Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “TEAM”

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

Imagery Integration Team

The Human Exploration Science Office (KX) provides leadership for NASA's Imagery Integration (Integration 2) Team, an affiliation of experts in the use of engineering-class imagery intended to monitor the performance of launch vehicles and crewed spacecraft in flight. Typical engineering imagery assessments include studying and characterizing the liftoff and ascent debris environments; launch vehicle and propulsion element performance; in-flight activities; and entry, landing, and recovery operations. Integration 2 support has been provided not only for U.S. Government spaceflight (e.g., Space Shuttle, Ares I-X) but also for commercial launch providers, such as Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corporation, servicing the International Space Station. The NASA Integration 2 Team is composed of imagery integration specialists from JSC, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), who have access to a vast pool of experience and capabilities related to program integration, deployment and management of imagery assets, imagery data management, and photogrammetric analysis. The Integration 2 team is currently providing integration services to commercial demonstration flights, Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1), and the Space Launch System (SLS)-based Exploration Missions (EM)-1 and EM-2. EM-2 will be the first attempt to fly a piloted mission with the Orion spacecraft. The Integration 2 Team provides the customer (both commercial and Government) with access to a wide array of imagery options - ground-based, airborne, seaborne, or vehicle-based - that are available through the Government and commercial vendors. The team guides the customer in assembling the appropriate complement of imagery acquisition assets at the customer's facilities, minimizing costs associated with market research and the risk of purchasing inadequate assets. The NASA Integration 2 capability simplifies the process of securing one-of-a-kind imagery assets and skill sets, such as ground-based fixed and tracking cameras, crew-in the-loop imaging applications, and the integration of custom or commercial-off-the-shelf sensors onboard spacecraft. For spaceflight applications, the Integration 2 Team leverages modeling, analytical, and scientific resources along with decades of experience and lessons learned to assist the customer in optimizing engineering imagery acquisition and management schemes for any phase of flight - launch, ascent, on-orbit, descent, and landing. The Integration 2 Team guides the customer in using NASA's world-class imagery analysis teams, which specialize in overcoming inherent challenges associated with spaceflight imagery sets. Precision motion tracking, two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) photogrammetry, image stabilization, 3D modeling of imagery data, lighting assessment, and vehicle fiducial marking assessments are available. During a mission or test, the Integration 2 Team provides oversight of imagery operations to verify fulfillment of imagery requirements. The team oversees the collection, screening, and analysis of imagery to build a set of imagery findings. It integrates and corroborates the imagery findings with other mission data sets, generating executive summaries to support time-critical mission decisions.

Calhoun, Tracy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Diversity and Inclusion in Spacecraft Science Teams: What Do We Know and What Can We Do About It?

