2016 Habitat Standing Review Panel: Research Plan Review for Deep Space Habitat, Livability, Well-Being, and Performance
No abstract available
Steinberg, Susan↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “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.
A Study of Technical Engineering Peer Reviews at NASA
This report describes the state of practices of design reviews at NASA and research into what can be done to improve peer review practices. There are many types of reviews at NASA: required and not, formalized and informal, programmatic and technical. Standing project formal reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the technical, engineering peer reviews that support teams' work on such projects are informal, some times ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. The goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA's experience, supported by academic research and methodologies to ultimately improve the process. This research has determined that the organization, composition, scope, and approach of the reviews impact their success. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can identify key areas of concern before or in the reviews. Product definition tools like the Project Priority Matrix, engineering-focused Customer Value Chain Analysis (CVCA), and project or system-based Quality Function Deployment (QFD) help prioritize resources in reviews. The use of information technology and structured design methodologies can strengthen the engineering peer review process to help NASA work towards error-proofing the design process.
Chao, Lawrence P.↗
Engineering Technical Review Planning Briefing
The general topics covered in the engineering technical planning briefing are 1) overviews of NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and Engineering, 2) the NASA Systems Engineering(SE) Engine and its implementation , 3) the NASA Project Life Cycle, 4) MSFC Technical Management Branch Services in relation to the SE Engine and the Project Life Cycle , 5) Technical Reviews, 6) NASA Human Factor Design Guidance , and 7) the MSFC Human Factors Team. The engineering technical review portion of the presentation is the primary focus of the overall presentation and will address the definition of a design review, execution guidance, the essential stages of a technical review, and the overall review planning life cycle. Examples of a technical review plan content, review approaches, review schedules, and the review process will be provided and discussed. The human factors portion of the presentation will focus on the NASA guidance for human factors. Human factors definition, categories, design guidance, and human factor specialist roles will be addressed. In addition, the NASA Systems Engineering Engine description, definition, and application will be reviewed as background leading into the NASA Project Life Cycle Overview and technical review planning discussion.
Gardner, Terrie↗
2024 Annual Merit Review - Vehicle Technologies Office: Results Report
The 2024 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 3-6, 2024, in Arlington, Virginia. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 226 individual activities were reviewed by 218 reviewers. Exactly 888 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. Each project was reviewed by 2–7 independent reviewers, with a majority of projects having 4–5 reviewers. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
Support for Systematic Code Reviews with the SCRUB Tool
SCRUB is a code review tool that supports both large, team-based software development efforts (e.g., for mission software) as well as individual tasks. The tool was developed at JPL to support a new, streamlined code review process that combines human-generated review reports with program-generated review reports from a customizable range of state-of-the-art source code analyzers. The leading commercial tools include Codesonar, Coverity, and Klocwork, each of which can achieve a reasonably low rate of false-positives in the warnings that they generate. The time required to analyze code with these tools can vary greatly. In each case, however, the tools produce results that would be difficult to realize with human code inspections alone. There is little overlap in the results produced by the different analyzers, and each analyzer used generally increases the effectiveness of the overall effort. The SCRUB tool allows all reports to be accessed through a single, uniform interface (see figure) that facilitates brows ing code and reports. Improvements over existing software include significant simplification, and leveraging of a range of commercial, static source code analyzers in a single, uniform framework. The tool runs as a small stand-alone application, avoiding the security problems related to tools based on Web browsers. A developer or reviewer, for instance, must have already obtained access rights to a code base before that code can be browsed and reviewed with the SCRUB tool. The tool cannot open any files or folders to which the user does not already have access. This means that the tool does not need to enforce or administer any additional security policies. The analysis results presented through the SCRUB tool s user interface are always computed off-line, given that, especially for larger projects, this computation can take longer than appropriate for interactive tool use. The recommended code review process that is supported by the SCRUB tool consists of three phases: Code Review, Developer Response, and Closeout Resolution. In the Code Review phase, all tool-based analysis reports are generated, and specific comments from expert code reviewers are entered into the SCRUB tool. In the second phase, Developer Response, the developer is asked to respond to each comment and tool-report that was produced, either agreeing or disagreeing to provide a fix that addresses the issue that was raised. In the third phase, Closeout Resolution, all disagreements are discussed in a meeting of all parties involved, and a resolution is made for all disagreements. The first two phases generally take one week each, and the third phase is concluded in a single closeout meeting.
