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 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↗
NASA NTRS2015

Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team

A team is defined as: "two or more individuals who interact socially and adaptively, have shared or common goals, and hold meaningful task interdependences; it is hierarchically structured and has a limited life span; in it expertise and roles are distributed; and it is embedded within an organization/environmental context that influences and is influenced by ongoing processes and performance outcomes" (Salas, Stagl, Burke, & Goodwin, 2007, p. 189). From the NASA perspective, a team is commonly understood to be a collection of individuals that is assigned to support and achieve a particular mission. Thus, depending on context, this definition can encompass both the spaceflight crew and the individuals and teams in the larger multi-team system who are assigned to support that crew during a mission. The Team Risk outcomes of interest are predominantly performance related, with a secondary emphasis on long-term health; this is somewhat unique in the NASA HRP in that most Risk areas are medically related and primarily focused on long-term health consequences. In many operational environments (e.g., aviation), performance is assessed as the avoidance of errors. However, the research on performance errors is ambiguous. It implies that actions may be dichotomized into "correct" or "incorrect" responses, where incorrect responses or errors are always undesirable. Researchers have argued that this dichotomy is a harmful oversimplification, and it would be more productive to focus on the variability of human performance and how organizations can manage that variability (Hollnagel, Woods, & Leveson, 2006) (Category III1). Two problems occur when focusing on performance errors: 1) the errors are infrequent and, therefore, difficult to observe and record; and 2) the errors do not directly correspond to failure. Research reveals that humans are fairly adept at correcting or compensating for performance errors before such errors result in recognizable or recordable failures. Astronauts are notably adept high performers. Most failures are recorded only when multiple, small errors occur and humans are unable to recognize and correct or compensate for these errors in time to prevent a failure (Dismukes, Berman, Loukopoulos, 2007) (Category III). More commonly, observers record variability in levels of performance. Some teams commit no observable errors but fail to achieve performance objectives or perform only adequately, while other teams commit some errors but perform spectacularly. Successful performance, therefore, cannot be viewed as simply the absence of errors or the avoidance of failure Johnson Space Center (JSC) Joint Leadership Team, 2008). While failure is commonly attributed to making a major error, focusing solely on the elimination of error(s) does not significantly reduce the risk of failure. Failure may also occur when performance is simply insufficient or an effort is incapable of adjusting sufficiently to a contextual change (e.g., changing levels of autonomy).

Landon, Lauren Blackwell↗
NASA NTRS2015

Essentials for Team Based Rehearsals and the Differences Between Earth Orbiting and Deep Space Missions

The mission readiness environment is where spacecraft and ground systems converge to form the entire as built flight system for the final phase of operationally-themed testing. For most space missions, this phase starts between nine to twelve months prior to the planned launch. In the mission readiness environment, the goal is to perform sufficient testing to exercise the flight teams and systems through all mission phases in order to demonstrate that all elements are ready to support. As part of the maturation process, a mission rehearsal program is introduced to focus on team processes within the final flight system, in a more realistic operational environment. The overall goal for a mission rehearsal program is to: 1) ensure all flight system elements are able to meet mission objectives as a cohesive team; 2) reduce the risk in space based operations due to deficiencies in people, processes, procedures, or systems; and 3) instill confidence in the teams that will execute these first time flight activities. A good rehearsal program ensures critical events are exercised, discovers team or flight system nuances whose impact were previously unknown, and provides a real-time environment in which to interact with the various teams and systems. For flight team members, the rehearsal program provides experience and training in the event of planned (or unplanned) flight contingencies. To preserve the essence for team based rehearsals, this paper will explore the important elements necessary for a successful rehearsal program, document differences driven by Earth Orbiting (Aqua, Aura, Suomi-National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP)) and Deep Space missions (New Horizons, Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN)) and discuss common challenges to both mission types. In addition, large scale program considerations and enhancements or additional steps for developing a rehearsal program will also be considered. For NASA missions, the mission rehearsal phase is a key milestone for predicting and ensuring on-orbit success.

