Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “NPR”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Autonomous Real Time Requirements Tracing

One of the more challenging aspects of software development is the ability to verify and validate the functional software requirements dictated by the Software Requirements Specification (SRS) and the Software Detail Design (SDD). Insuring the software has achieved the intended requirements is the responsibility of the Software Quality team and the Software Test team. The utilization of Timeliner-TLX(sup TM) Auto- Procedures for relocating ground operations positions to ISS automated on-board operations has begun the transition that would be required for manned deep space missions with minimal crew requirements. This transition also moves the auto-procedures from the procedure realm into the flight software arena and as such the operational requirements and testing will be more structured and rigorous. The autoprocedures would be required to meet NASA software standards as specified in the Software Safety Standard (NASASTD- 8719), the Software Engineering Requirements (NPR 7150), the Software Assurance Standard (NASA-STD-8739) and also the Human Rating Requirements (NPR-8705). The Autonomous Fluid Transfer System (AFTS) test-bed utilizes the Timeliner-TLX(sup TM) Language for development of autonomous command and control software. The Timeliner-TLX(sup TM) system has the unique feature of providing the current line of the statement in execution during real-time execution of the software. The feature of execution line number internal reporting unlocks the capability of monitoring the execution autonomously by use of a companion Timeliner-TLX(sup TM) sequence as the line number reporting is embedded inside the Timeliner-TLX(sup TM) execution engine. This negates I/O processing of this type data as the line number status of executing sequences is built-in as a function reference. This paper will outline the design and capabilities of the AFTS Autonomous Requirements Tracker, which traces and logs SRS requirements as they are being met during real-time execution of the targeted system. It is envisioned that real time requirements tracing will greatly assist the movement of autoprocedures to flight software enhancing the software assurance of auto-procedures and also their acceptance as reliable commanders.

Plattsmier, George↗
NASA NTRS2014

Autonomous Real Time Requirements Tracing

One of the more challenging aspects of software development is the ability to verify and validate the functional software requirements dictated by the Software Requirements Specification (SRS) and the Software Detail Design (SDD). Insuring the software has achieved the intended requirements is the responsibility of the Software Quality team and the Software Test team. The utilization of Timeliner-TLX(sup TM) Auto-Procedures for relocating ground operations positions to ISS automated on-board operations has begun the transition that would be required for manned deep space missions with minimal crew requirements. This transition also moves the auto-procedures from the procedure realm into the flight software arena and as such the operational requirements and testing will be more structured and rigorous. The autoprocedures would be required to meet NASA software standards as specified in the Software Safety Standard (NASASTD- 8719), the Software Engineering Requirements (NPR 7150), the Software Assurance Standard (NASA-STD-8739) and also the Human Rating Requirements (NPR-8705). The Autonomous Fluid Transfer System (AFTS) test-bed utilizes the Timeliner-TLX(sup TM) Language for development of autonomous command and control software. The Timeliner- TLX(sup TM) system has the unique feature of providing the current line of the statement in execution during real-time execution of the software. The feature of execution line number internal reporting unlocks the capability of monitoring the execution autonomously by use of a companion Timeliner-TLX(sup TM) sequence as the line number reporting is embedded inside the Timeliner-TLX(sup TM) execution engine. This negates I/O processing of this type data as the line number status of executing sequences is built-in as a function reference. This paper will outline the design and capabilities of the AFTS Autonomous Requirements Tracker, which traces and logs SRS requirements as they are being met during real-time execution of the targeted system. It is envisioned that real time requirements tracing will greatly assist the movement of autoprocedures to flight software enhancing the software assurance of auto-procedures and also their acceptance as reliable commanders

Plattsmier, George I.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Human Integration Design Processes (HIDP)

The purpose of the Human Integration Design Processes (HIDP) document is to provide human-systems integration design processes, including methodologies and best practices that NASA has used to meet human systems and human rating requirements for developing crewed spacecraft. HIDP content is framed around human-centered design methodologies and processes in support of human-system integration requirements and human rating. NASA-STD-3001, Space Flight Human-System Standard, is a two-volume set of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Agency-level standards established by the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer, directed at minimizing health and performance risks for flight crews in human space flight programs. Volume 1 of NASA-STD-3001, Crew Health, sets standards for fitness for duty, space flight permissible exposure limits, permissible outcome limits, levels of medical care, medical diagnosis, intervention, treatment and care, and countermeasures. Volume 2 of NASASTD- 3001, Human Factors, Habitability, and Environmental Health, focuses on human physical and cognitive capabilities and limitations and defines standards for spacecraft (including orbiters, habitats, and suits), internal environments, facilities, payloads, and related equipment, hardware, and software with which the crew interfaces during space operations. The NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.2B, Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems, specifies the Agency's human-rating processes, procedures, and requirements. The HIDP was written to share NASA's knowledge of processes directed toward achieving human certification of a spacecraft through implementation of human-systems integration requirements. Although the HIDP speaks directly to implementation of NASA-STD-3001 and NPR 8705.2B requirements, the human-centered design, evaluation, and design processes described in this document can be applied to any set of human-systems requirements and are independent of reference missions. The HIDP is a reference document that is intended to be used during the development of crewed space systems and operations to guide human-systems development process activities.