Holzmann, Gerald J.↗
Actions Needed to Ensure Scientific and Technical Information is Adequately Reviewed at Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center
This audit was initiated in response to a hotline complaint regarding the review, approval, and release of scientific and technical information (STI) at Johnson Space Center. The complainant alleged that Johnson personnel conducting export control reviews of STI were not fully qualified to conduct those reviews and that the reviews often did not occur until after the STI had been publicly released. NASA guidance requires that STI, defined as the results of basic and applied scientific, technical, and related engineering research and development, undergo certain reviews prior to being released outside of NASA or to audiences that include foreign nationals. The process includes technical, national security, export control, copyright, and trade secret (e.g., proprietary data) reviews. The review process was designed to preclude the inappropriate dissemination of sensitive information while ensuring that NASA complies with a requirement of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (the Space Act)1 to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information resulting from NASA research activities. We focused our audit on evaluating the STI review process: specifically, determining whether the roles and responsibilities for the review, approval, and release of STI were adequately defined and documented in NASA and Center-level guidance and whether that guidance was effectively implemented at Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. Johnson was included in the review because it was the source of the initial complaint, and Goddard, Langley, and Marshall were included because those Centers consistently produce significant amounts of STI.
Information management↗
The Integrated Medical Model: Outcomes from Independent Review
In 2016, the Integrated Medical Model (IMM) v4.0 underwent an extensive external review in preparation for transition to an operational status. In order to insure impartiality of the review process, the Exploration Medical Capabilities Element of NASA's Human Research Program convened the review through the Systems Review Office at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). The review board convened by GSFC consisted of persons from both NASA and academia with expertise in the fields of statistics, epidemiology, modeling, software development, aerospace medicine, and project management (see Figure 1). The board reviewed software and code standards, as well as evidence pedigree associated with both the input and outcomes information. The board also assesses the models verification, validation, sensitivity to parameters and ability to answer operational questions. This talk will discuss the processes for designing the review, how the review progressed and the findings from the board, as well as summarize the IMM project responses to those findings. Overall, the board found that the IMM is scientifically sound, represents a necessary, comprehensive approach to identifying medical and environmental risks facing astronauts in long duration missions and is an excellent tool for communication between engineers and physicians. The board also found IMM and its customer(s) should convene an additional review of the IMM data sources and to develop a sustainable approach to augment, peer review, and maintain the information utilized in the IMM. The board found this is critically important because medical knowledge continues to evolve. Delivery of IMM v4.0 to the Crew Health and Safety (CHS) Program will occur in the 2017. Once delivered for operational decision support, IMM v4.0 will provide CHS with additional quantitative capability in to assess astronaut medical risks and required medical capabilities to help drive down overall mission risks.
medical equipment↗
Assessment of the NASA Flight Assurance Review Program
The NASA flight assurance review program to develop minimum standard guidelines for flight assurance reviews was assessed. Documents from NASA centers and NASA headquarters to determine current design review practices and procedures were evaluated. Six reviews were identified for the recommended minimum. The practices and procedures used at the different centers to incorporate the most effective ones into the minimum standard review guidelines were analyzed and guidelines for procedures, personnel and responsibilies, review items/data checklist, and feedback and closeout were defined. The six recommended reviews and the minimum standards guidelines developed for flight assurance reviews are presented. Observations and conclusions for further improving the NASA review and quality assurance process are outlined.
