Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Plan”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1987

Configuration evaluation and criteria plan. Volume 2: Evaluation criteria plan (update). Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) configuration study

Candidate main engine configurations which enhance vehicle performance, operation and cost are identified. These candidate configurations are evaluated and the configurations which provide significant advantages over existing systems are selected for consideration for the next generation of launch vehicles. The unbiased selection of the Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) configuration requires that the candidate engines be evaluated against a predetermined set of criteria which must be properly weighted to emphasize critical requirements defined prior to the actual evaluation. During a prior study of the STME a Gas Generator Cycle engine was selected for conceptual design, with emphasis on reusability, reliability and low cost while achieving good performance. In this study emphasis is on expendable application of the STME while maintaining low cost and high reliability.

Bair, E. K.↗
NASA NTRS1989

NASA-evolving to Ada: Five-year plan. A plan for implementing recommendations made by the Ada and software management assessment working group

At their March 1988 meeting, members of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Information Resources Management (IRM) Council expressed concern that NASA may not have the infrastructure necessary to support the use of Ada for major NASA software projects. Members also observed that the agency has no coordinated strategy for applying its experiences with Ada to subsequent projects (Hinners, 27 June 1988). To deal with these problems, the IRM Council chair appointed an intercenter Ada and Software Management Assessment Working Group (ASMAWG). They prepared a report (McGarry et al., March 1989) entitled, 'Ada and Software Management in NASA: Findings and Recommendations'. That report presented a series of recommendations intended to enable NASA to develop better software at lower cost through the use of Ada and other state-of-the-art software engineering technologies. The purpose here is to describe the steps (called objectives) by which this goal may be achieved, to identify the NASA officials or organizations responsible for carrying out the steps, and to define a schedule for doing so. This document sets forth four goals: adopt agency-wide software standards and policies; use Ada as the programming language for all mission software; establish an infrastructure to support software engineering, including the use of Ada, and to leverage the agency's software experience; and build the agency's knowledge base in Ada and software engineering. A schedule for achieving the objectives and goals is given.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

Verifying AI Plan Models: Even the Best Laid Plans Need to be Verified

This viewgraph presentation reviews work on model checking, and specifically the SPIN model checker. The goal of this work is to retire a significant class of risks associated with the use of Artificial Intelligence (Al) Planners on Missions. This effort must provide tangible testing results to a mission using Al technology. It is hoped that the work should be possible to leverage the technique and tools throughout NASA

artificial intelligence↗
NASA NTRS2000

ISS Payload Operations: The Need for and Benefit of Responsive Planning

International Space Station (ISS) payload operations are controlled through implementation of a payload operations plan. This plan, which represents the defined approach to payload operations in general, can vary in terms of level of definition. The detailed plan provides the specific sequence and timing of each component of a payload's operations. Such an approach to planning was implemented in the Spacelab program. The responsive plan provides a flexible approach to payload operations through generalization. A responsive approach to planning was implemented in the NASA/Mir Phase 1 program, and was identified as a need during the Skylab program. The current approach to ISS payload operations planning and control tends toward detailed planning, rather than responsive planning. The use of detailed plans provides for the efficient use of limited resources onboard the ISS. It restricts flexibility in payload operations, which is inconsistent with the dynamic nature of the ISS science program, and it restricts crew desires for flexibility and autonomy. Also, detailed planning is manpower intensive. The development and implementation of a responsive plan provides for a more dynamic, more accommodating, and less manpower intensive approach to planning. The science program becomes more dynamic and responsive as the plan provides flexibility to accommodate real-time science accomplishments. Communications limitations and the crew desire for flexibility and autonomy in plan implementation are readily accommodated with responsive planning. Manpower efficiencies are accomplished through a reduction in requirements collection and coordination, plan development, and maintenance. Through examples and assessments, this paper identifies the need to transition from detailed to responsive plans for ISS payload operations. Examples depict specific characteristics of the plans. Assessments identify the following: the means by which responsive plans accommodate the dynamic nature of science programs and the crew desire for flexibility; the means by which responsive plans readily accommodate ISS communications constraints; manpower efficiencies to be achieved through use of responsive plans; and the implications of responsive planning relative to resource utilization efficiency.

Nahay, Ed↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Center Master Plan For NASA Glenn Research Center

