration vehicle-extra vehicular activity [MMSEV-EVA], team interaction battery [TIB]) and unstructured interactions before the MMSEV-EVA task. We developed machine learning models to predict team functioning (objective task accuracy, self reported team efficacy and self reported team cohesion) by analyzing OpenSmile acoustic features, linguistic descriptors extracted via the linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) dictionary, and semantic embeddings. In the TIB, static models using logistic regression and random forests were not able to predict task accuracy, but predicted team efficacy and cohesion during both the decision making and relational tasks to a moderate level (60-70%). Majority voting on the individual turns to predict day long team efficacy further increased accuracies (70-80%). Finally, long short-term memory (LSTM) models showed the best performance across all variables (80-91%), including task performance. In the MMSEV-EVA, static models achieved an accuracy of 60% with majority voting, which increased to 80% through the incorporation of mission day as a variable, accounting for the learning effect. A key finding across both tasks was the "team-dependent" nature of these interactions; models achieved much higher accuracy when trained on prior days of the same team's data rather than attempting to generalize across entirely different teams, with even 1-2 days of prior data per team achieving 5-15% improvement over team-independent models. In addition, the incorporation of pre-task data from the same team also improves model performance, e.g., incorporating data from the decision-making task of the TIB, which preceded the relational task, improved the prediction of team efficacy and cohesion during the latter. We compared model performance when trained on machine-generated data compared to data that had been further corrected by human annotators. Overall, models trained on human-corrected data exhibited a modest improvement in performance, particularly when acoustic features were used. We found no significant correlation between word error rate (WER) and model accuracy (r(55) = -0.08, p = 0.51), but model’s accuracy was significantly higher for medium/high quality transcription (0.74 (SD = 0.48)) compared to the low-quality group (0.64 (SD = 0.36)) (t(63)=2.82, p = 0.006). Based on these, several design recommendation emerge, that could inform Standards at NASA. Models predicting team functioning should incorporate at least one to two days of historical interaction data, include brief pre-task discussions, and explicitly model temporal learning effects, especially for longer operational tasks. Minimum quality standards for automated speech-processing pipelines are needed, given the performance gains observed with manually corrected acoustic data. Finally, systems should leverage both acoustic features and language embeddings in complementary ways, with modality choices and fusion strategies tailored to mission context, task demands, and data quality requirements.

Shrivatsa Mishra↗
NASA NTRS2019

History of NASA's Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7)

NASA's Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7) from materials and assembled articles for spaceflight has evolved since the Apollo program for over 50 years to meet various habitable spacecraft nonmetallic programmatic requirements. Now mandated by NASA STD-6016A, Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft, all nonmetallic materials used in habitable flight compartments, with the exception of ceramics, metal oxides, inorganic glasses, and materials used in sealed containers, must meet the offgassing requirements in NASA-STD-6001B Test 7. This manuscript presents the history of Test 7, beginning with the Apollo spacecraft nonmetallic materials selection guidelines and test requirements in 1967, in which tests were performed in mostly oxygen atmospheres. It progresses through Skylab, Space Shuttle, International Space Station nonmetals testing, and acceptance requirements with milder test environments. This review of the history of Test 7 presents the reader with a perspective on the development and changes undergone since inception to the present. Related NASA standard tests (some now former, discontinued, combined, or supplemental) including Test 6, Odor Assessment, Test 16, Determination of Offgassed Products from Assembled Articles, and Test 12, Total Spacecraft Cabin Offgassing, are discussed in context

Greene, Benjamin↗
NASA NTRS2019

Orbital Debris Quarterly News

Inside - NASA Technical Standard Process for Limiting Orbital Debris Revision Ratified - Testing and Modeling the Demisability of Fiber-Reinforced Plastics - An Extended Parametric Study of the Effects of Large Constellations on the Future Debris Environment - Meeting Reports - Abstracts from the NASA HVIT - Abstracts from the NASA ODPO - ODQN Vol. 23, Issue 1&2 Errata - Orbital Debris Analyst - Space Missions/Satellite Box Score

Phillip Anz-Meador↗