Holmes, J.↗
Reducing NPR 7120.5D to Practice: Preparing for a Life-Cycle Review
In March 2007, NASA issued revised rules for space flight project management, NPR 7120.5D, 'NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements.' Central to the new rules was the construct of Key Decision Points, maturity gates that the project team must pass in order to continue development. In order that the KDP decision be fully informed, the NPR required, as entrance criteria for the gate, the generation and delivery of specified planning, technical, and cost/schedule documents (gate products) and a life-cycle review, the Preliminary Design Review. Building on JPL experience on the Prometheus and Juno projects, the team successfully organized for and conducted these reviews on an aggressive schedule. Key actions were taken to proactively interact with the SRB, produce high-quality gate products with stakeholder review, generate review presentation materials, and handle a myriad of supporting logistical functions. A review preparation team was established, including a Review Captain and leads for documentation, information systems, and logistics, and their roles, responsibilities and task assignments were identified. Aids were produced, including a detailed review preparation schedule and a comprehensive gate products production table. Institutional support was leveraged early and often. Implementation strategy reflected the needs of a nationally-distributed team, as well as applicable export control and IT security requirements. This paper gives a brief overview of the GRAIL mission and its project management challenges, provides a detailed description of project PMSR and PDR preparation and execution activities, including positive and negative lessons learned, and identifies recommendations for future NASA (and non-NASA) project teams.
NPR 7120.5D↗
I Hate Reviews!
In our business we have all kinds of reviews: financial reviews, strategy reviews, technical reviews, test reviews, design reviews, baseline reviews, etc., etc. Some ways to avoid the most common pitfalls that I find specifically in these kinds of reviews are given.
Little, Terry↗
Systems Innovation: Modernization & Efficiencies for ESH&Q Reviews
Environmental compliance reviews at INL have traditionally been managed through fragmented systems, relying on multiple spreadsheets and manual processes. This inefficiency led to time-consuming status updates and redundant tasks, such as manually sending reminder emails and transferring data from Excel to the Environmental Review Process (ERP). Initial attempts to streamline these processes using Power Automate and Excel revealed significant limitations, necessitating a more comprehensive solution. To address these immediate inefficiencies, automated workflows were developed using Power Automate. These workflows were designed to send scheduled status update reminders and capture responses through standardized forms, with submitted data flowing directly into centralized Excel trackers. This automation reduced the administrative burden, improved data accuracy, and enabled faster, more consistent reporting. Specifically, email automation achieved a 65% efficiency gain, while data integration saw a 48% improvement, resulting in 91% of project statuses being updated within two months. Despite the improvements brought by Power Automate, the fragmented nature of the review processes persisted. To further enhance efficiency and accuracy, the Integrated Review Tool (IRT) was developed. The IRT aims to centralize review initiation and connect team systems, creating an interconnected data infrastructure that preserves team autonomy while enhancing overall efficiency. This tool automates email reminders, centralizes reviews, and streamlines data integration, significantly improving the accuracy and efficiency of environmental compliance reviews. The design and development of the IRT involved advanced systems methodology, process mapping, project management, and collaboration with subject matter experts. The minimum viable product design is 100% complete, and system development is currently underway, with expected outcomes including a centralized entry point for all ESH&Q reviews, automated routing, real-time tracking and analytics, AI integration, and a user-friendly interface. This project demonstrates the potential of leveraging automation and integrated systems to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and decision-making in environmental reporting and compliance processes at INL.
99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
The NPG 7120.5A Electronic Review Process
The use of electronics to review a document is well within the technical realm of today's state-of-the-art workplace. File servers and web site interaction are common tools for many NASA employees. The electronic comment processing described here was developed for the NPG 7120.5A review to augment the existing NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS). The NODIS system is NASA's official system for formal review, approval and storage of NASA Directives. The electronic review process worked so well that NASA and other agencies may want to consider it as one of our "best practices." It was participatory decision making at its very best, a process that attracted dozens of very good ideas to improve the document as well as the way we can be managing projects far more effectively. The revision of NPG 7120.5A has significant implications for the way all elements of the Agency accomplish program and project management. Therefore, the review of NPG 7120.5A was an Agencywide effort with high visibility, heavy participation and a short schedule. The level of involvement created interest in supplementing the formal NODIS system with a system to collect comments efficiently and to allow the Centers and Codes to review and consolidate their comments into the official system in a short period of time. In addition, the Program Management Council Working Group (PMCWG), responsible for the revision of the document and the disposition of official comments, needed an electronic system to manage the disposition of comments, obtain PMCWG consensus on each disposition, and coordinate the disposition with the appropriate Headquarters Code that had submitted the official comment. The combined NASA and contractor talents and resources provided a system that supplemented the NODIS system and its operating personnel to produce a thorough review and approval of NPG 7120.5A on April 3, 1998, 7.5 months from the start of the process. The original six-month schedule is indicated. All milestones occurred on time, except for completion of comment disposition, which required an additional 30 days. Approval of the document occurred sixteen days after completion of the "Purple Package."