Introduction: Not only does the planetary science community lack diversity [1-3], the subset of the community that participates on spacecraft science team is even less diverse than the community as a whole [1, 4]. Results of 2020 Workforce Survey: Previous studies of the diversity of members of spacecraft science teams made incorrect assumptions about the nature of the data before collecting the data. Those analyses assumed a binary gender and ignored the existence of planetary scientists who are neither men nor women [4-6]. We present here results where demographic data was collected without assumptions; each individual surveyed supplied their own answers to demographic questions. The April 2020 survey of Planetary Scientists, which was conducted by the Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and funded by the American Astronomical Society (AAS)’s Division of Planetary Science (DPS) asked participants their gender with 4 possible responses: Woman, Man, Another identify (please specify if you wish), and Prefer not to answer. 32% of respondents chose Woman, 67% chose Man and 1% chose Another gender identity [1]. The survey also asked demographic questions on race, ethnicity, LGBTQ+ identity, and disability. For a full list of questions, see https://dps.aas.org/sites/dps.aas.org/files/reports/2020/survey2020_questionnaire.pdf. In addition to demographic questions, the 2020 Workforce survey asked how many times respondents had been involved in Mission proposals as a Principal Investigator (PI) and, separately, as a Co-Investigator (CoI) [1]. Answers to questions about mission involvement were correlated with answers to demographic questions and the results show that members of historically underrepresented groups (non-white scientists, women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and disabled scientists) were less likely to be involved in spacecraft mission proposals than were members of historically overrepresented groups [1]. The figures below show the correlated responses for four different axes of underrepresentation [1]. Note that while the figure on gender shows only Women and Men (due to the small percentage of folks answering “Another gender”), non-binary respondents are included in the LGBTQ+ community figure. Conclusion: Being part of a spacecraft science team is a goal for many planetary scientists. With it comes brand new data, more stable funding, and a sense of awe and exploration. It can lead to a cascade of opportunities from conference and public presentations, to membership in subsequent mission teams, and prestige in the community [4]. As a result, participation in spacecraft teams can be used a measure of success within the field. From the survey results, we see that members of historically excluded groups, even after they have overcome barriers to participating in the field, are still experiencing barriers to success within the field itself. Why?: The diminishing percentage of members of underrepresented groups as a career progresses has been referred to as a “leaky pipeline”. However, this fails to adequately capture the experiences of the members of these underrepresented groups as it implies a passive process. In order to capture the active processes (bias, discrimination, harassment, and other exclusionary behaviors) that contribute to low retention in the workforce, the term “Hostile Obstacle Course” is more useful [7,8]. It is these processes that need to be addressed in order to retain valued members of our community. Moving Forward: In order to broaden participation in planetary science, particularly mission science teams, we need to address conditions that create hostile workplace climates. What can mission teams and other groups do to address these conditions? First, each group/team needs to evaluate their own members to determine what specific barriers exist in their own interactions. One tool to accomplish this would be an anonymous survey designed to understand how team members feel about working within the group. Working with professionals who know how to create and analyze such surveys (often called “climate surveys” when applied to University students, for example) would ensure that the survey meets its goals and does not make assumptions that counter the meaningfulness of the results. Such professionals in EDIA (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) and workplace culture can make suggestions for policy changes that would eliminate hostile workplace conditions. Policy changes that are often suggested include instituting professional EDIA training for the team and/or for team leadership, instituting and following a code of conduct [9], including more interactive group activities in group meetings, etc. Training and information on EDIA is available for all members of the planetary science community. The first place to look would be in your University or Institution’s EDIA or human resources offices. Bystander Intervention is often offered as part of other meetings [10]. A newer offering is a Workshop on EDIA for Leaders in Planetary Science led by Julie Rathbun (first author of this abstract) and JA Grier (https://edialps.psi.edu/). This 3-day workshop gives participants the tools they need to enact positive change in their personal and professional spheres. The first workshop was help in November 2022 and another workshop will take place in the late spring 2023 with exact dates to be announced soon.

J. A. Rathbun↗
DOE OSTI2020

Team Dynamics and Development in Chemical Emergency Response

This presentation is focused on Team Dynamics and Development in Chemical Emergency Response. While regulatory requirements focus on defining the performance requirements associated with this category of response team, there is very little information and guidance provided to team leaders on the criticality of team dynamics of development in performance. These elements are essential to achieving successfully integrated team operations. NREL has worked to expand chemical response team participation to include operational personnel from research, support operations, and various technical areas. Since this team expansion has encompassed integration from numerous levels and areas within the organization, a systematic approach was adopted to better understand how organization culture, dynamics, and diversity can be used to be more effective. Benchmarking other organizations and reviewing relevant literature assisted in laying the foundation to develop a strategy that incorporates team development principles, dynamics, and leadership practices to increase the effectiveness of emergency response operations. This presentation focuses on the valuable lessons learned and the team-based approaches that can be used to develop a successful response team.

emergency response↗
NASA NTRS1992

Team dynamics in isolated, confined environments - Saturation divers and high altitude climbers

The effects of leadership dynamics and social organization factors on team performance under conditions of high altitude climbing and deep sea diving are studied. Teams of two to four members that know each other well and have a relaxed informal team structure with much sharing of responsibilities are found to do better than military teams with more than four members who do not know each other well and have a formal team structure with highly specialized rules. Professionally guided teams with more than four members, a formally defined team structure, and clearly designated role assignments did better than 'club' teams of more than four members with a fairly informal team structure and little role specialization.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Sounds like Team Spirit