Boyer, Jennifer↗
NASA NTRS2014

Wind-US Results for the AIAA 2nd Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop

This presentation contains Wind-US results presented at the 2nd Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop. The workshop was organized by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Air Breathing Propulsion Systems Integration Technical Committee with the purpose of assessing the accuracy of computational fluid dynamics for air breathing propulsion applications. Attendees included representatives from government, industry, academia, and commercial software companies. Participants were encouraged to explore and discuss all aspects of the simulation process including the effects of mesh type and refinement, solver numerical schemes, and turbulence modeling. The first set of challenge cases involved computing the thrust and discharge coefficients for a 25deg conical nozzle for a range of nozzle pressure ratios between 1.4 and 7.0. Participants were also asked to simulate two cases in which the 25deg conical nozzle was bifurcated by a solid plate, resulting in vortex shedding (NPR=1.6) and shifted plume shock (NPR=4.0). A second set of nozzle cases involved computing the discharge and thrust coefficients for a convergent dual stream nozzle for a range of subsonic nozzle pressure ratios. The workshop committee also compared the plume mixing of these cases across various codes and models. The final test case was a serpentine inlet diffuser with an outlet to inlet area ratio of 1.52 and an offset of 1.34 times the inlet diameter. Boundary layer profiles, wall static pressure, and total pressure at downstream rake locations were examined.

Wind-US↗
NASA NTRS2014

NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Handbook

This handbook is a companion to NPR 7120.5E, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements and supports the implementation of the requirements by which NASA formulates and implements space flight programs and projects. Its focus is on what the program or project manager needs to know to accomplish the mission, but it also contains guidance that enhances the understanding of the high-level procedural requirements. (See Appendix C for NPR 7120.5E requirements with rationale.) As such, it starts with the same basic concepts but provides context, rationale, guidance, and a greater depth of detail for the fundamental principles of program and project management. This handbook also explores some of the nuances and implications of applying the procedural requirements, for example, how the Agency Baseline Commitment agreement evolves over time as a program or project moves through its life cycle.

Michael P Blythe↗
NASA NTRS2014

Risk Classification and Risk-based Safety and Mission Assurance

Recent activities to revamp and emphasize the need to streamline processes and activities for Class D missions across the agency have led to various interpretations of Class D, including the lumping of a variety of low-cost projects into Class D. Sometimes terms such as Class D minus are used. In this presentation, mission risk classifications will be traced to official requirements and definitions as a measure to ensure that projects and programs align with the guidance and requirements that are commensurate for their defined risk posture. As part of this, the full suite of risk classifications, formal and informal will be defined, followed by an introduction to the new GPR 8705.4 that is currently under review.GPR 8705.4 lays out guidance for the mission success activities performed at the Classes A-D for NPR 7120.5 projects as well as for projects not under NPR 7120.5. Furthermore, the trends in stepping from Class A into higher risk posture classifications will be discussed. The talk will conclude with a discussion about risk-based safety and mission assuranceat GSFC.

Risk Management↗
NASA NTRS2017

Mobile/Modular BSL-4 Facilities for Meeting Restricted Earth Return Containment Requirements

NASA robotic sample return missions designated Category V Restricted Earth Return by the NASA Planetary Protection Office require sample containment and biohazard testing in a receiving laboratory as directed by NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8020.12D - ensuring the preservation and protection of Earth and the sample. Currently, NPR 8020.12D classifies Restricted Earth Return for robotic sample return missions from Mars, Europa, and Enceladus with the caveat that future proposed mission locations could be added or restrictions lifted on a case by case basis as scientific knowledge and understanding of biohazards progresses. Since the 1960s, sample containment from an unknown extraterrestrial biohazard have been related to the highest containment standards and protocols known to modern science. Today, Biosafety Level (BSL) 4 standards and protocols are used to study the most dangerous high-risk diseases and unknown biological agents on Earth. Over 30 BSL-4 facilities have been constructed worldwide with 12 residing in the United States; of theses, 8 are operational. In the last two decades, these brick and mortar facilities have cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars dependent on the facility requirements and size. Previous mission concept studies for constructing a NASA sample receiving facility with an integrated BSL-4 quarantine and biohazard testing facility have also been estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. As an alternative option, we have recently conducted an initial trade study for constructing a mobile and/or modular sample containment laboratory that would meet all BSL-4 and planetary protection standards and protocols at a faction of the cost. Mobile and modular BSL-2 and 3 facilities have been successfully constructed and deployed world-wide for government testing of pathogens and pharmaceutical production. Our study showed that a modular BSL-4 construction could result in approximately 90% cost reduction when compared to traditional construction methods without compromising the preservation of the sample or Earth.

