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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Mission Reliability Estimation for Repairable Robot Teams

A mission reliability estimation method has been designed to translate mission requirements into choices of robot modules in order to configure a multi-robot team to have high reliability at minimal cost. In order to build cost-effective robot teams for long-term missions, one must be able to compare alternative design paradigms in a principled way by comparing the reliability of different robot models and robot team configurations. Core modules have been created including: a probabilistic module with reliability-cost characteristics, a method for combining the characteristics of multiple modules to determine an overall reliability-cost characteristic, and a method for the generation of legitimate module combinations based on mission specifications and the selection of the best of the resulting combinations from a cost-reliability standpoint. The developed methodology can be used to predict the probability of a mission being completed, given information about the components used to build the robots, as well as information about the mission tasks. In the research for this innovation, sample robot missions were examined and compared to the performance of robot teams with different numbers of robots and different numbers of spare components. Data that a mission designer would need was factored in, such as whether it would be better to have a spare robot versus an equivalent number of spare parts, or if mission cost can be reduced while maintaining reliability using spares. This analytical model was applied to an example robot mission, examining the cost-reliability tradeoffs among different team configurations. Particularly scrutinized were teams using either redundancy (spare robots) or repairability (spare components). Using conservative estimates of the cost-reliability relationship, results show that it is possible to significantly reduce the cost of a robotic mission by using cheaper, lower-reliability components and providing spares. This suggests that the current design paradigm of building a minimal number of highly robust robots may not be the best way to design robots for extended missions.

Trebi-Ollennu, Ashitey↗
NASA NTRS2010

TEAMS Model Analyzer

The TEAMS model analyzer is a supporting tool developed to work with models created with TEAMS (Testability, Engineering, and Maintenance System), which was developed by QSI. In an effort to reduce the time spent in the manual process that each TEAMS modeler must perform in the preparation of reporting for model reviews, a new tool has been developed as an aid to models developed in TEAMS. The software allows for the viewing, reporting, and checking of TEAMS models that are checked into the TEAMS model database. The software allows the user to selectively model in a hierarchical tree outline view that displays the components, failure modes, and ports. The reporting features allow the user to quickly gather statistics about the model, and generate an input/output report pertaining to all of the components. Rules can be automatically validated against the model, with a report generated containing resulting inconsistencies. In addition to reducing manual effort, this software also provides an automated process framework for the Verification and Validation (V&V) effort that will follow development of these models. The aid of such an automated tool would have a significant impact on the V&V process.

Tijidjian, Raffi P.↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-To-Orbit Team Design Process and Tools

The Earth-to-Orbit Team (ETO) of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the pre-eminent go-to group for pre-phase A and phase A concept definition. Over the past several years the ETO team has evaluated thousands of launch vehicle concept variations for a significant number of studies including agency-wide efforts such as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Constellation, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), Augustine Report, Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology (HLPT), Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT), and Space Launch System (SLS). The ACO ETO Team is called upon to address many needs in NASA s design community; some of these are defining extremely large trade-spaces, evaluating advanced technology concepts which have not been addressed by a large majority of the aerospace community, and the rapid turn-around of highly time critical actions. It is the time critical actions, those often limited by schedule or little advanced warning, that have forced the five member ETO team to develop a design process robust enough to handle their current output level in order to meet their customer s needs. Based on the number of vehicle concepts evaluated over the past year this output level averages to four completed vehicle concepts per day. Each of these completed vehicle concepts includes a full mass breakdown of the vehicle to a tertiary level of subsystem components and a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. A structural analysis of the vehicle to determine flight loads based on the trajectory output, material properties, and geometry of the concept is also performed. Due to working in this fast-paced and sometimes rapidly changing environment, the ETO Team has developed a finely tuned process to maximize their delivery capabilities. The objective of this paper is to describe the interfaces between the three disciplines used in the design process: weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis. The tools used to perform such analysis are INtegrated Rocket Sizing (INTROS), Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), and Launch Vehicle Analysis (LVA) respectively. The methods each discipline uses to streamline their particular part of the design process will also be discussed.