McBrayer, Robert↗
Stress, Cognition, and Human Performance: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
The following literature review addresses the effects of various stressors on cognition. While attempting to be as inclusive as possible, the review focuses its examination on the relationships between cognitive appraisal, attention, memory, and stress as they relate to information processing and human performance. The review begins with an overview of constructs and theoretical perspectives followed by an examination of effects across attention, memory, perceptual-motor functions, judgment and decision making, putative stressors such as workload, thermals, noise, and fatigue and closes with a discussion of moderating variables and related topics. In summation of the review, a conceptual framework for cognitive process under stress has been assembled. As one might imagine, the research literature that addresses stress, theories governing its effects on human performance, and experimental evidence that supports these notions is large and diverse. In attempting to organize and synthesize this body of work, I was guided by several earlier efforts (Bourne & Yaroush, 2003; Driskell, Mullen, Johnson, Hughes, & Batchelor, 1992; Driskell & Salas, 1996; Haridcock & Desmond, 2001; Stokes & Kite, 1994). These authors should be credited with accomplishing the monumental task of providing focused reviews in this area and their collective efforts laid the foundation for this present review. Similarly, the format of this review has been designed in accordance with these previous exemplars. However, each of these previous efforts either simply reported general findings, without sufficient experimental illustration, or narrowed their scope of investigation to the extent that the breadth of such findings remained hidden from the reader. Moreover, none of these examinations yielded an architecture that adequately describes or explains the inter-relations between information processing elements under stress conditions.
Stress↗
Proposal for Ground Safety Review Coordination at ISS Launch Sites
As the transportation of ISS payloads and cargo shifts from KSC to other launch sites, close coordination of ground safety review processes would be of benefit to all parties. The benefit would have the launch sites receiving consistent data that would require less effort to review while still meeting their needs. Until recently, ground safety focus for the ISS program has been almost exclusively for prelaunch processing at KSC/post-landing processing at KSC/DFRC Each launch site, used by the ISS Program, has a ground safety review process. Ground safety viewed as local prerogative. Up till now, ground processing has consisted of low risk/low hazard items; but this will not always be the case. Recent coordination issues associated with the ground safety review of ORU's to be processed at Tanegashima for HTV-2, illustrate that IP ground safety review processes are not well understood by the ISS community at large. Confusion for data providers (US only?). Lack of internal review process for data being submitted to launch sites can lead to inconsistent submittals. NCRs/HRs. Majority of IP ground safety requirements are based upon old KHB 1700.7 (now KNPR 8715.3, Chapter 20). Proposals include: Establish a ground safety working group as part of the MS&MAP. Search for efficiencies in requirements and data submittal processes. Document processes in NSTS 13830/SSP 30599. Each launch site report out its payload ground safety status at the F2F (Monthly's as required). Completions/due dates/NCRs/issues/changes. Establish internal processes for review of ground safety submittals.
