SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “ask an expert”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2007

From ESAS to Ares: A Chronology

Throughout my career, I have observed many launch vehicle efforts come and go. Although it may appear on the surface that those were dead-end streets, the knowledge we gained through them actually informs the work in progress. Following the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia's crew, the administration took the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's findings to heart and united the Agency behind the Vision for Space Exploration, with clear goals and objectives, including fielding a new generation of safe, reliable, and affordable space transportation. The genesis of the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle activities now under way by a nationwide Government and industry team was the confirmation of the current NASA Administrator in April 2005. Shortly thereafter, he commissioned a team of aerospace experts to conduct the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which gave shape to launch vehicles that will empower America's resurgence in scientific discovery through human and robotic space exploration. In October 2005, I was asked to lead this effort, building the team and forming the partnerships that will, in turn, build America's next human-rated space transportation system. In November 2006, the Ares I team began conducting the System Requirements Review milestone, just 1 year after its formation. We are gaining momentum toward the first test flight of the integrated vehicle system in 2009, just a few short years away. The Agency is now poised to deliver on the commitment this nation has made to advance our interests in space. In its inaugural year, the Ares team has conducted the first human-rated launch vehicle major milestone in over 30 years. Using the Exploration Systems Architecture Study recommendations as a starting point, the vehicle designs have been evolved to best meet customer and stakeholder requirements to fulfill the strategic goals outlined in the Vision for Space Exploration.

Cook, Stephen A.↗

NASA NTRS2025

Measuring Unique Contextual Factors: Group Living Skills

BACKGROUND The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures used to assess behavioral health and performance risks related to future exploration-class space missions. During the HFBP-EM suite development, the importance of assessing unique contextual factors to understand the drivers of team dynamics was identified. Group living skills are a unique workplace skill which applies to those coworkers who live and work together. As mission lengths become longer, the line between work and non-work life may blur. Extreme living conditions such as spaceflight can result in increased stress over time, negatively impact mood and well-being, decrease team cohesion and increase conflict, deteriorate task performance, and potentially reduce mission success [1]. With no breaks in their isolated and confined environment possible, living with a messy, inconsiderate crewmember can add to the stress. Alternatively, crews with good group living skills may support one another, mitigating the negative effects of the extreme environment. There was no direct measure of group living skills. This work sought to fill this measurement gap and collect data related to group living in isolated, confined, extreme (ICE) environments. METHODS Group living skills as an astronaut competency area were developed with the input of experts familiar with ICE environments. Distinct aspects of this competency were reviewed and discussed by a NASA-invited group of spaceflight experts in 2015 to identify individual and team behavioral health and performance measures for operational environments. This work resulted in a 5-item measure focused on group living experiences with each crewmember (or the crew as a whole). A 6th item asks whether an individual would go on another mission with a particular crewmember or crew as a measure of future-oriented group living, or team viability. The measure was deployed in 24 teams living and working together in isolated and confined environments (e.g., International Space Station, space mission simulation analogs). RESULTS & DISCUSSION In this presentation, we will summarize results which indicate the Group Living Skills (GLS) Survey is a reliable, valid, and operationally feasible measure. Reliability was evaluated in several ways. Two-way multilevel mixed models revealed strong repeated measures reliability (ICC2 = .902, Omega between = .954). Reliability of change within teams was strong (Rc = .81). Factor analysis showed a consistent two-factor structure when individuals rated either the whole crew, all individuals, just peers, or a focal roommate. The latter used a sociometric approach to rating the GLS of the roommates. The two factors were tidiness and being considerate of others. We assessed the criterion-related validity of GLS, by examining GLS operationalized as the team-level aggregated GLS Survey scores as a predictor of team viability, team cohesion, and team performance. We used generalized mixed models to account for the repeated measures and longitudinal data. The marginal R2 change was used to determine the extent to which GLS were related to the team outcomes while controlling for mission day and campaign. Results suggested GLS was strongly related to team viability (marginal R2 change = .40), team cohesion (marginal R2 change = 0.28), social cohesion (marginal R2 change = 0.25), and moderately related to task cohesion (marginal R2 change = 0.18). GLS scores had a small relationship with team performance (marginal R2 change = .08). Results support GLS as a measure that can be used to capture group living skills of crews who live and work together in ICE. Because the items were written to be broadly applicable, less extreme environments with teams living and working together for some length of time also benefit from this measure (e.g., college roommates, camps). See Landon et al. (2024) for full results [2]. SUMMARY We report reliability and validity evidence for a new measure that assesses the Group Living Skills for teams that live and work in operational environments such as spaceflight.