Waters, Eric D.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Team LunaCY Outreach Paper

Iowa State University's Lunabotics Club, Team LunaCY, has worked hard to generate enthusiasm for robotics, engineering, and lunar activities. Team LunaCY participated in a variety of different outreach events making a strong impression on Iowa youth. These events led the chair of the mechanical engineering department, Dr. Ted Heindel, to refer to the club's outreach program as "the model that all other engineering clubs should follow." Team LunaCY's outreach activities totaled over 200 hours and captivated over 3000 students and adults throughout the course of this acaden1ic year, reaching out to people all over Iowa and to several special guests. These guests included Vice-President Joe Biden, during a visit to Iowa State University in March 2012, and astronaut Clayton Anderson, during a visit to Iowa State's campus in the fall 2011. Team LunaCY's outreach events created hands on learning opportunities for local youth ranging in age from elementary school children to high school students. The team strove to make a positive impression on Iowa youth and to encourage interest and involvement in scientific fields. The full list of events is shown in Table 1. Three of the major outreach events the team participated in were the FIRST LEGO League, Science Bound, and iExplore STEM Festival.

Heise, James↗
NASA NTRS2012

The Application of the NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Launch Vehicle Team Design Process and Tools for Modeling Small Responsive Launch Vehicles

The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) Launch Vehicle Team at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is recognized throughout NASA for launch vehicle conceptual definition and pre-phase A concept design evaluation. The Launch Vehicle Team has been instrumental in defining the vehicle trade space for many of NASA s high level launch system studies from the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) through the Augustine Report, Constellation, and now Space Launch System (SLS). The Launch Vehicle Team s approach to rapid turn-around and comparative analysis of multiple launch vehicle architectures has played a large role in narrowing the design options for future vehicle development. Recently the Launch Vehicle Team has been developing versions of their vetted tools used on large launch vehicles and repackaged the process and capability to apply to smaller more responsive launch vehicles. Along this development path the LV Team has evaluated trajectory tools and assumptions against sounding rocket trajectories and air launch systems, begun altering subsystem mass estimating relationships to handle smaller vehicle components, and as an additional development driver, have begun an in-house small launch vehicle study. With the recent interest in small responsive launch systems and the known capability and response time of the ACO LV Team, ACO s launch vehicle assessment capability can be utilized to rapidly evaluate the vast and opportune trade space that small launch vehicles currently encompass. This would provide a great benefit to the customer in order to reduce that large trade space to a select few alternatives that should best fit the customer s payload needs.

Threet, Grady E.↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-To-Orbit Team Design Process and Tools

The Earth-to-Orbit Team (ETO) of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the pre-eminent "go-to" group for pre-phase A and phase A concept definition. Over the past several years the ETO team has evaluated thousands of launch vehicle concept variations for a significant number of studies including agency-wide efforts such as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Constellation, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), Augustine Report, Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology (HLPT), Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT), and Space Launch System (SLS). The ACO ETO Team is called upon to address many needs in NASA's design community; some of these are defining extremely large trade-spaces, evaluating advanced technology concepts which have not been addressed by a large majority of the aerospace community, and the rapid turn-around of highly time critical actions. It is the time critical actions, those often limited by schedule or little advanced warning, that have forced the five member ETO team to develop a design process robust enough to handle their current output level in order to meet their customer's needs. Based on the number of vehicle concepts evaluated over the past year this output level averages to four completed vehicle concepts per day. Each of these completed vehicle concepts includes a full mass breakdown of the vehicle to a tertiary level of subsystem components and a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. A structural analysis of the vehicle to determine flight loads based on the trajectory output, material properties, and geometry of the concept is also performed. Due to working in this fast-paced and sometimes rapidly changing environment, the ETO Team has developed a finely tuned process to maximize their delivery capabilities. The objective of this paper is to describe the interfaces between the three disciplines used in the design process: weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis. The tools used to perform such analysis are INtegrated Rocket Sizing (INTROS), Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), and Launch Vehicle Analysis (LVA) respectively. The methods each discipline uses to streamline their particular part of the design process will also be discussed.