I recently accompanied my son Dan to one of his guitar lessons. As I sat in a separate room, I focused on the music he was playing and the beautiful, robust sound that comes from a well-played guitar. Later that night, I woke up around 3 am. I tend to have my best thoughts at this hour. The trouble is I usually roll over and fall back asleep. This time I was still awake an hour later, so I got up and jotted some notes down in my study. I was thinking about the pure, honest sound of a well-played instrument. From there my mind wandered into the realm of high-performance teams and successful projects. (I know this sounds weird, but this is the sort of thing I think about at 3 am. Maybe you have your own weird thoughts around that time.) Consider a team in relation to music. It seems to me that a crack team can achieve a beautiful, perfect unity in the same way that a band of brilliant musicians can when they're in harmony with one another. With more than a little satisfaction I have to admit, I started to think about the great work performed for you by the Knowledge Sharing team, including this magazine you are reading. Over the past two years I personally have received some of my greatest pleasures as the APPL Director from the Knowledge Sharing activities - the Masters Forums, NASA Center visits, ASK Magazine. The Knowledge Sharing team expresses such passion for their work, just like great musicians convey their passion in the music they play. In the case of Knowledge Sharing, there are many factors that have made this so enjoyable (and hopefully worthwhile for NASA). Three ingredients come to mind -- ingredients that have produced a signature sound. First, through the crazy, passionate playing of Alex Laufer, Michelle Collins, Denise Lee, and Todd Post, I always know that something startling and original is going to come out of their activities. This team has consistently done things that are unique and innovative. For me, best of all is that they are always trying to improve on what they've done before. Second, success in any endeavor stems from people who know how to interpret a composition to sound beautiful when played in a different style. For Knowledge Sharing to work, it must be adapted, reinterpreted, shaped and played with at the centers. In this regard, we've been blessed with another crazy, passionate, inspired artist named Claire Smith. Claire has turned Ames Research Center in California into APPL-west. She is so good and committed to what she does that I just refer people to her whenever they have questions about implementing project management development at the field level. Finally, any great effort requires talented people working behind the scenes, the people who formulate a business approach and know how to manage the money so that the music gets heard. I have known many brilliant and creative people with a ton of ideas that never take off due to an inability to work the business. Again, the Knowledge Sharing team has been fortunate to have competent and passionate people, specifically Tony Maturo and his procurement team at Goddard Space Flight Center, to make sure the process is in place to support the effort. This kind of support is every bit as crucial as the activity itself, and the efforts and creativity that go into successful procurement and contracting is a vital ingredient of this successful team.

Hoffman, Edward↗
NASA NTRS1998

Modeling and Analysis of Multidiscipline Research Teams at NASA Langley Research Center: A Systems Thinking Approach

Multidisciplinary analysis and design is inherently a team activity due to the variety of required expertise and knowledge. As a team activity, multidisciplinary research cannot escape the issues that affect all teams. The level of technical diversity required to perform multidisciplinary analysis and design makes the teaming aspects even more important. A study was conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center to develop a model of multidiscipline teams that can be used to help understand their dynamics and identify key factors that influence their effectiveness. The study sought to apply the elements of systems thinking to better understand the factors, both generic and Langley-specific, that influence the effectiveness of multidiscipline teams. The model of multidiscipline research teams developed during this study has been valuable in identifying means to enhance team effectiveness, recognize and avoid problem behaviors, and provide guidance for forming and coordinating multidiscipline teams.

Waszak, Martin R.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Concurrent Mission and Systems Design at NASA Glenn Research Center: The Origins of the COMPASS Team

Established at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in 2006 to meet the need for rapid mission analysis and multi-disciplinary systems design for in-space and human missions, the Collaborative Modeling for Parametric Assessment of Space Systems (COMPASS) team is a multidisciplinary, concurrent engineering group whose primary purpose is to perform integrated systems analysis, but it is also capable of designing any system that involves one or more of the disciplines present in the team. The authors were involved in the development of the COMPASS team and its design process, and are continuously making refinements and enhancements. The team was unofficially started in the early 2000s as part of the distributed team known as Team JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) in support of the multi-center collaborative JIMO spacecraft design during Project Prometheus. This paper documents the origins of a concurrent mission and systems design team at GRC and how it evolved into the COMPASS team, including defining the process, gathering the team and tools, building the facility, and performing studies.