J C W Miller↗

DOE OSTI2020

Summary Report of the Reactive CO 2 Capture: Process Integration for the New Carbon Economy Workshop

Decarbonization of our global economy is required to limit planetary warming to +1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, an ambitious goal set into motion by the Paris agreement. Given the scale and urgency, the solution demands international, cross-sector advancements spanning policy, social responsibility, and technology, with emphasis on step changes over incremental changes. To that end, technological revolutions that disrupt the status quo need to be envisioned and enacted. One potential technological revolution is the production of fuels, chemicals, and materials from carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) as the starting feedstock, leveraging renewable energy as the driving force. Over the past decades, significant research, development, and deployment has occurred on technologies for capturing CO 2 from point sources or the air and utilizing this CO 2 as a working fluid or as a chemical reactant; however, most of this work has been siloed in these two categories. Recently, an emerging field has started to explore the direct integration of CO 2 capture and conversion technologies as a means to reduce overall energy demand (i.e., avoid energy penalty of CO 2 desorption/regeneration of capture media) and capital expense through process intensification. This strategy represents an opportunity to leapfrog forward this technological revolution. However, the field is in its infancy and the technologies are at an early stage of development, thus it is critically important to define and assess the value proposition of this strategy relative to alternatives (e.g., separated capture and conversion technologies, fuels and chemicals derived from renewable feedstocks like biomass, and industrial electrification) to chart a path forward. To identify next steps, we organized a workshop titled “Reactive CO 2 Capture: Process Integration for the New Carbon Economy” which was held in Golden, Colorado, February 18–19, 2020. The focus of this workshop was to discuss approaches for merging CO 2 capture and CO 2 conversion/utilization systems into what we denoted as an integrated "reactive capture" strategy. By our definition, reactive capture of CO 2 is the coupled process of capturing CO 2 from a mixed gas stream and converting it into a valuable product without going through a purified CO 2 intermediate (see full definition in the Introduction section). This report seeks to summarize feedback from the approximately 125 participants and subject matter experts in attendance from academia, industry, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and DOE national laboratories. The workshop agenda is included in Appendix A and the full list of attendees can be found in Appendix B. To elucidate a path forward, we first asked the attendees to define what success would look like for reactive capture in the short term (0–5 years), midterm (5–10 years), and long term (10+ years) and then asked them to answer four questions related to how we could achieve that success: (1) What are the key barriers and challenges to success? (2) What are needed activities to overcome barriers and challenges? (3) What opportunities will arise from these activities? (4) What is a target outcome and what metrics need to be met?

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

NASA NTRS2007

Limits of Expertise: Rethinking Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents. CRM/HF Conference, Held in Denver, Colorado on April 16-17, 2006

Reviewed NTSB reports of the 19 U.S. airline accidents between 1991-2000 attributed primarily to crew error. Asked: Why might any airline crew in situation of accident crew--knowing only what they knew--be vulnerable. Can never know with certainty why accident crew made specific errors but can determine why the population of pilots is vulnerable. Considers variability of expert performance as function of interplay of multiple factors.

Aviation accidents↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Students Planting Research Of Use To Space (SPROUTS) Networking and Engagement of Interns at Kennedy Space Center

Beginning in 2016, the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) internship program for life sciences was re-envisioned. Rather than hosting interns in the summer only with numerous innovative small projects, the current model is to offer internship opportunities every semester, so that research is continuous and sustained. Since 2016 we have had 64 internship opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students in space crop production and microgravity simulation. 52 separate individuals have participated in this program, with some participating in more than one term. While interns primarily worked with individual mentors on a main project, most also worked on group projects or developed smaller secondary projects on their own initiative. Additionally, interns participated in a weekly Lunch, Learn, and Discuss seminar series where they presented their research, learned from scientists at KSC, and engaged with members of the space life sciences community. When the face-to-face spring 2020 internship ended prematurely, the weekly seminar series continued as a virtual event, which led to the concept of engaging former interns. Current and former interns were invited to participate in the on-going virtual series, and 46 asked to be included on the mailing list. Our current seminar series involves remote seminars from contacts within and outside of the agency, and engages a large network of current scientists and former interns with weekly participation averaging ~40 people. Speakers include experts from industry, academia, and other space agencies working on topics of interest to KSC researchers. This series has also served as a brainstorming platform for KSC scientists to discuss new ideas and concepts and invite feedback. Remote work and virtual platforms have allowed engagement in a new way that will continue as future interns are integrated into this network of individuals interested in space research. This work is funded by NASA’s Space Biology Program.