Waters, Eric D.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Science in a Team Environment (AKA, How to Play Nicely with Others)

So you want to do NASA funded research in a spaceflight analog? There are several things about participating in an HRP managed analog that may be different from the way you normally do work in your laboratory. The purpose of this presentation is to highlight those differences and explain some of the unique aspects of doing this research. Participation in an HRP funded analog study complement, even if initially selected for funding, is not automatic and involves numerous actions from ISSMP, HRP, and the PI. There are steps that have to be taken and processes to follow before approval and ISSMP-FA integration. After the proposal and acceptance process the Investigator works closely with the Flight Analog team to ensure full integration of their study requirements into a compliment. A complement is comprised of a group of studies requiring a common platform and/or scenario that are able to be integrated on a non-interference basis for implementation. Full integration into the analog platform can be broken down into three phases: integration, preparation, and implementation. These phases occur in order with some overlap in the integration and preparation phase. The ISSMP-FA team integrates, plans and implements analog study complements. Properly defining your research requirements and getting them documented is one of the most critical components to ensure successful integration and implementation of your study, but is also one of the most likely to be neglected by PIs. Requirements that are not documented, or that are documented poorly are unlikely to get done, no matter how much you push. The process to document requirements is two-fold, consisting of an initial individual requirements integration and then a compliment requirements integration. Understanding the requirements in detail and early ensures that the science is not compromised by outside influences. This step is vital to the integration, preparation, and implementation phases. The individual requirements integration is the first step in ensuring that the research fits into an available analog platform or allows for the Flight Analog team to provide information on structural study changes for participation in the analog. At this early point investigators need to understand exactly what their requirements are to produce relevant data and convey their must have needs to the Flight Analog team. The fluid nature of analog platforms allow for minor alterations to the operational structure. Participation in analog research requires flexibility from the investigator to ensure implementation of their research into a flight like analog platform. The compliment integration requires plasticity; investigators are asked to work closely with one another and the Flight Analog team to combine research studies into a single study plan. This study plan's ultimate goal is to facilitate multiple study participation with minimal scientific impact to each individual study. The Flight Analogs team works to find the best compromise for all parties while protecting the flight like atmosphere of a particular analog. Additional restrictions, limitations and constraints may be required by the analog in order to make all of the science work. Many studies need to be combined into each complement and there are a limited number of hours available for data collection. Through data/sample sharing, we can reduce the burden on the test subject, while usually avoiding significant science impacts. Restrictions on food, exercise, medications and sleep cycle are important to consider for your research.

Platts, S. H.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team. The Architecture Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an A-Team study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (Concept Maturity Level 1), initial feasibility assessment (Concept Maturity Level 2), and trade space exploration (Concept Maturity Level 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including the use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram. In the process of developing the Science Return Diagram, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid toward developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions, and reveal the mission concept's most compelling science. This article will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.

science↗
NASA NTRS2019

Preparing Students to Work in Diverse Settings and Across Distance: Inter-University, Interdisciplinary Capstone Teams

NASA's Psyche Mission is engaged with a growing number of capstone teams pursuing topics relevant to the mission, including partnering with four universities to trial cross-university teaming. Creating interdisciplinary capstone teams with students from different universities provides an opportunity to prepare students to engage with a diversity of disciplines and collaborate in remote teams in the workplace. Additionally, through such capstones, universities may gain access to non-local, specialized technical mentors and to disciplines not offered at their institutions. An added benefit is providing greater fidelity to NASA space missions, which involve teams working together at a distance. We discuss early lessons learned from the first three inter-university, interdisciplinary capstone teams participating with the Psyche mission and discuss plans for improvement and future expansion.

Bowman, C. D. D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lessons Learned in Concurrent Mission and Systems Design at NASA Glenn Research Center: Almost Fifteen Years of the Compass Team

This paper is a retrospective of the lessons learned during the almost 15-year history of the Compass concurrent mission and systems design team at NASA’s Glenn Research Center (GRC). It examines the key factors in the team’s evolution from a temporary group gathered to perform a single study to the successful, sustainable team it is today. Compass is a matrixed team of experts with various technical backgrounds and personalities. They collaborate over a two-week period either physically in a dedicated meeting space, or virtually to design a space system (Spacecraft, stage, science package, etc). Over the years, because of the rapid nature of the design studies, the team leadership has iterated on the optimal team member personality makeup, facility elements and tools as well as NASA GRC management support necessary to lead to sustained success.

systems engineering↗
NASA NTRS2020

Supervised Autonomy for Communication-Degraded Subterranean Exploration by a Robot Team