Kirkpatrick, Paul D.↗
Automated Assignment of Proposals to Reviewers
A computer program automates the process of selecting unbiased peer reviewers of research proposals submitted to NASA. Heretofore, such selection has been performed by manual searching of two large databases subject to a set of assignment rules. One database lists proposals and proposers; the other database lists potential reviewers. The manual search takes an average of several weeks per proposal. In contrast, the present software can perform the selection in seconds. The program begins by selecting one entry from each database, then applying the assignment rules to this pair of entries. If and only if all the assignment rules are satisfied, the chosen reviewer is assigned to the chosen proposal. The assignment rules enforced by the program are (1) a maximum allowable number of proposals assigned to a single reviewer; (2) a maximum allowable number of reviewers assigned to a single proposal; (3) if the proposing team includes a member affiliated with an industry, then the reviewer must not be affiliated with any industry; and (4) the reviewer must not be a member of the proposing team or affiliated with the same institution as that of a member of the proposing team.
Kantak, Anil↗
NASA Standing Review Board Handbook: Revision B
This SRB Handbook provides review guidance for the program and project communities and for the SRBs regarding the expectations, processes, products, timelines, and working interfaces with review organizations, Centers, Mission Directorates, Mission Support Organizations, and Management Councils. It provides guidelines for membership selection, review implementation, review products, and reporting of results. The SRB Handbook guidance may be tailored, with the Convening Authorities' approval, to meet the needs of the Agency, Mission Directorates, Centers, and the programs and projects being reviewed. The final review agreement of the SRB, program and project, and Convening Authorities for program and project Life-Cycle Reviews (LCRs) is documented in the terms of reference, as described in Section 4.1 and Appendix H.
Tahani R Amer↗
Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers
The Editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics are deeply indebted to the many people among the research community that serve this journal through peer review. The journal could not exist without the time and effort invested by the community through this voluntary activity, providing expert evaluations and thoughtful assessments of the work of others. In 2015, the journal had 1506 scientists contribute to the process with at least one peer review, for a total of 3575 reviews completed, including additional reviews of resubmitted manuscripts. There were 277 reviewers that contributed four or more reports in 2015. The average number of reviews per referee in 2015 was, therefore, 2.4. Note that the total number of manuscript final decisions (i.e., accept or reject) for Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) Space Physics was 1147 in 2015. Of this, 774 were accepted and 373 were declined, for an acceptance rate of 67% last year. If the 1334 "revision" decisions are included in the tally, then the total number of decisions made in 2015 was 2481. Working out the arithmetic, it means that on average, a manuscript gets about 1.2 revision decisions before a final accept-or-reject decision. This explains the ~3.1 average number of reviews per manuscript throughout each paper's lifetime in the submission-revision editorial process. We are pleased and happy that the research community is willing and able to devote their resources toward this service endeavor. We appreciate each and every one of you that helped maintain the high quality of papers in JGR Space Physics last year. We look forward to another excellent year working with all of you through the year ahead.
Liemohn, Michael W.↗
Review: Pre-Darcy flows in low-permeability porous media
The widely used Darcy’s law specifies a linear relation between the Darcy velocity of fluid flow and the pressure gradient that drives the flow. However, studies have shown that Darcy velocity can exhibit a nonlinear dependence on the pressure gradient in low-permeability porous media such as clay and shale when the pressure gradient is adequately low. This phenomenon is referred to as low-velocity non-Darcian flow or pre-Darcy flow. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the theories, experimental data, and modeling methods for pre-Darcy flow in low-permeability porous media. The review begins by outlining the fundamental mechanisms underlying pre-Darcy flow that regulate the unique characteristics such as nonlinear dependence of the Darcy velocity on the pressure gradient and its relevance to fluid–rock interactions. The review then proceeds to present a thorough compilation of experimental investigations performed in various low-permeability geomaterials including tight sandstones, shales, and clays. Next, empirical and theoretical models and simulation methods that have been developed to fit and interpret experimental data are reviewed. Finally, the review underscores the challenges encountered in conducting and interpreting pre-Darcy flow experiments and suggests future research directions. By analyzing previous experimental investigations, this review aims to offer a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners seeking to enhance their understanding of fluid dynamics in low-permeability geomaterials. This provides insights into the application of pre-Darcy flow in numerous natural and engineered processes such as shale oil and gas recovery, contaminant transport in low-permeability aquifers, and geological disposal of nuclear waste.
58 GEOSCIENCES↗