Space Crop Production↗

NASA NTRS1998

HEDS-UP Mars Exploration Forum

In the early 1990s, Duke and Budden convened a series of workshops addressing mission rationale, exploration objectives, and key constraints and issues facing human crews on Mars. The focal point was "why" the U.S. should fly humans to Mars. In the mid-1990s, strategies for a Mars mission matured and evolved, driven formally by NASA Johnson Space Center's Office of Exploration. In 1997, NASA published a report capturing the current thinking: the NASA Mars Reference Mission. In the 1997-1998 school year, HEDS-UP sponsored six universities to conduct design studies on Mars exploration, using the Reference Mission as a basis for their work. The 1998 Mars Exploration Forum presents the results of these university studies, suggesting "how" we might explore Mars, in terms of specific technical components that would enable human missions to Mars. A primary objective of the HEDS-UP Mars Exploration Forum was to provide a forum for active interaction among NASA, industry, and the university community on the subject of human missions to Mars. NASA scientists and engineers were asked to present the state of exploration for Mars mission options currently under study. This status "snapshot" of current Mars strategies set the stage for the six HEDS-UP universities to present their final design study results. Finally, a panel of industry experts discussed readiness for human missions to Mars as it pertains to the aerospace industries and technologies. A robust poster session provided the backdrop for government-industry-university discussions and allowed for feedback to NASA on the Mars Reference Mission. The common thread woven through the two days was discussion of technologies, proven and emerging, that will be required to launch, land, and sustain human crews on the Red Planet. As this decade (and indeed this millenium) draws to a close, Mars will continue to loom in our sights as the next target for human space exploration. It is our hope that the efforts of the Mars Exploration Forum will serve as one small contribution toward the ultimate goal of humans exploring Mars.

Budden, Nancy Ann↗

NASA NTRS1986

An Expert-System Engine With Operative Probabilities

Program enables proof-of-concepts tests of expert systems under development. AESOP is rule-based inference engine for expert system, which makes decisions about particular situation given user-supplied hypotheses, rules, and answers to questions drawn from rules. If knowledge base containing hypotheses and rules governing environment is available to AESOP, almost any situation within that environment resolved by answering questions asked by AESOP. Questions answered with YES, NO, MAYBE, DON'T KNOW, DON'T CARE, or with probability factor ranging from 0 to 10. AESOP written in Franz LISP for interactive execution.

Orlando, N. E.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Students Planting Research Of Use To Space (SPROUTS) Networking and Engagement of Interns at Kennedy Space Center

While Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has had summer interns in the life sciences for many years, beginning in 2016, the internship program was re-envisioned. Rather than having many interns in the summer with numerous innovative small projects created primarily for this purpose, the current model is to offer internship opportunities every semester (Spring, Summer, and Fall), so that research is continuous and sustained. Since 2016 we have had 64 internship opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students in the areas of space crop production and microgravity simulation support. Some students have participated in more than one opportunity, so 52 separate individuals have participated in this program. While interns primarily worked with individual mentors on a main project, most also worked on group projects with other interns or developed smaller secondary projects on their own initiative. In addition, all interns participated in a weekly Lunch, Learn, and Discuss seminar series where they were encouraged to present their research, learn from scientists at KSC, and engage with members of the space life sciences community. When the face-to-face spring internship of 2020 ended prematurely, we resumed the weekly seminar series as a virtual event, and this led to the concept of engaging former interns. Current and former interns were invited to participate in the on-going virtual series, and 46 asked to be included on the mailing list. Our current seminar series involves remote seminars or hosted discussions from contacts within and outside of the agency, and engages a large network of current scientists and former interns with an weekly participation averaging 40-50 people. Speakers include experts from industry, academia, and other space agencies working on topics of interest to KSC space life science researchers. In addition, this series has served as a brain trust and brainstorming mechanism for KSC scientists to invite and discuss new ideas and concepts. The advent of remote work and virtual platforms has allowed us to engage with interns in a new way that will continue as future interns are integrated into this network of individuals interested in space research. This work is funded by NASA’s Space Biology Program.