The importance of autonomy in robotics is magnified when the robots need to be deployed and operated in areas that are too dangerous or not accessible for humans, ranging from disaster areas (to assist in emergency situations) to Mars exploration (to uncover the mystery of our neighboring planet). The DARPA Subterranean (SubT) Challenge presents a great opportunity and a formidable robotics challenge to foster such technological advancement for operations in extreme and underground environments. Robot teams are expected to rapidly map, navigate, and search underground environments including natural cave networks, tunnel systems, and urban underground infrastructure. Subterranean environments pose significant challenges for manned and unmanned operations due to limited situational awareness. In the first phase of the DARPA Subterranean Challenge (held in August 2019; targeting underground tunnels and mines), Team CoSTAR, led by NASA JPL, placed second among 11 teams across the world, accurately mapping several kilometers of two mine systems and localizing 17 target objects in the course of four one-hour missions. While the main goal of Team CoSTAR at the end of this threeyear challenge (August 2021) is a fully autonomous robotic solution, this paper describes Team CoSTAR’s results in the first phase of the challenge (August 2019), focusing on supervised autonomy of a multi-robot team under severe communication constraints. This paper also presents the design and initial results obtained from field test campaigns conducted in various tunnel-like environments, leading to the competition.

Otsu, Kyohei↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Results from NASA Agile Teams Study

In order to meet the demands of the current global economy, a study of agile teams at NASA was conducted by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) to explore how the Agency can become more adaptable and flexible due to several influences, including the maturity and availability of digital tools and NASA’s increased reliance on commercial providers. NESC Technical Discipline Teams (TDTs) perform annual studies to understand the needs of their stakeholders, establish a state of the discipline, and inform strategic planning efforts. As part of the 2022 interview series, the Systems Engineering TDT utilized the dissertation work of Dr. Jackelynne Silva-Martinez that focused on NASA agile teams. The Systems Engineering TDT partnered with the Software and Human Factors TDTs on the formulation of interview questions and subsequent solicitation of customer inputs, which helped attract diverse agile teams across the Agency. 34 participants were interviewed, including civil servants and contractors, with open-ended questions related to their teams’ adoption and transition to agile. Participants were also questioned about their perceptions of the implementation of agile approaches across the Agency. Results showed a consistent framing of agile as incremental knowledge growth, a way of showing progress, and as the incorporation of frequent customer feedback. However, participants emphasized a lack of a common understanding of agile across the Agency, which sometimes caused managers and engineers to be reluctant to accept and support them. Results also showed the most successful agile teams had formal training with over five years of agile experience, used retrospectives, and tailored their agile processes for their specific situation and needs. This paper provides details of the interview responses gathered in the study and suggests actions for NASA to become more agile.

NASA↗
DOE OSTI2015

Achieving groundwater monitoring optimization at SRS: a core team process based on rigorous technical assessment - 15273

The optimization of groundwater monitoring at Savannah River Site (SRS) was achieved through a core team process based on the application of a comprehensive, technical evaluation of individual regulated groundwater units. Groundwater monitoring at SRS is required at dozens of waste sites and includes about 4,000 samples annually. The expected longevity of groundwater contamination and associated groundwater monitoring and reporting constitutes a significant long-term cost to the environmental management budget. The core team, consisting of representatives from the Department of Energy (DOE); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), recognized that monitoring needs for individual plumes evolve as remediation work progresses. The technical evaluation plan was generally based on the availability of many years of monitoring data. In addition, it was recognized that the well network, sampling frequency, and analytical suite had been the same for years and warranted evaluation to determine if the existing monitoring was meeting the current objectives. In order to systematically evaluate monitoring at eighteen different groundwater units, SRS developed a decision-logic analysis using flow sheets to address five areas of optimization identified with core team agreement, including: (1) current monitoring vs regulatory requirements, (2) spatial optimization, (3) temporal assessment, (4) analyte assessment, and (5) reporting assessment. The evaluation resulted in SRS proposing changes in the spatial, temporal, analyte, and reporting aspects of groundwater monitoring for fifteen of the eighteen individual groundwater units evaluated. Overall, these changes have resulted in annual savings of $370 K to date, with an additional $200 K in annual savings pending. Early and frequent core team deliberations helped ensure the success of this optimization effort. The technical evaluation was conducted after receiving core team buy-in for the goals and methods of the project. Technical evaluations for each unit were proposed to the regulators in unit-specific regulatory submittals. The technical justifications and core team decisions were all documented and implemented in accordance within the framework of the SRS Federal Facility Agreement or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit process. This optimization approach can be expected to be highly successful for sites with rich historical data sets and where the requirements in regulatory monitoring plans can be negotiated. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Characterizing Interaction Uncertainty in Human-Machine Teams