McGuire, Melissa L.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Trusted Communication: Utilizing Speech Communication to Enhance Human-Machine Teaming Success

An area of increasing interest for the next generation of aircraft is autonomy and the integration of increasingly autonomous systems into the national airspace. Such an integration requires humans to work closely with autonomous systems, forming teams. Our hypothesis is that a team composed of both humans and autonomous systems will operate better than either entity alone. We have existing procedures for certifying pilots to operate in the national airspace and are currently working on methods for validating the function of autonomous systems, however we have no method in place for assessing the interaction of these two disparate systems. Communication is one avenue. This paper will examine the use of language as a metric for ascertaining human-machine teaming effectiveness. A proof-of-concept of the application of two communication-based analysis techniques, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), for the prediction of success in human/chatbot teaming was conducted. By running these analyses over data from the 2014 and 2015 Loebner Prize competitions of human/chatbot teaming, numerical scores were obtained that can be associated with scores provided by human judges during the competition. Correlating their LIWC and LSA data with the scores provided by the judges, and using linear regression over this correlation, formulae were obtained that predict the score of human/chatbot interaction. These formulae were tested over the 2013 Loebner Prize transcripts, determining that, though there was strong correlation between predicted and actual scores, the predictive success of this method was not strong. However, with specialized topic spaces and lexica, as well as larger data sets, the predictive power of these metrics will improve. Given the importance of providing metrics for human-machine system team success and given the promise shown by the communication-basedLIWCand LSAmethods, continuing research in this area is necessary. After examining the potential for using communication and spoken language as a metric for the success of human/autonomous system teaming, this paper then examines aspects inherent to communication systems that may contribute to unreliability and reduced trust. Modern natural language processing tools rely on deep learning algorithms to create language rules that produce accurate results, but these rules are uninterpretable. The resulting blackbox system lacks transparency necessary for full validation and complete trust. Additionally, speech-based interfaces pose other difficulties to developing coordinated teamwork between humans and autonomous systems. Human communication is infrequently limited to speech only, instead usually relying on a combination of verbal, gestural, and general body language communication. Reducing an analysis of team effectiveness to a study of spoken language alone is problematic as it leaves these other equally important forms of communication out. This paper will examine these problems and the general deficiencies in speech-based metrics for human-machine teaming.

E L Meszaros↗
NASA NTRS2021

Remote Concurrent Engineering: A-Team Studies in the Virtual World

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s)Architecture Team (A-Team) has nearly a decade of experiencein maturing early formulation mission and technology conceptsby combining innovative collaborative engineering methodswith cutting-edge subject matter expertise and advancedanalysis tools in an in-person environment. When COVID-19forced JPL’s workforce to work remotely in March 2020, ATeamhad to quickly pivot from an in-person collaborativeenvironment to a remote working environment.Through introspection, careful planning, and considerablepractice, A-Team was able to develop new operating proceduresto effectively continue early formulation studies in a virtualenvironment. A-Team has held over 57 remote studies in the 10months since the start of mandatory telework at JPL in March2020. In the remote setting, A-Team conducts studies in half-daysessions with clients and subject matter experts (SMEs) viavideoconferencing, shared computer screens, and digitalcollaborative tools.The key lesson is that increased staffing and planning is neededto prepare and successfully run remote A-Team studies. RemoteA-Team studies require careful selection of the appropriatetools for security, accessibility, and usability within theNASA/JPL environment. Knowledge capture methods andtemplates need to be thought out and agreed upon in advance asthere is less room for improvising in a remote format. Variouscommunication channels have to be monitored to allow for teamcoordination while maintaining fruitful participant engagementduring a session. In addition, technical backup for all roleswithin the A-Team have to be identified to allow the study tocontinue even if a team member’s connectivity is temporarilyinterrupted. Finally, careful thought has to be put into methodsand processes to create a collaborative environment in a virtualspace such that a group of experts who are only connected viathe internet can experience the creative spark and flow of a greatcollaborative and innovative study.