Internships↗

DOE OSTI2021

Enhancement of Industry Legacy Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods and Tools

Probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) are integral to nuclear power plant (NPP) operations, having tremendously benefitted the safety of the U.S. reactor fleet for decades. Insights obtained from the models have provided perspectives on a variety of applications, both at the plant and for the regulator. While these models are very useful, they are now being asked to represent and analyze aspects of the plant that were never envisioned by the initial PRA practitioners. Furthermore, heightened demands on the PRA models have led to increased computing power requirements. Additionally, as the complexity of the PRA models increased, the difficulty experienced by non-PRA experts in trying to understand these models, grasp the insights they provide, and effectively use that information has become problematic. The need for research to address key issues regarding PRA tools and methods has never been greater. Although the nuclear power industry has largely been well-served by these tools and methods, the underlying science is dated, remaining mostly unchanged for over two decades. Three areas were identified as most beneficial to address to maintain and improve the usefulness of the current practice legacy PRA tools: improvement in quantification speed, increased ability to efficiently model multi-hazard models, and improvement in modeling human action dependency in PRA. This report provides the outcomes from the FY2021 research into these three areas, identifying potential technical gaps and solutions, and charting the next steps forward to address current PRA challenges.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Solutions for Enhanced Legacy Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tools and Methodologies: Improving Efficiency of Model Development and Processing via Innovative Human Reliability Dependency Analysis

Probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) are integral to nuclear power plant (NPP) operations, having tremendously benefitted the safety of the U.S. reactor fleet for decades. Insights obtained from the models have provided perspectives on a variety of applications, both at the plant and for the regulator. While these models are very useful, they are now being asked to represent and analyze aspects of the plant that were never envisioned by the initial PRA practitioners. Furthermore, heightened demands on the PRA models have led to increased computing power requirements. Additionally, as the complexity of the PRA models increased, the difficulty experienced by non-PRA experts in trying to understand these models, grasp the insights they provide, and effectively use that information has become problematic. The need for research to address key issues regarding PRA tools and methods has never been greater. Although the nuclear power industry has largely been well-served by these tools and methods, the underlying science is dated, remaining mostly unchanged for over two decades. Three areas were identified as most beneficial to address to maintain and improve the usefulness of the current practice legacy PRA tools: improved quantification speed, increased ability to efficiently model multi-hazard models, and improved modeling human action dependency in PRA. This report is focused on the third critical area, improvements in dependency analysis of human actions conducted as part of a typical human reliability assessment.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

NASA NTRS1994

Situational Variables in Expert Pilot Decision Making

In traditional laboratory studies of decision making, the experimenter structures the problem, defines the goal and specifies available information. In contrast, when people make decisions in non-laboratory environments characterized as complex, dynamic and consequential, they must first identify the problem and determine what information and responses are relevant. The present research was designed to investigate which situational aspects are important to experienced pilots making aviation decisions. Twenty-eight professional pilots were asked to sort descriptions of 22 aircraft incidents into piles involving similar types of major decisions. Preliminary analyses suggest four underlying variables: time pressure, risk level, available resources, and certainty of goal attainment.

Fischer, Ute↗

DOE OSTI2022

The incongruity of validating quantitative proteomics using western blots

Similar to the age-old reviewer request for quantitative PCR validation of RNA sequencing data, nearly every researcher using proteomics technologies has, at one time or another, been asked by a reviewer to provide “western blot validation” of their mass spectrometry-based protein abundance data. We believe this request demonstrates a lack of awareness amongst the plant biology community about the extraordinary improvements in cost, sensitivity and reliability the field of mass spectrometry-based proteomics has made in recent years. Here, in this study, as a group of experts in different domains of quantitative plant proteomics, we explain why “western blot validation” of quantitative proteomics data is both unnecessary and invalid. Furthermore, we invite our colleagues in the plant science community to update their perception of quantitative mass spectrometry as a sensitive and reliable method of protein identification and quantitation.

