Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “cost risk”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Reconfigurable, Intelligently-Adaptive, Communication System, an SDR Platform

The Space Telecommunications Radio System (STRS) provides a common, consistent framework to abstract the application software from the radio platform hardware. STRS aims to reduce the cost and risk of using complex, configurable and reprogrammable radio systems across NASA missions. The Glenn Research Center (GRC) team made a software-defined radio (SDR) platform STRS compliant by adding an STRS operating environment and a field programmable gate array (FPGA) wrapper, capable of implementing each of the platforms interfaces, as well as a test waveform to exercise those interfaces. This effort serves to provide a framework toward waveform development on an STRS compliant platform to support future space communication systems for advanced exploration missions. Validated STRS compliant applications provided tested code with extensive documentation to potentially reduce risk, cost and efforts in development of space-deployable SDRs. This paper discusses the advantages of STRS, the integration of STRS onto a Reconfigurable, Intelligently-Adaptive, Communication System (RIACS) SDR platform, the sample waveform, and wrapper development efforts. The paper emphasizes the infusion of the STRS Architecture onto the RIACS platform for potential use in next generation SDRs for advance exploration missions.

space communications↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar Mining and Processing: Considerations for Responsible Space Mining & Connections to Terrestrial Mining

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States of America (US) has initiated the Artemis Moon to Mars program to send astronauts (the first woman and person of color) back to the lunar surface, create a sustainable human lunar exploration program, and lead the first human exploration mission to the Mars surface in the late 2030’s [1]. Besides reinvigorating human exploration beyond low Earth orbit not seen since the Apollo program and enabling new scientific activities and discoveries, a major objective of this program is to characterize the resources that exist on the Moon and Mars, and learn how to utilize them for human exploration and the commercialization of cis-lunar space. Commonly known as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), the search for, acquisition, and processing of resources in space has the potential to greatly reduce the dependency on transporting mission consumables and infrastructure from Earth, thereby reducing mission costs, risks, and dependency on Earth. With the launch of Artemis I in November 2022 and the anticipation of several robotic missions to the Moon under the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, greater recognition and excitement about NASA’s Artemis program and lunar exploration activities is growing in the public. With the recognition that past statements and concept videos of human exploration of the Moon are actually becoming real, there is also a growing awareness of the possible positive and negative consequences and impacts these exploration activities may have on the Moon and Mars. On the positive side, the development of ISRU and lunar mining and processing can enable and grow lunar surface exploration and cis-lunar commercial activities, as well as provide benefits to terrestrial industries through spin-in and spin-back of advanced technologies and autonomous operations. On the negative side, there is a perception that space mining will impact the lunar surface and environment negatively for science, and that cultural beliefs about the Moon need to be addressed and considered before these operations occur. This paper will begin to explore the potential driving attributes and guidelines that will address how best to maximize the lessons and connections to terrestrial mining to reduce the risk and cost of lunar ISRU and space commercial activities, enhance efforts to achieve the terrestrial ‘mine of the future’, and provide viable markets for space-derived technologies until commercial space mining is established. This paper will also begin to explore the potential driving attributes and guidelines that could address how to minimize the environmental and surface impacts of lunar ISRU and foster ‘responsible’ space mining that can be implemented until more official agreements and treaties are signed. The existing robust mining regulations adopted globally will be used as a basis for this examination and suggestions will be presented to adopt these agreements for use in space mining.

ISRU↗
NASA NTRS2013

Spacecraft Complexity Subfactors and Implications on Future Cost Growth

During the last ten years the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has used a set of cost-risk subfactors to independently estimate the magnitude of development risks that may not be covered in the high level cost models employed during early concept development. Within the last several years the Laboratory has also developed a scale of Concept Maturity Levels with associated criteria to quantitatively assess a concept's maturity. This latter effort has been helpful in determining whether a concept is mature enough for accurate costing but it does not provide any quantitative estimate of cost risk. Unfortunately today's missions are significantly more complex than when the original cost-risk subfactors were first formulated. Risks associated with complex missions are not being adequately evaluated and future cost growth is being underestimated. The risk subfactor process needed to be updated.