Zusack, Steven↗
NASA NTRS2005

The NASA Exploration Design Team; Blueprint for a New Design Paradigm

NASA has chosen JPL to deliver a NASA-wide rapid-response real-time collaborative design team to perform rapid execution of program, system, mission, and technology trade studies. This team will draw on the expertise of all NASA centers and external partners necessary. The NASA Exploration Design Team (NEDT) will be led by NASA Headquarters, with field centers and partners added according to the needs of each study. Through real-time distributed collaboration we will effectively bring all NASA field centers directly inside Headquarters. JPL's Team X pioneered the technique of real time collaborative design 8 years ago. Since its inception, Team X has performed over 600 mission studies and has reduced per-study cost by a factor of 5 and per-study duration by a factor of 10 compared to conventional design processes. The Team X concept has spread to other NASA centers, industry, academia, and international partners. In this paper, we discuss the extension of the JPL Team X process to the NASA-wide collaborative design team. We discuss the architecture for such a process and elaborate on the implementation challenges of this process. We further discuss our current ideas on how to address these challenges.

Team X↗
DOE OSTI2014

Missouri Agricultural Energy Saving Team-A Revolutionary Opportunity (MAESTRO)

The Missouri Agricultural Energy Saving Team-A Revolutionary Opportunity (MAESTRO) program brought together a team of representatives from government, academia, and private industry to enhance the availability of energy efficiency services for small livestock producers in the State of Missouri. The Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) managed the project via a subcontract with the University of Missouri (MU), College of Agriculture Food and Natural Resources, MU Extension, the MU College of Human Environmental Sciences, the MU College of Engineering, and the Missouri Agricultural and Small Business Development Authority (MASBDA). MU teamed with EnSave, Inc, a nationally-recognized expert in agricultural energy efficiency to assist with marketing, outreach, provision of farm energy audits and customer service. MU also teamed with independent home contractors to facilitate energy audits of the farm buildings and homes of these livestock producers. The goals of the project were to: (1) improve the environment by reducing fossil fuel emissions and reducing the total energy used on small animal farms; (2) stimulate the economy of local and regional communities by creating or retaining jobs; and (3) improve the profitability of Missouri livestock producers by reducing their energy expenditures. Historically, Missouri scientists/engineers conducted programs on energy use in agriculture, such as in equipment, grain handling and tillage practices. The MAESTRO program was the first to focus strictly on energy efficiency associated with livestock production systems in Missouri and to investigate the applicability and potential of addressing energy efficiency in animal production from a building efficiency perspective. A. Project Objectives The goal of the MAESTRO program was to strengthen the financial viability and environmental soundness of Missouri's small animal farms by helping them implement energy efficient technologies for the production facility, farm buildings, and the homes on these farms. The expected measurable outcomes of the project were to improve the environment and stimulate the economy by: • Reducing annual fossil fuel emissions by 1,942 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, reducing the total annual energy use on at least 323 small animal farms and 100 farm homes by at least 8,000 kWh and 2,343 therms per farm. • Stimulating the economy by creating or retaining at least 69 jobs, and saving small animal farmers an average of $2,071 per farm in annual energy expenditures. B. Project Scope The MAESTRO team chose the target population of small farms because while all agriculture is traditionally underserved in energy efficiency programs, small farms were particularly underserved because they lack the financial resources and access to energy efficiency technologies that larger farms deploy. The MAESTRO team reasoned that energy conservation, financial and educational programs developed while serving the agricultural community could serve as a national model for other states and their agricultural sectors. The target population was approximately 2,365 small animal farm operations in Missouri, specifically those farms that were not by definition a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO). The program was designed to create jobs by training Missouri contractors and Missouri University Extension staff how to conduct farm audits. The local economy would be stimulated by an increase in construction activity and an increasing demand for energy efficient farm equipment. Additionally, the energy savings were deemed critical in keeping Missouri farms in business. This project leveraged funds using a combination of funds from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Missouri Energy Center and its Soil and Water Conservation Program, from the state's Linked Deposits, MASBDA's agricultural loan guarantee programs, and through the in-kind contribution of faculty and staff time to the project from these agencies and MU. Several hundred Missouri livestock producers were contacted during the MAESTRO project. Of the livestock producers, 254 invited the team to conduct a farm energy assessment which complied with ASABE 612. A total of 147 livestock farm upgrades were implemented, representing 57.5 percent of the farms for which a farm energy assessment was completed. This represented a statewide average annual savings of 1,088,324 kWh and 75,516 therms. The team also reviewed the condition of the livestock producer’s home(s). A total of 106 home energy assessments were completed and 48 individual homes implemented their recommended upgrades, representing 45 percent of the farm homes for which an energy assessment was completed. This represented a statewide average annual savings of 323,029 kWh, and 769.4 therms. More of these farmers likely would have updated their homes but the funding to incentivize them fell short. In spite of the shortfall in incentive funds, some farmers still updated their homes as they saw the value in making these changes to their home.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2015