Calaway, M. J.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Defining a Space Mission Architectural Framework: Guiding Robotic Space Mission Design and Development at NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center

Modern Systems Engineering activities for robotic science missions face increased complexity due to evolving measurement requirements, increased collaboration amongst stakeholders and increased collaboration between human and robotic systems. While NASA has employed standard process frameworks for project management and systems engineering for years, it has not yet established an architecture framework (AF) by which its mission systems are described. While an architecture framework is not a necessary component of an organization's operations, the value of a specified AF greatly enhances an organization's ability to define systems consistently and aid in communication across project and organizational boundaries. The current effort identifies an approach to establishing a Space Mission Architecture Framework (SMAF), an AF with roots in ISO 42010 (Systems and Software Engineering-Architecture Description), NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5 (NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements) and 7123.1B (NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements). The heart of the AF lies in its viewpoints and work products, artifacts that represent a set of information from the viewpoint of a particular stakeholder. This effort articulates the needs, goals and objectives that the SMAF addresses, as well as the approach to creating the framework and establishing the various work products. A full set of work products, sufficient to satisfy the Mission System reporting requirements of NPR 7120/7123 at Key Decision Point (KDP) A is identified in this paper.

Architecture↗
NASA NTRS2020

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Office Exploration EVA System Technical Standards

The purpose of this Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Office specification is to define the types of Programmatic-level standards to be used for design, manufacturing, testing, and quality control for the Exploration EVA (xEVA) System. The xEVA system includes both space suits and EVA hardware elements (e. EVA Tools, Airlock hardware, etc.). Many of the standards referenced in this document can be substituted for similar standards used in industry; this document provides the scope of which standards need to be considered. This document is the EVA-centric implementation of Chapter 3 of NPR 7120.10, Technical Standards for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Programs and Projects: Select technical standards for use as program/project requirements. This also addresses the intent of Section 2.2.6 of NPR 8705.2, Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems.

EVA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of a Human Systems Integration Plan

NASA defines Human Systems Integration (HSI) as part of the overall systems engineering and acquisition strategy for space systems. The HSI Plan defines how HSI activities will be implemented across the lifecycle of the mission, as required by NPR 7123.1C, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, and NPR 8705.2C Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems. The goal of this presentation is to share with government and industry how an HSI Plan can be implemented. The presentation will cover HSI implementation for flight systems, vehicle processing, and interfaces. These are divided into six NASA HSI Domains: human factors engineering, operations resources, safety, training, maintainability and supportability, habitability and environment. HSI activities go across the mission’s lifecycle from pre-formulation and acquisition through design, development, operations, maintenance, and decommissioning. The HSI Plan includes a description of the HSI activities and products that are essential for human rating, operability, maintainability, supportability, and affordability of the mission systems. It also describes the role of the HSI Team required as part of the Human Rating process. The HSI Plan utilizes the operational expertise within NASA to ensure designs and testing are successful, leading to acceptable human spaceflight vehicles.

Jackelynne Silva-Martinez↗
NASA NTRS2021

Post-Flight Assessment Review (PFAR): Advanced Colloids Experiment (ACE) ACE-T7-1,2

The objective of this PFAR is to: • Provide closure to ZIN DO-237 ACE-T7work and close NASA NPR 7123.1 requirements as listed in the SpaceDOC-II (S2) contract (the S2 CDRL DID No. PM-09 calls for a SEMP which refers backto NPR 7123.1) • Provide closure of SEMP (ZIN’s P40025) requirements for Technical Reviews • Provide plan to complete Informatics requirements. • Provide milestone closure to sponsoring organization. • Document property re-use and transfer decisions. • Transfer raw science data to the designated repository at MSFC. • Transfer required documents to Informatics • Opens an Informatics folder at MSFC to officially receive ACE-T7 information. • Capture open action items. • Create a formal presentation in configuration control. • Provide directions (in a Project Manager Report) how to contact the Project and Science teams through NASA when follow-on grants are awarded by Informatics.

microgravity↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Nuclear Flight Safety – New Protocols for Safety and Mission Assurance

Over the past 4 years, the United States (U.S.) Government has issued several new National policies that fundamentally change the approach to nuclear flight safety for aerospace applications, including the complete revision of the Federal policy for handling launch of spacecraft containing space nuclear systems. In response, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is updating its nuclear flight safety program while still maintaining consistency with other Federal policies, international conventions, and NASA’s own policies. The recently-completed revision of the NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) document for nuclear flight safety is a key step in the evolution of NASA policy and practice in this area. This paper will briefly describe the more significant changes in the new NASA NPR.