Mission Design↗
NASA NTRS2004

System, cost, and risk analysis for access to space

This paper proposes the use of a new tool more quickly develop initial cost and risk estimates of alternative flight options for both single missions and the partnering of missions into a single space flight. this work is particularly useful for small missions that require low-cost opportunities for accessing space.

small payloads↗
NASA NTRS2014

Low-cost, Risk-Reduction Testing of Class D Spacecraft Photovoltaic Systems

The end-to-end verification of a spacecraft photovoltaic power generation system requires light! A low-cost, portable, and end-to-end photovoltaic-system test appropriate for NASAs new generation of Class D missions is presented. High risk, low-cost, and quick-turn satellites rarely have the resources to execute the traditional approaches from higher-class (A-C) missions. The Class D approach, as demonstrated on the Lunar Atmospheric and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE), utilizes a portable, metal-halide, theatre lamp for an end-to-end photovoltaic system test. While not as precise and comprehensive as the traditional Large Area Pulsed Solar Simulator (LAPSS) test, the LADEE method leverages minimal resources into an ongoing assessment program that can be applied through numerous stages of the mission. The project takes a true Class D approach in assessing the technical value of a costly, high-fidelity performance test versus a simpler approach with less programmatic risk. The resources required are a fraction of that for a LAPSS test, and is easy to repeat due to its portability. Further, the test equipment can be handed down to future projects without building an on-site facility.At the vanguard of Class D missions, the LADEE team frequently wrestled with and challenged the status quo. The philosophy of risk avoidance at all cost, typical to Class A-C missions, simply could not be executed. This innovative and simple testing solution is contextualized to NASA Class D programs and a specific risk encountered during development of the LADEE Electrical Power System (EPS). Selection of the appropriate lamp and safety concerns are discussed, with examples of test results. Combined with the vendors panel-level data and periodic inspection, the method ensures system integrity from Integration and Test (IT) through launch. Following launch, mission operations tools are utilized to assess system performance based on a scant amount of available data.

photovoltaic↗
NASA NTRS2016

TAT-C: A Trade-Space Analysis Tool for Constellations

Under a changing technological and economic environment, there is growing interest in implementing future NASA Earth Science missions as Distributed Spacecraft Missions (DSM). The objective of our project is to provide a framework that facilitates DSM Pre-Phase A investigations and optimizes DSM designs with respect to a-priori Science goals. In this first version of our Trade-space Analysis Tool for Constellations (TAT-C), we are investigating questions such as: Which type of constellations should be chosen? How many spacecraft should be included in the constellation? Which design has the best costrisk value? This paper describes the overall architecture of TAT-C including: a User Interface (UI) interacting with multiple users - scientists, missions designers or program managers; an Executive Driver gathering requirements from UI and formulating Trade-space Search Requests for the Trade-space Search Iterator, which in collaboration with the Orbit Coverage, Reduction Metrics, and Cost Risk modules generates multiple potential architectures and their associated characteristics. UI will include Graphical, Command Line and Application Programmer Interfaces to respond to the demands of various levels of users expertise. Science inputs are grouped into various mission concepts, satellite specifications, and payload specifications, while science outputs are grouped into several types of metrics - spatial, temporal, angular and radiometric. Orbit Coverage leverages the use of the Goddard Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) to compute coverage and ancillary data that are passed to Reduction Metrics. Then, for each architecture design, Cost Risk will provide estimates of the cost and life cycle cost as well as technical and cost risk of the proposed mission. Additionally, the Knowledge Base module is a centralized store of structured data readable by humans and machines. It will support both TAT-C analysis when composing new mission concepts from existing model inputs, and TAT-C exploration when discovering new mission concepts by querying previous results.

Science Data Processing↗
NASA NTRS2008

Dual Mission Scenarios for the Human Lunar Campaign - Performance, Cost and Risk Benefits

Scenarios for human lunar operations with capabilities significantly beyond Constellation Program baseline missions are potentially feasible based on the concept of dual, sequential missions utilizing a common crew and a single Ares I/CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle). For example, scenarios possible within the scope of baseline technology planning include outpost-based sortie missions and dual sortie missions. Top level cost benefits of these dual sortie scenarios may be estimated by comparison to the Constellation Program reference two-mission-per-year lunar campaign. The primary cost benefit is the accomplishment of Mission B with a "single launch solution" since no Ares I launch is required. Cumulative risk to the crew is lowered since crew exposure to launch risks and Earth return risks are reduced versus comparable Constellation Program reference two-mission-per-year scenarios. Payload-to-the-lunar-surface capability is substantially increased in the Mission B sortie as a result of additional propellant available for Lunar Lander #2 descent. This additional propellant is a result of EDS #2 transferring a smaller stack through trans-lunar injection and using remaining propellant to perform a portion of the lunar orbit insertion (LOI) maneuver. This paper describes these dual mission concepts, including cost, risk and performance benefits per lunar sortie site, and provides an initial feasibility assessment.