AREVA Team Enhanced Accident Tolerant Fuels Concepts (Phase 1A Final Report)

In response to the Department of Energy (DOE) funded initiative to develop and deploy lead fuel assemblies (LFAs) of Enhanced Accident Tolerant Fuel (EATF) into a US reactor within 10 years, AREVA put together a team to develop promising technologies for improved fuel performance during off normal operations. This team consisted of the University of Florida (UF) and the University of Wisconsin (UW), Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), Duke Energy and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). This team brought broad experience and expertise to bear on EATF development. AREVA has been designing; manufacturing and testing nuclear fuel for over 50 years and is one of the 3 large international companies supplying fuel to the nuclear industry. The university and National Laboratory team members brought expertise in nuclear fuel concepts and materials development. Duke and TVA brought practical utility operating experience. This report documents the results from the initial “discovery phase” where the team explored options for EATF concepts that provide enhanced accident tolerance for both Design Basis (DB) and Beyond Design Basis Events (BDB). The main driver for the concepts under development were that they could be implemented in a 10 year time frame and be economically viable and acceptable to the nuclear fuel marketplace. The economics of fuel design make this DOE funded project very important to the nuclear industry. Even incremental changes to an existing fuel design can cost in the range of $100M to implement through to LFAs. If this money is invested evenly over 10 years then it can take the fuel vendor several decades after the start of the project to recover their initial investment and reach a breakeven point on the initial investment. Step or radical changes to a fuel assembly design can cost upwards of $500M and will take even longer for the fuel vendor to recover their investment. With the projected lifetimes of the current generation of nuclear power plants large scale investment by the fuel vendors is difficult to justify. Specific EATF enhancements considered by the AREVA team were; Improved performance in DB and BDB conditions; Reduced release to the environment in a catastrophic accident; Improved performance during normal operating conditions; Improved performance if US reactors start to load follow; Equal or improved economics of the fuel; and Improvements to the fuel behavior to support future transportation and storage of the used nuclear fuel (UNF). In pursuit of the above enhancements, EATF technology concepts that our team considered were; Additives to the fuel pellets which included; Chromia doping to increase fission gas retention. Chromia doping has the potential to improve load following characteristics, improve performance of the fuel pellet during clad failure, and potentially lock up cesium into the fuel matrix; Silicon Carbide (SiC) Fibers to improve thermal heat transfer in normal operating conditions which also improves margin in accident conditions and the potential to lock up iodine into the fuel matrix; Nano-diamond particles to enhance thermal conductivity; Coatings on the fuel cladding; and Nine coatings on the existing Zircaloy cladding to increase coping time and reduce clad oxidation and hydrogen generation during accident conditions, as well as reduce hydrogen pickup and mitigate hydride reorientation in the cladding. To facilitate the development process AREVA adopted a formal “Gate Review Process” (GR) that was used to review results and focus resources onto promising technologies to reduce costs and identify the technologies that would potentially be carried forward to LFAs within a 10 year period. During the initial discovery phase of the project AREVA took the decision to be relatively hands off and allow our university and National Laboratory partners to be free thinking and consider options that would not be constrained by preconceived ideas from the fuel vendor. To counter this and to keep the partners focused, the GR process was utilized. During this GR process each of the team members presented their findings to a board made up of technical experts from utilities, fuel manufacturing experts, fuel technical experts, and fuel research and development (R&D) experts. During the initial 2 years of the project there were several major accomplishments. These accomplishments, along with the implications for successfully implementing EATF, are; The experimental spark plasma sintering process (SPS) process was successfully used to produce fuel pellets containing either 10% SiC whiskers or nano-diamond particles. The ability to use this process enables the thermal margin enhancements of the fuel additives to be realized. Without the SPS process, the conventional process cannot support adding pellet additives in the required quantities; Coatings of Ti2AlC were successfully applied to Zircaloy-4 cladding. Testing of Ti2AlC coatings at Loss of Cooling Accident (LOCA) conditions showed reduced cladding oxidation compared to present un-coated Zircaloy-4 cladding. This achievement allows the presently used cladding system to be retained so that the 10 year schedule can be met. Having to implement a new cladding material will extend the development schedule beyond 10 years; Several documents were produced to support future development, testing, and licensing of EATF, including a design requirements traceability matrix, a draft business plan, a draft test plan, a draft regulatory plan, and the acceptance criteria for lead fuel assembly insertion into a commercial reactor. This preparatory work lays the foundation for ensuring the future development plans address all the areas required to test, license, and manufacture the new EATF; and In addition, the high velocity oxy-fuel and electrophoretic deposition (EPD) coating application processes were dropped from further consideration due to their inability to meet manufacturing criteria. This allows the resources to be focused on the most promising EATF concepts identified. Future development opportunities that were identified during this work include; The use of SiC or diamond requires that a new pellet production technique (Spark Plasma Sintering), be developed. This entails investment in developing, proving and implementing a new commercial pellet production process. Development of the process to apply thinner coatings is required; Coatings cannot be too “thick” or they will displace a significant volume of water in the core resulting in reduced thermal hydraulic characteristics; Application of the coating at high temperature can affect the Zircaloy substrate. This will require the development and implementation of a new cladding coating manufacturing process; and Replace the Cold Spray (CS) cladding coating application with the Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) process to eliminate duplication of work and provide greater control over coating thicknesses. This can result in a reduction in the final cycle economic penalty of coatings.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS1993