Mehta, Devang↗

DOE OSTI2024

Expert and operator perspectives on barriers to energy efficiency in data centers

Abstract It was last estimated in 2016 that data centers (DCs) comprise approximately 2% of total US electricity consumption. However, this estimate is currently being updated to account for the massive increase in computing needs due to streaming, cryptocurrency, and artificial intelligence (AI). To prevent energy consumption that tracks with increasing computing needs, it is imperative we identify energy efficiency strategies and investments beyond the low-hanging fruit solutions. In a two-phased research approach, we ask: What non-technical barriers still impede energy efficiency (EE) practices and investments in the data center sector, and what can be done to overcome these barriers? In particular, we are focused on social and organizational barriers to EE. In Phase I, we performed a literature review and found that technical solutions are abundant in the literature, but fail to address the top-down cultural shifts that need to take place in order to adapt new energy efficiency strategies. In Phase II, reported here, we interviewed 16 data center operators/experts to ground-truth our literature findings. Our interview protocols focus on three aspects of DC decision-making: procurement practices, metrics and monitoring, and perceived barriers to energy efficiency. We find that vendors are the key drivers of procurement decisions, advanced efficiency metrics are facility-specific, and there is convergence in the design of advanced facilities due to the heat density of parallelized infrastructure. Our ultimate goals for our research are to design DC decarbonization policies that target organizational structure, empower individual staff, and foster a supportive external market.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Misconceptions and Reality of Orbital Debris Risk

Since the formal commissioning of the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office in the 1970s, the risks of orbital debris have gradually become more widely known to the community of space experts. The subject has even entered the mainstream of popular culture (e.g., the 2013 film “Gravity”). Growth in professional and public interest has been mirrored by a growth in misconceptions concerning the nature and scope of orbital debris risks and how to “fix the problem.” This is a global issue, both complicated and potentially expensive, so it is important that problem solvers and policy makers ask the correct questions and address the right problems. This paper will identify and clarify a select number of these misconceptions and highlight the best cost-effective solutions.

Mark Matney↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Misconceptions and Reality of Orbital Debris Risk

Mark Matney↗

DOE OSTI2022

Energy Emergency and Preparedness Data: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and Quick Guidance on Crisis Communications

State Energy Offices and Public Utility Commissions rely on timely, accurate, and actionable information to perform their energy emergency response duties and execute their roles as state energy security planners. In support of this need, the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions (NARUC) hosted an Energy Security and Data Analysis Workshop in Washington, DC to identify energy security response and planning data sources; and to share successful methods of data use and integration in state, federal, and private sector tools. Following the workshop, NASEO and NARUC hosted two topical data-centric webinars based on state priorities to identify best practices in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Crisis Communications programs leveraged in energy assurance planning and response. The Crisis Communications webinar covered best practice tactics for how states can respond during energy emergencies and other crises. Based on the workshop and webinars, this document summarizes commonly used data sources and includes frequently asked questions which may be used by state energy officials (i.e., consisting of staff from Public Utility Commissions and Governor-designated State Energy Offices) to help guide them in developing or improving their Crisis Communications capabilities. A strong public information program is a key crisis management tool. Timely and accurate information helps prevent confusion and uncertainty and encourages public support and cooperation. As energy subject matter experts, state energy officials are vital in the distilling, clarifying, and conveying energy sector information and implications to decision-makers and the public. Other participants in an effective public information program include the Governor’s Office, other state agencies, local governments, energy providers, local businesses, state legislature, and the federal government. It is essential to provide stakeholders and the public with information about the nature, severity, and duration of an emergency because inadequate understanding and awareness can lead to undesirable actions that could further exacerbate the situation. Before a state government can provide information to the public, it must gather information, describe the emergency accurately, and develop recommendations to manage the situation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

HAT m:N Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA)

This Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) study was designed to understand the capability of the m:N Tactical Operator (TO) interfaces developed by the Human-Autonomy Teaming Laboratory at NASA Ames to support operators responsible for simplified pilot operations of 100 independently operated small UAS (sUAS) in a constrained geographic area. The m:N sUAS TO interface includes a central Tactical Situation Display (TSD) digital map with moving icons reflecting the sUAS location and planned flight route. The interface also has two side panels. The left panel includes a tabular list of UAS assets and mission tasking, a list of recently viewed assets, and a list of events and alerts. The right panel includes a tabular list of UAS assets and their associated telemetry, text-based chat communication window, and a tabbed checklist window. This CTA was adapted from the incident-based applied cognitive task analysis (Militello & Hutton, 1998) and included demographics questions, scenario-based simulations, a task diagram and knowledge audit methods. In addition to examining the support provided by this m:N sUAS TO interface, this CTA study, conducted with aviation subject matter experts in analogous roles to the future tactical operator, was designed to illuminate and project likely cognitive requirements of the tactical operator. Interviewees participated in two scenario-based simulations using the m:N sUAS TO interfaces. In the first simulation, the interviewees supervised 12 sUAS operating in downtown San Diego, California transiting to and from a central sUAS Hive, restaurant locations, and customer drop off locations. Interviewees were asked to react to a UAS Volume Reservation (UVR) event with a two-phase impact on food delivery operations. In the second scenario, the interviewees supervised 100 sUAS operating in the same airspace and with the same mission. Interviewees used the interfaces to recognize and react to two sUAS air vehicle problems. After each scenario, we asked the interviewees a semi-structured list of questions to elicit their reflections about using the interfaces. Interviewees were confident in their ability to respond to two off-nominal situations in each simulation. Interviewees felt that, given high levels of automation on the sUAS, they would be able to manage the events without requiring additional support or handing off the sUAS to a colleague or supervisor in both the n=12 or n=100 sUAS settings. In the n=12 sUAS condition, interviewees used the center map to understand the asset location and progress along with mission tasking. An additional display window, Asset Telemetry, helped interviewees understand battery state and sUAS altitude. When the number of sUAS increased, interviewees altered their behavior. Rather than maintaining awareness of individual assets, interviewees appeared to become more reactive, managing exceptions. Interviewees reported that they spent less time looking at the nominal aircraft, and focused their attention primarily on the off-nominal aircraft. In addition, in the second simulation with n=100 sUAS, interviewees reported that they relied more on the side panels (Mission Timeline and Asset Telemetry) to gather information.

human-autonomy teaming↗

NASA NTRS2001

ASK Magazine

Not everyone looks forward to reviews. Dog and pony shows I've heard them called. Exercises in putting together Power Point charts. Other less tasteful descriptions abound, but I won't bother to summarize these. This is a tasteful magazine after all. In this issue, we've assembled a number of articles on the subject of reviews, particularly as they occur in the NASA project world (although we cover the subject from other perspectives too). Veteran NASA Project Manager Marty Davis, in his article Tangled Up in Reviews, writes, "Many people regard reviews as something onerous, but if we can tailor them so that they're not as bad as they have to be, it can be a great benefit to a project manager." Great benefits to the project manager is what you'll find in Marty's story as he describes not only tailoring a single review but the entire lifecycle of reviews in his project. In Jo Gunderson's story, Calling Down the Fire on Yourself, she describes a young NASA Project Manager who does just that because, as he tells her, I needed to know if there was anything that I had overlooked." How he brings fire down on himself at his project review will inspire other young Project Managers, seasoned managers, and anyone else who reads this powerful story. Leave Your Ego at the Door, by Jenny Baer-Reidhart and Ray Morgan, uses reviews to highlight the creative collaboration that existed between NASA and one of its industry partners. The protagonist of this story is a company who took advantage of NASAs expert advice during reviews and accomplished amazing feats as a result. The story also examines how disasters might well have been avoided by two other NASA partners had they been as open-minded as the first company during their reviews. In Roy Malone's story, Standing Offer, a NASA Project Manager describes how he used a crack review team to help him pass a critical certification inspection while he was a Combat Systems Officer in the Navy. Malone invited the reviewers to come back several times so that they would be able to focus in detail on the many areas of the program that would be scrutinized during the certification inspection. These are just a sampling of some of the articles you'll find in this issue of ASK. We believe this issue offers ample evidence that talented Project Managers know how to use reviews to the great benefit of their projects. A talented Project Manager will typically figure out a way to turn any onerous task into a useful learning exercise. These Project Managers demonstrate that the real value of reviews is that they provide a chance to learn something. No dog and pony shows here.

Laufer, Alexander↗