Saucillo, Rudolph J.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Costs and Risks of Continuous Purges for Instruments

As instruments are built, tested, and launched, they are exposed to environments that have various levels of cleanliness. Often, Scientists and Contamination Control Engineers specify a purge to mitigate the instrument's exposure to a non-clean environment, protect sensitive optics from a specific threat, such as water, or as insurance against things going wrong in a clean environment. The cost of the purge, in effort, dollars and risk, is often understated when the requirements are being established, and the need for purge is not clearly justifiable. This paper will more clearly define some of the costs and risks associated with the continuous purging of instruments during the course of building, testing and launching instruments.

Secunda, M.↗
NASA NTRS2005

The Systems Engineering Process for Human Support Technology Development

Systems engineering is designing and optimizing systems. This paper reviews the systems engineering process and indicates how it can be applied in the development of advanced human support systems. Systems engineering develops the performance requirements, subsystem specifications, and detailed designs needed to construct a desired system. Systems design is difficult, requiring both art and science and balancing human and technical considerations. The essential systems engineering activity is trading off and compromising between competing objectives such as performance and cost, schedule and risk. Systems engineering is not a complete independent process. It usually supports a system development project. This review emphasizes the NASA project management process as described in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5B. The process is a top down phased approach that includes the most fundamental activities of systems engineering - requirements definition, systems analysis, and design. NPR 7120.5B also requires projects to perform the engineering analyses needed to ensure that the system will operate correctly with regard to reliability, safety, risk, cost, and human factors. We review the system development project process, the standard systems engineering design methodology, and some of the specialized systems analysis techniques. We will discuss how they could apply to advanced human support systems development. The purpose of advanced systems development is not directly to supply human space flight hardware, but rather to provide superior candidate systems that will be selected for implementation by future missions. The most direct application of systems engineering is in guiding the development of prototype and flight experiment hardware. However, anticipatory systems engineering of possible future flight systems would be useful in identifying the most promising development projects.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2011

Incorporating Risk

This presentation is about cost risk identification and estimation which is only a part of risk management. The purpose of this step is to identify common software risks, to assess their impact on the cost estimate, and to make revisions to the estimate based on these impacts.

Risk identifcation↗
NASA NTRS1990

Systems engineering and integration: Cost estimation and benefits analysis

Space Transportation Avionics hardware and software cost has traditionally been estimated in Phase A and B using cost techniques which predict cost as a function of various cost predictive variables such as weight, lines of code, functions to be performed, quantities of test hardware, quantities of flight hardware, design and development heritage, complexity, etc. The output of such analyses has been life cycle costs, economic benefits and related data. The major objectives of Cost Estimation and Benefits analysis are twofold: (1) to play a role in the evaluation of potential new space transportation avionics technologies, and (2) to benefit from emerging technological innovations. Both aspects of cost estimation and technology are discussed here. The role of cost analysis in the evaluation of potential technologies should be one of offering additional quantitative and qualitative information to aid decision-making. The cost analyses process needs to be fully integrated into the design process in such a way that cost trades, optimizations and sensitivities are understood. Current hardware cost models tend to primarily use weights, functional specifications, quantities, design heritage and complexity as metrics to predict cost. Software models mostly use functionality, volume of code, heritage and complexity as cost descriptive variables. Basic research needs to be initiated to develop metrics more responsive to the trades which are required for future launch vehicle avionics systems. These would include cost estimating capabilities that are sensitive to technological innovations such as improved materials and fabrication processes, computer aided design and manufacturing, self checkout and many others. In addition to basic cost estimating improvements, the process must be sensitive to the fact that no cost estimate can be quoted without also quoting a confidence associated with the estimate. In order to achieve this, better cost risk evaluation techniques are needed as well as improved usage of risk data by decision-makers. More and better ways to display and communicate cost and cost risk to management are required.