Technology Applications Team: Applications of aerospace technology

Highlights of the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) Applications Team activities over the past quarter are presented in Section 1.0. The Team's progress in fulfilling the requirements of the contract is summarized in Section 2.0. In addition to our market-driven approach to applications project development, RTI has placed increased effort on activities to commercialize technologies developed at NASA Centers. These Technology Commercialization efforts are summarized in Section 3.0. New problem statements prepared by the Team in the reporting period are presented in Section 4.0. The Team's transfer activities for ongoing projects with the NASA Centers are presented in Section 5.0. Section 6.0 summarizes the status of four add-on tasks. Travel for the reporting period is described in Section 7.0. The RTI Team staff and consultants and their project responsibilities are listed in Appendix A. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of many individuals to the RTI Technology Applications Team program. The time and effort contributed by managers, engineers, and scientists throughout NASA were essential to program success. Most important to the program has been a productive working relationship with the NASA Field Center Technology Utilization (TU) Offices. The RTI Team continues to strive for improved effectiveness as a resource to these offices. Industry managers, technical staff, medical researchers, and clinicians have been cooperative and open in their participation. The RTI Team looks forward to continuing expansion of its interaction with U.S. industry to facilitate the transfer of aerospace technology to the private sector.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1993

NASA technology applications team: Applications of aerospace technology

This report covers the activities of the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) Technology Applications Team for the period 1 October 1992 through 30 September 1993. The work reported herein was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Contract No. NASW-4367. Highlights of the RTI Applications Team activities over the past year are presented in Section 1.0. The Team's progress in fulfilling the requirements of the contract is summarized in Section 2.0. In addition to our market-driven approach to applications project development, RTI has placed increased effort on activities to commercialize technologies developed at NASA Centers. These Technology Commercialization efforts are summarized in Section 3.0. New problem statements prepared by the Team in the reporting period are presented in Section 4.0. The Team's transfer activities for ongoing projects with the NASA Centers are presented in Section 5.0. Section 6.0 summarizes the status of four add-on tasks. Travel for the reporting period is described in Section 7.0. The RTI Team staff and consultants and their project responsibilities are listed in Appendix A. Appendix B includes Technology Opportunity Announcements and Spinoff! Sheets prepared by the Team while Appendix C contains a series of technology transfer articles prepared by the Team.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