The Center Master Plan for NASA Glenn Research Center is a comprehensive survey of NASA Glenn's current facility assets and a vision of how we see the facilities will change over the next 20 years in order to support the changing NASA Mission. This Center Master Plan is a vital management tool used by all organizations for making near term decisions and in future planning. During the summer of 2004, I worked with Joseph Morris, the Chief Architect in the Facilities Division, on beginning this Center Master Planning Process. The previous Master Plan was completed by the Center in 1985 and contained general information on the background of the facility as well as maps detailing environmental and historic records, land use, utilities, etc. The new Master Plan is required for the Center by NASA headquarters and will include similar types of information as used in the past. The new study will provide additional features including showing how individual buildings are linked to the programs and missions that they serve. The Master Plan will show practical future options for the facility s assets with a twenty year look ahead. The Plan will be electronically retrievable so that it becomes a communications tool for Center personnel. A Center Master Plan, although required, is very beneficial to NASA Glenn Research Center in aiding management with the future direction of the campus. Keeping up-to-date information and future plans readily available to all of NASA Glenn will insure that future real property development efficiently and effectively supports the missions camed out and supported by the Center. A Center Master Plan will also facilitate coordination with Center supported programs, stakeholders, and customers. In addition, it will provide a basis for cooperative planning with local and other governmental organizations and ultimately ensure that future budgets include the Center program needs described in the plan. This will ensure that development plans are safe, practical, and cost effective. To properly formulate any future plans, background information and research are required. Before bringing in a consultant to tackle the three year process anticipated to prepare a Center Master Plan, my job was to gather information on different organizations contributions to the NASA mission, their facility needs, consistent trends they observe, etc. I conducted numerous interviews with personnel such as Directorate Representatives, Division Chiefs, Branch Chiefs, System Managers and Building Managers. I documented the information I received from them for future use. I used the information to create various color-coded maps layering the different data. This was done with the ending objective being to collect the information and place it in a database that will be linked with Aperture (a computer program that generates color-coded map layers from database information) and made electronically retrievable to the Planning Consultant, NASA personnel, program stakeholders, and other governmental agencies. My goal this summer was to gather information and ideas appropriate for use in NASA Glenn Research Center s Master Plan and organize them for future application by the Planning Consultant. By the end of the summer, after completion of my goal, I will utilize my knowledge and create an array of preliminary future plans for the facility that can be passed along as a guidance tool.

Bigach, Kristin M.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Adaptive Planning: Understanding Organizational Workload to Capability/ Capacity through Modeling and Simulation

In August 2003, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) established the Adaptive Planning (AP) initiative [1] with an objective of reducing the time necessary to develop and revise Combatant Commander (COCOM) contingency plans and increase SECDEF plan visibility. In addition to reducing the traditional plan development timeline from twenty-four months to less than twelve months (with a goal of six months)[2], AP increased plan visibility to Department of Defense (DoD) leadership through In-Progress Reviews (IPRs). The IPR process, as well as the increased number of campaign and contingency plans COCOMs had to develop, increased the workload while the number of planners remained fixed. Several efforts from collaborative planning tools to streamlined processes were initiated to compensate for the increased workload enabling COCOMS to better meet shorter planning timelines. This paper examines the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) directed contingency planning and staffing requirements assigned to a combatant commander staff through the lens of modeling and simulation. The dynamics of developing a COCOM plan are captured with an ExtendSim [3] simulation. The resulting analysis provides a quantifiable means by which to measure a combatant commander staffs workload associated with development and staffing JSCP [4] directed contingency plans with COCOM capability/capacity. Modeling and simulation bring significant opportunities in measuring the sensitivity of key variables in the assessment of workload to capability/capacity analysis. Gaining an understanding of the relationship between plan complexity, number of plans, planning processes, and number of planners with time required for plan development provides valuable information to DoD leadership. Through modeling and simulation AP leadership can gain greater insight in making key decisions on knowing where to best allocate scarce resources in an effort to meet DoD planning objectives.

Hase, Chris↗
DOE OSTI2026

Integrating three plan evaluation approaches for coordinated heat resilience in cities across the Arizona urban corridor

Increasing heat poses a growing threat to cities worldwide due to both climate change and the urban heat island effect. While heat planning and governance are still emergent, research suggests that silos and conflicts within cities' networks of plans often impede heat resilience. Integrated heat resilience planning, therefore, requires a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the silos and conflicts relevant to heat resilience within networks of plans. This study is the first to combine three complementary plan evaluation methods to assess how cities' networks of plans address heat resilience. We applied 1) plan cross-referencing, 2) Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, and 3) Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat to 19 plans from seven Arizona cities. We find similarities and differences in how these cities' networks of plans address heat hazards. The plans have consistently high-quality participation and coordination principles but lack details on vulnerability and climate change uncertainty, suggesting a need to move beyond immediate heat risks. We also identify opportunities to diversify policy mechanisms, spatially target high heat risk areas, and enhance the connection between planning efforts. These results validate that plan elements are interlinked and the importance of integrative plan development processes to improve heat resilience.

Extreme heat↗
NASA NTRS2002

Lessons Learned In Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station

The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The "pieces" are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.

Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Lessons Learned in Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station

The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The pieces are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.

Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Concept of Operations for OSIRIS-REx Optical Navigation Image Planning

Optical navigation (OpNav) is a critical subsystem of the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample return mission, which operated in the vicinity of near-Earth asteroid (101955) Bennu from August 2018 through April 2021. A substantial amount of mission resources across multiple subsystems and institutions is required to ensure that the OpNav data are successfully acquired. The KinetX OpNav team, part of the Flight Dynamics System (FDS), is responsible for performing required analysis to develop the OpNav operations plans; requesting, reviewing and verifying the plans; and ultimately using the image data for critical navigation operations. The FDS team, responsible for the mission navigation, is operated by KinetX Aerospace with management and operations support from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The Science Processing and Operations Center (SPOC), located at the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, is responsible for generating the planning products for all science and most OpNav data. These plans are integrated into the spacecraft sequences, tested, and commanded by the Mission Support Area (MSA) at Lockheed Martin Space. To ensure mission-critical navigation image data are successfully acquired, the plan is developed through a waterfall of planning cycles over the course of 3 months prior to onboard plan execution. During the initial strategic planning for a mission phase, detailed analysis is performed by the OpNav team to conceptualize the concept of operations (ConOps) for image data collection. This phase OpNav Narrative is included along with other strategic planning documents for the key ground segment stakeholders to review and provide feedback. The detailed OpNav plans get defined in the tactical planning cycle, which spans 8 to 3 weeks before the week-long integrated sequence is executed on-board the spacecraft. During the tactical cycle, the initial OpNav Request is submitted along with the science requests, kicking off development of the science and OpNav plans. Once the initial plan is drafted, interfaces are exercised so that the plan can be reviewed and iterated, if necessary. A rigorous schedule is followed by the planning teams during the implementation cycle, spanning the last 18 days before uplink, to ensure all the necessary integration, testing, and reviewing can occur on time. The development of the OpNav planning ConOps, including responsibilities, interfaces, timelines, and procedures, took extensive collaboration across mission elements and institutions. The process was robust throughout the 137 weeks of continuous Optical Navigation Operations at Bennu, which concluded on April 9th, 2021.

Coralie D. Adam↗
NASA NTRS2010

Collective Intelligence and Three Aspects of Planning in Organizations: A NASA Example

For many complex sociotechnical systems, planning seems to require explicit coordination; certainly, in executing a plan the activities of different actors must be tightly coupled. However, distributing the needed planning information can be very burdensome and error prone, because different groups need different collections of information, updated or kept current on different time cycles. Further, the information needed to form successful plans is often highly distributed, and while feedback about the success of prior plans may exist, it may not be available to those in a position of using this to improve plans or to detect and resolve other problems in the system (Weick, 1995). Tools to support various aspects of planning have been developed, and can provide a huge benefit to the individuals working on that aspect. To be tractable, most solutions address a quite bounded slice of work, isolating it from the larger context. Prospective planning takes place over multiple, nested cycles of decision making. This builds a plan that specifies activities of different granularity. "Subplans" may specify multiple parallel activities by different groups and individuals, as well as sequential, nested actions by a single actor. Planning produces valuable, sharable, external, representations: in addition to prospective use, plans support retrospective assessment and also action in the present. Viewing planning in a larger context - both temporal and organizational -- enables noticing what one does not know and generating more systemic and effective solutions. Viewing a problem as one of collective intelligence invites thinking about the larger organizational context. Many approaches to supporting collective intelligence do not support execution of highly contingent actions, distributed across many players, and hence provide incomplete support for planning. However, CI technology maybe helpful in managing the processes of gathering information for decision making in planning and of distributing plan information to various actors, needed on various time cycles.

Billman, Dorrit↗
NASA NTRS2022

Balancing Predictive and Reactive Science Planning for Mars 2020 Perseverance

The design of the science planning process for a space science mission needs to find a balance between operational and resource constraints and scientific decision-making. Science planning has previously been characterized as either predictive or reactive. Predictive science planning is needed when constraints drive science activities to be planned far in advance. For example, a combination of long one-way light time plus high-stakes science decisions drove the Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn to have an extremely predictive planning process. On the other extreme, reactive science planning is needed when constraints drive science activities to be planned based on the results of the previous plan. For example, the Mars Exploration Rover mission interacted with the surface of Mars, and so the planning team needed to know the state of the rover at the end of each planning cycle before starting the next cycle. Operational and resource constraints that require management on intermediate timescales has led to the development of a science planning process between these two extremes. For example, the Mars Science Laboratory is a technically complex rover and has a parallel predictive process that allows the operations team to manage engineering constraints several days in advance while maintaining the reactive tactical planning process similar to that of MER. The Mars 2020 Perseverance rover is a technically complex rover in the MSL style, but has an added layer of science complexity: it is tasked with collecting a returnable cache of scientifically valuable samples of Mars within prime mission. Thus, the science planning process also needs to accommodate high-stakes longer-term science decisions in the style of Cassini. In order to balance the push-pull of these constraints, we have developed a science campaign-focused operational paradigm for Mars 2020 Perseverance that allows for both predictive planning to accommodate technological complexity and high-stakes science decisions as well as reactive planning to accommodate the realities of interacting with the martian surface. This paradigm influenced the design of operational processes and operational tools.

Spanovich, Nicole↗