Dean, ED↗
NASA NTRS2006

Aerobraking Cost and Risk Decisions

Four missions have successfully employed aerobraking at Venus and Mars to reduce the spacecraft orbit period and achieve the desired orbit geometry. The propellant mass reductions enabled by the aerobraking technique allow the use of smaller launch systems, which translate to significant savings in launch costs for flight projects. However, there is a significant increase in mission risk associated with the use of aerobraking. Flying a spacecraft through a planetary atmosphere hundreds of times during months of around-the-clock operations places the spacecraft in harm's way, and is extraordinarily demanding on the flight team. There is a cost/risk trade that must be evaluated when a project is choosing between a mission baseline that includes aerobraking, or selecting a larger launch vehicle to enable purely propulsive orbit insertion. This paper provides a brief history of past and future aerobraking missions, describes the aerobraking technique, summarizes the costs associated with aerobraking, and concludes with a suggested methodology for evaluating the cost/risk trade when considering the aerobraking approach.

risk analysis↗
NASA NTRS2007

Distribution of Cost Growth in Robotic Space Science Missions

Cost growth characterization is a critical factor for effective cost risk analysis and project planning. This study analyzed low level budget changes in Jet Propulsion Laboratory-managed space science missions, which occurred during the development of the project. The data was then curve fit, according to cost distribution categories, to provide a reference set of distribution parameters with sufficient granularity to effectively model cost growth in robotic space science missions.

cost↗
NASA NTRS1980

Carbon/graphite fiber risk analysis and assessment study: Assessment of risk to the Lockheed Model L-1011 commercial transport aircraft

The risk associated with the accidental release of carbon/graphite fibers (CF) from fires on commercial transport aircraft incorporating composite materials was assessed. Data are developed to evaluate the potential for CF damage to electrical and electronic equipment, assess the cost risk, and evaluate the hazard to continued operation. The subjects covered include identification of susceptible equipments, determination of infiltration transfer functions, analysis of airport operations, calculation of probabilities of equipment failures, assessment of the cost risk, and evaluation of the hazard to continued operation. The results show the risks associated with CF contamination are negligible through 1993.

Daniledes, J.↗
NASA NTRS2009

A Near-Term, High-Confidence Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle

The use of well understood, legacy elements of the Space Shuttle system could yield a near-term, high-confidence Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle that offers significant performance, reliability, schedule, risk, cost, and work force transition benefits. A side-mount Shuttle-Derived Vehicle (SDV) concept has been defined that has major improvements over previous Shuttle-C concepts. This SDV is shown to carry crew plus large logistics payloads to the ISS, support an operationally efficient and cost effective program of lunar exploration, and offer the potential to support commercial launch operations. This paper provides the latest data and estimates on the configurations, performance, concept of operations, reliability and safety, development schedule, risks, costs, and work force transition opportunities for this optimized side-mount SDV concept. The results presented in this paper have been based on established models and fully validated analysis tools used by the Space Shuttle Program, and are consistent with similar analysis tools commonly used throughout the aerospace industry. While these results serve as a factual basis for comparisons with other launch system architectures, no such comparisons are presented in this paper. The authors welcome comparisons between this optimized SDV and other Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle concepts.

Rothschild, William J.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Development of a Portfolio Management Approach with Case Study of the NASA Airspace Systems Program

A portfolio management approach was developed for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA s) Airspace Systems Program (ASP). The purpose was to help inform ASP leadership regarding future investment decisions related to its existing portfolio of advanced technology concepts and capabilities (C/Cs) currently under development and to potentially identify new opportunities. The portfolio management approach is general in form and is extensible to other advanced technology development programs. It focuses on individual C/Cs and consists of three parts: 1) concept of operations (con-ops) development, 2) safety impact assessment, and 3) benefit-cost-risk (B-C-R) assessment. The first two parts are recommendations to ASP leaders and will be discussed only briefly, while the B-C-R part relates to the development of an assessment capability and will be discussed in greater detail. The B-C-R assessment capability enables estimation of the relative value of each C/C as compared with all other C/Cs in the ASP portfolio. Value is expressed in terms of a composite weighted utility function (WUF) rating, based on estimated benefits, costs, and risks. Benefit utility is estimated relative to achieving key NAS performance objectives, which are outlined in the ASP Strategic Plan.1 Risk utility focuses on C/C development and implementation risk, while cost utility focuses on the development and implementation portions of overall C/C life-cycle costs. Initial composite ratings of the ASP C/Cs were successfully generated; however, the limited availability of B-C-R information, which is used as inputs to the WUF model, reduced the meaningfulness of these initial investment ratings. Development of this approach, however, defined specific information-generation requirements for ASP C/C developers that will increase the meaningfulness of future B-C-R ratings.

Neitzke, Kurt W.↗