High-school Student Teams in a National NASA Microgravity Science Competition

The Dropping In a Microgravity Environment or DIME competition for high-school-aged student teams has completed the first year for nationwide eligibility after two regional pilot years. With the expanded geographic participation and increased complexity of experiments, new lessons were learned by the DIME staff. A team participating in DIME will research the field of microgravity, develop a hypothesis, and prepare a proposal for an experiment to be conducted in a NASA microgravity drop tower. A team of NASA scientists and engineers will select the top proposals and then the selected teams will design and build their experiment apparatus. When completed, team representatives will visit NASA Glenn in Cleveland, Ohio to operate their experiment in the 2.2 Second Drop Tower and participate in workshops and center tours. NASA participates in a wide variety of educational activities including competitive events. There are competitive events sponsored by NASA (e.g. NASA Student Involvement Program) and student teams mentored by NASA centers (e.g. For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology Robotics Competition). This participation by NASA in these public forums serves to bring the excitement of aerospace science to students and educators.Researchers from academic institutions, NASA, and industry utilize the 2.2 Second Drop Tower at NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio for microgravity research. The researcher may be able to complete the suite of experiments in the drop tower but many experiments are precursor experiments for spaceflight experiments. The short turnaround time for an experiment's operations (45 minutes) and ready access to experiment carriers makes the facility amenable for use in a student program. The pilot year for DIME was conducted during the 2000-2001 school year with invitations sent out to Ohio- based schools and organizations. A second pilot year was conducted during the 2001-2002 school year for teams in the six-state region of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The third year for DIME was conducted during the 2002-2003 school year for teams from the fifty United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. An annual national DIME program is planned for the foreseeable future. Presented in this paper will be a description of DIME, an overview of the planning and execution of such a program, results from the first three years, and lessons learned from the first national competition.

DeLombard, Richard↗
NASA NTRS2006

Human Performance Modeling and Simulation for Launch Team Applications

This paper describes ongoing research into modeling and simulation of humans for launch team analysis, training, and evaluation. The initial research is sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)'s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) and NASA's Exploration Program and is focused on current and future launch team operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The paper begins with a description of existing KSC launch team environments and procedures. It then describes the goals of new Simulation and Analysis of Launch Teams (SALT) research. The majority of this paper describes products from the SALT team's initial proof-of-concept effort. These products include a nominal case task analysis and a discrete event model and simulation of launch team performance during the final phase of a shuttle countdown; and a first proof-of-concept training demonstration of launch team communications in which the computer plays most roles, and the trainee plays a role of the trainee's choice. This paper then describes possible next steps for the research team and provides conclusions. This research is expected to have significant value to NASA's Exploration Program.

Peaden, Cary J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

A Team Mental Model Perspective of Pre-Quantitative Risk

This study was conducted to better understand how teams conceptualize risk before it can be quantified, and the processes by which a team forms a shared mental model of this pre-quantitative risk. Using an extreme case, this study analyzes seven months of team meeting transcripts, covering the entire lifetime of the team. Through an analysis of team discussions, a rich and varied structural model of risk emerges that goes significantly beyond classical representations of risk as the product of a negative consequence and a probability. In addition to those two fundamental components, the team conceptualization includes the ability to influence outcomes and probabilities, networks of goals, interaction effects, and qualitative judgments about the acceptability of risk, all affected by associated uncertainties. In moving from individual to team mental models, team members employ a number of strategies to gain group recognition of risks and to resolve or accept differences.

Cooper, Lynne P.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Spreadsheets in Team X: Preserving Order in an Inherently Chaotic Environment

JPL is NASA's prime center for deep space missions. In response to the need to reduce the cost and time to complete early concept studies and proposals JPL created the first concurrent engineering team in the aerospace industry: Team X. Started in 1995, Team X has carried out over 800 studies, dramatically reducing the time and cost involved, and has been the model for other concurrent engineering teams both within NASA and throughout the larger aerospace community. Since its inception, the software backbone of this highly successful design team - engaged in examining some of NASA's cutting edge concepts - has been the unassuming spreadsheet. Over the years the Team X spreadsheet-based tools have evolved from simple standalone engineering models into a networked spreadsheet intensive system with real time parameter updating. Recent new capabilities include stochastic cost estimation and a graphical drag and drop block diagram that automatically populates the related spreadsheet parameters of cost, mass and power. This paper describes how the spreadsheet functions within Team X: its history, architecture, current capabilities, enabling strengths and persistent weaknesses. In addition, the verification methods and institutional oversight that have evolved as the Team X products became increasingly critical to Laboratory success are also discussed.

concurrent engineering↗