Donald Helton↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportuni-ties for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamina-tion, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR com-munity will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Planetary Protection↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Implementation of Human Systems Integration Technical and Management Process for the Lunar Gateway Program

NASA recognizes Human Systems Integration (HSI) as part of the overall systems engineering and acquisition strategy for space systems. The Lunar Gateway Program is implementing HSI technical and management process across the lifecycle of the mission, as required by NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, and led by the Gateway HSI team as required by NPR 8705.2C Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems, now HEOMD-003 Crewed Deep Space Systems Human Rating Certification Requirements and Standards for NASA Missions. NASA has been using HSI principles for many years and has applied them to many of its previous human spaceflight Programs. As NASA returns to the Moon in a more sustainable manner, the Gateway Program is maturing the application of HSI by implementing it more visibly as part of Artemis, with guidance from the NASA/SP-20210010952 NASA HSI Handbook. This paper discusses how HSI is being implemented in the Gateway Program, challenges faced with its implementation during the development phase, and strategies/approaches used to overcome those. The paper also covers HSI implementation for flight systems, vehicle processing, and interfaces across the six identified NASA HSI Domains: human factors engineering, operations, safety, training, maintainability and supportability, habitability and environment. The goal is to provide an overview of the implementation process of HSI in the Gateway Program as an example for other Programs/Projects/Missionsthat are looking to implement HSI.

Jackelynne Silva-Martinez↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2023

NASA Standing Review Board Handbook

This handbook provides guidance based on best practices for the planning, preparation, review, reporting, and closeout of Standing Review Board (SRB) activities. Revision C updates the Revision B version of the SRB Handbook published in 2016 to incorporate updates to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5F, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements. These updates include: - Changing the Dissenting Opinion process to the Formal Dissent process, which retains the current process augmented with an expedited escalation path. - Updates to requirements for establishing an Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC) and for performing Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level (JCL) analyses for tightly coupled programs. - Additional requirements for performing a JCL analysis for single-project programs and projects over $1B Life-Cycle Cost (LCC). - Use of initial capability cost estimates instead of LCC estimates in specific, identified instances for single-project programs and projects that plan continuing operations and production, including integration of capability upgrades, with an unspecified Phase E end point. These single-project programs and projects define an initial capability during Phase A and develop an initial capability cost that establishes the ABC at Key Decision Point (KDP) C. Initial capability is the first operational mission flight (or as defined in the KDP B Review Plan) and is documented in the KDP B Decision Memorandum. Initial capability cost includes operations cost for the initial capability. The Phase E cost estimate for continuing operations and production is established separately as part of the Operational Readiness Review (ORR) and KDP E for the 5 years after initial capability and subsequently updated and documented annually for the next 5-year period. Upgrades during Phase E that meet the Agency criteria for a major project for external reporting are treated as projects for the purposes of establishing their own development ABC outside the Phase E cost estimate. The Phase E cost estimate is updated to include production and operations costs associated with these upgrades. Development, production, and operations costs of other (i.e., non-major) upgrades are included in the Phase E cost estimate. (See NPR 7120.5, Sections 2.4.1.5 and 2.4.1.6 and the NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Handbook (PM Handbook), Section 5.5.4 for additional information.) The scope of the SRB’s assessment with respect to initial capability, Phase E cost estimate, and major upgrades for these single-project programs and projects is defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR).

Kevin Michael Gilligan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Jet Noise Flyover and Scale Model Tests

Renewed interest in commercial supersonic flight has rekindled the need for accurate jet-noise predictions as this source is believed to dominate at aircraft takeoff conditions. The current study compares scale-model data acquired in the NASA Aero-Acoustic Propulsion Laboratory with data obtained using a well-instrumented Learjet 25 in a flyover test completed in September 2022. The flight test included 73 flyovers with engine conditions ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 engine pressure ratios and flight Mach numbers between 0.24 and 0.27. Acoustic data were acquired with an 800-ft linear ground plate microphone array. Wind speed data were acquired up to 1000-ft altitude with a ground-based LiDAR system. Layered ambient temperature, pressure, and humidity were acquired with a weather drone. A 6% increase in the physical scale factor for the scale-model data was found to reasonably align the peak frequencies of the scale-model and flight data and resulted in peak levels for the scale model being roughly 0.7 dB above those for the flight data at NPR = 1.56 and roughly 1 dB below those for the flight data at NPR = 1.91 in the peak jet-noise direction. Comparisons with the SAE ARP876 model were poor especially at emission angles greater than, or equal to, 110° and at high frequencies.

jet noise, supersonic transport↗