Gomez-Rosa, Carlos↗
NASA NTRS2021

What Makes Hybrid Concurrent Engineering Teams Work and Not Work: A Theoretical Analysis

Aerospace concurrent engineering teams (CETs) have been around since 1995 and have evolved into various shapes and forms. Historically, CETs have been designed to function with all team members physically collocated. In order to continue operating during the coronavirus pandemic, these teams have had to become fully distributed in 2020. Previously, distributed CETs were predicted to be considerably less efficient than traditional CETs. However, at JPL studies are being successfully run at peak rate in a distributed mode. As nominal working conditions resume after the pandemic, a major question is whether these teams must go back to being fully collocated or if they can become successful hybrid teams, with half or more of the engineers working remotely. In order to address this question, it is important to understand the key characteristics that make a CET more likely to be successful in a remote mode. This paper revisits a framework for characterizing concurrent engineering teams, providing a means to describe and compare the behavior of concurrent engineering teams in various settings [1], and uses the framework to make recommendations for future hybrid teams.

Chattopadhyay, Debarati↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Study of the Curation Protocol by Sample Analysis Working Team (SAWT) in Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) Project

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) will launch a spacecraft in 2024 for a sample return mission from Phobos (Martian Moons eXploration: MMX). The major scientific goals of MMX are to constrain (1) the origin of Phobos and Deimos and (2) the evolution of the Mars-moon system [1]. The touchdown operations are planned to be performed twice at different landing sites on the Phobos surface to collect > 10 g of the surface materials [2]. After the return to the Earth, the Phobos samples will be collected from the individual sample canisters and introduced to the clean chamber installed at ISAS (Institute of Space and Astronautical Science). The Sample Analysis Working Team (SAWT) of MMX designed the procedure of Phobos sample analysis mainly conducted by the initial analysis teams [3]. For the next step, the SAWT will define the procedure of the curation process (mostly non-destructive analysis) of the Phobos samples, which will be presented here. The protocols of the Phobos sample curation is illustrated in figure 1. First, the headspace gas from the sample container will be collected during the Quick Analysis phase. The Quick Analysis will be operated by the sampler and curation teams in ISAS/JAXA. The terrestrial leak and contamination from the sampling systems will be tested using a quadrupole mass spectrometer equipped with a gas sampling system. Second, the bulk Phobos sample will be observed in the clean chamber under purified-N2 gas with an ambient condition (Pre-basic Characterization). This phase will be operated by the curation team in ISAS/JAXA and the instrument team of the MMX mission. The consistency between the data from the instruments in the clean chamber and the spacecraft will then be evaluated. Subsequently, the curation will distribute the small amount of Phobos samples to the Initial analysis team of MMX to conduct the "Preliminary Examination". The objectives of the preliminary examination are to provide (1) feedback on the subsequent sample allocation process, (2) preliminary scientific results that will address parts of MMX mission goals, and (3) evaluation of the sampling system and terrestrial alteration on Phobos samples. Because multiple models are proposed for the origin of Phobos [1] (e.g., giant impact, the capture of asteroids), the chemical and mineralogical characteristics of Phobos must be assessed before the allocation of the samples to the individual initial analysis teams. Simultaneously, the curation team in JAXA will observe the individual grains and aliquots of the samples in the clean chamber (Basic Characterization).

R Fukai↗
DOE OSTI2020

ESGF project plan for ramping down development activities and transition the project and data to a new team

This document summarizes the current software development activities carried by the ESGF team with planned delivery dates before the transition of the project to a new team. The work we started on the publishing, search and retrieval, and the backend for indexing and data management that can be deployed using Kubernetes are planned to be delivered within the next three months; however, this assumes that the current team members will continue to work on the project. The activities are listed in Table 1 by priority and in case we lose team members, development of lower priority tasks can be paused and passed to the new team with its current status. Team members can be re-assigned based on their availability and transition work needed. Table 2 below describe activities necessary to help project transition to the new team. Deadlines for these activities are before October 1 st of 2022 or the completion of a successful transition. Support during the transition period assumes that we will have 3 key ESGF members and the ESGF PI supported at the 50% level or less for the duration of the transition. The level of support is an estimate, and it depends on several factors that cannot be decided at this time. The total cost of the proposed work and support activities for fiscal year 2021 is $1,270K with $230K carry over to fiscal year 2022. The cost for the support work listed in Table 2 is the sum of the two rows “HW support” and “project support, maintenance, and transition efforts”, colored blue, in Table1 which adds up to $720K. This cost is included in the $1,270K cost in table 1.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