SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Prelaunch checkout and payload integration test requirements for combined mission flights of Apollo applications program
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Operations research activities developed to identify the information required to manage both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Veterans Administration (VA) health services as these services relate to individual patient care are reported. The clinical concerns and management functions that determine this information requirement are discussed conceptually. Investigations of existing VA data for useful management information are recorded, and a diagnostic index is provided. The age-specific characteristics of diseases and lengths of stay are explored, and recommendations for future analysis activities are articulated. The effect of the introduction of new technology to health care is also discussed.
The Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Management System for the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) - spacecraft processing from KSC arrival through launch is described. The roles and responsibilities of the agencies and test team organizations involved in IUS-S/C processing at KSC for non-Department of Defense missions are described. Working relationships are defined with respect to documentation preparation, coordination and approval, schedule development and maintenance, test conduct and control, configuration management, quality control and safety. The policy regarding the use of spacecraft contractor test procedures, IUS contractor detailed operating procedures and KSC operations and maintenance instructions is defined. Review and approval requirements for each documentation system are described.
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. The evaluation and selection process involves the following functions: (1) determining if a configuration can satisfy basic STME requirements (yes/no); (2) defining the evaluation criteria; (3) selecting the criteria relative importance or weighting; (4) determining the weighting sensitivities; and (5) establishing a baseline for engine evaluation. The criteria weighting and sensitivities are cost related and are based on mission models and vehicle requirements. The evaluation process is used as a coarse screen to determine the candidate engines for the parametric studies and as a fine screen to determine concept(s) for conceptual design. The criteria used for the coarse and fine screen evaluation process is shown. The coarse screen process involves verifying that the candidate engines can meet the yes/no screening requirements and a semi-subjective quantitative evaluation. The fine screen engines have to meet all of the yes/no screening gates and are then subjected to a detailed evaluation or assessment using the quantitative cost evaluation processes. The option exists for re-cycling a concept through the quantitative portion of the screening and allows for some degree of optimization. The basic vehicle is a two stage LOX/HC, LOX/LH2 parallel burn vehicle capable of placing 150,000 lbs in low Earth orbit (LEO).
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.
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
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
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
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.
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.
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.
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.