Results for “Moving target defense” — Page 3

NASA NTRS2010

Marshall Application Realignment System (MARS) Architecture

The Marshall Application Realignment System (MARS) Architecture project was established to meet the certification requirements of the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) V2.0 Federal Enterprise Architecture Certification (FEAC) Institute program and to provide added value to the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Application Portfolio Management process. The MARS Architecture aims to: (1) address the NASA MSFC Chief Information Officer (CIO) strategic initiative to improve Application Portfolio Management (APM) by optimizing investments and improving portfolio performance, and (2) develop a decision-aiding capability by which applications registered within the MSFC application portfolio can be analyzed and considered for retirement or decommission. The MARS Architecture describes a to-be target capability that supports application portfolio analysis against scoring measures (based on value) and overall portfolio performance objectives (based on enterprise needs and policies). This scoring and decision-aiding capability supports the process by which MSFC application investments are realigned or retired from the application portfolio. The MARS Architecture is a multi-phase effort to: (1) conduct strategic architecture planning and knowledge development based on the DoDAF V2.0 six-step methodology, (2) describe one architecture through multiple viewpoints, (3) conduct portfolio analyses based on a defined operational concept, and (4) enable a new capability to support the MSFC enterprise IT management mission, vision, and goals. This report documents Phase 1 (Strategy and Design), which includes discovery, planning, and development of initial architecture viewpoints. Phase 2 will move forward the process of building the architecture, widening the scope to include application realignment (in addition to application retirement), and validating the underlying architecture logic before moving into Phase 3. The MARS Architecture key stakeholders are most interested in Phase 3 because this is where the data analysis, scoring, and recommendation capability is realized. Stakeholders want to see the benefits derived from reducing the steady-state application base and identify opportunities for portfolio performance improvement and application realignment.

Belshe, Andrea↗

DOE OSTI2020

Optimization of Geometric Perturbations on a Rod Moving Through a High Explosive Target

After completing a study to ensure the simulation results were converged, several high resolution 3D Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) simulations of copper rods impacting a high explosive (LX14) target were performed. This was then formulated into an optimization problem: I wanted to find the optimum shape and location of a perturbation on the rod that would maximize its erosion after it left the target. The shape of the perturbation was modeled as a 2D Gaussian bump and parameterized by its location along the rod axis (z 0 ) and amplitude (A). The final mass of the coherent part of the rod as it leaves the target was used as a metric to represent the erosion of the rod, and the optimization was formulated to maximize this metric with respect to the aforementioned design variables. Due to the expensive nature of the high-fidelity 3D SPH simulations, a surrogate model needed to be chosen so that many function calls to the optimizer would be feasible. Thus, a strategic full factorial sampling plan was chosen to build a dataset, which consisted of 24 high-fidelity simulations. Two surrogate models, a third order polynomial regression model and a Gaussian Process Model, were analyzed using a 14%/86% test/train holdout technique. The root mean square and R2 score of the test set was used to determine the best model, and the third order polynomial regression model was chosen as the surrogate model. Finally, the Nelder-Mead Simplex and Basin-hopping optimization algorithms were implemented, and it was found that the two algorithms gave slightly different optimum values. Nelder-Mead gave an optimum point of [z* 0 ;A*] = [9:9;0:4] and Basin-Hopping gave an optimum value of x* = [z* 0 ;A*] = [9:2;0:1].

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