With the increasing use and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), the reliability of modern data systems will be driven by a tighter teaming between human experts and intelligent machine teammates. As in the case of human-human teams, the success of human-machine teams will also rely on clear communication about mutual goals and actions. In this paper, we combine related literature from cognitive psychology, human-machine teaming, uncertainty in data analysis, and multi-agent systems to propose a new form of uncertainty: interaction uncertainty for characterizing bidirectional communication in human-machine teams. We map the causes and effects of interaction uncertainty and outline potential ways to mitigate uncertainty for mutual trust in a high-consequence real-world scenario.

uncertainty, data analytics, interaction, trust, h↗
DOE OSTI2015

External Peer Review Team Report for Corrective Action Unit 97: Yucca Flat/Climax Mine, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada, Revision 0

The peer review team commends the Navarro-Intera, LLC (N-I), team for its efforts in using limited data to model the fate of radionuclides in groundwater at Yucca Flat. Recognizing the key uncertainties and related recommendations discussed in Section 6.0 of this report, the peer review team has concluded that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is ready for a transition to model evaluation studies in the corrective action decision document (CADD)/corrective action plan (CAP) stage. The DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) clarified the charge to the peer review team in a letter dated October 9, 2014, from Bill R. Wilborn, NNSA/NFO Underground Test Area (UGTA) Activity Lead, to Sam J. Marutzky, N-I UGTA Project Manager: “The model and supporting information should be sufficiently complete that the key uncertainties can be adequately identified such that they can be addressed by appropriate model evaluation studies. The model evaluation studies may include data collection and model refinements conducted during the CADD/CAP stage. One major input to identifying ‘key uncertainties’ is the detailed peer review provided by independent qualified peers.” The key uncertainties that the peer review team recognized and potential concerns associated with each are outlined in Section 6.0, along with recommendations corresponding to each uncertainty. The uncertainties, concerns, and recommendations are summarized in Table ES-1. The number associated with each concern refers to the section in this report where the concern is discussed in detail.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

Level-2 Milestone 5588: Deliver Strategic Plan and Initial Scalability Assessment by Advanced Architecture and Portability Specialists Team

This report documents the fact that the work in creating a strategic plan and beginning customer engagements has been completed. The description of milestone is: The newly formed advanced architecture and portability specialists (AAPS) team will develop a strategic plan to meet the goals of 1) sharing knowledge and experience with code teams to ensure that ASC codes run well on new architectures, and 2) supplying skilled computational scientists to put the strategy into practice. The plan will be delivered to ASC management in the first quarter. By the fourth quarter, the team will identify their first customers within PEM and IC, perform an initial assessment and scalability and performance bottleneck for next-generation architectures, and embed AAPS team members with customer code teams to assist with initial portability development within standalone kernels or proxy applications.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS1991

Total Quality Management: Analysis, Evaluation and Implementation Within ACRV Project Teams

Total quality management (TQM) is a cooperative form of doing business that relies on the talents of everyone in an organization to continually improve quality and productivity, using teams and an assortment of statistical and measurement tools. The Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) Project Office was identified as an excellent project in which to demonstrate the applications and benefits of TQM processes. As the ACRV Program moves through its various stages of development, it is vital that effectiveness and efficiency be maintained in order to provide the Space Station Freedom (SSF) crew an affordable, on-time assured return to Earth. A critical factor for the success of the ACRV is attaining the maximum benefit from the resources applied to the program. Through a series of four tutorials on various quality improvement techniques, and numerous one-on-one sessions during the SSF's 10-week term in the project office, results were obtained which are aiding the ACRV Office in implementing a disciplined, ongoing process for generating fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide the organization. Significant advances were made in improving the processes for two particular groups - the correspondence distribution team and the WATER Test team. Numerous people from across JSC were a part of the various team activities including engineering, man systems, and safety. The work also included significant interaction with the support contractor to the ACRV Project. The results of the improvement activities can be used as models for other organizations desiring to operate under a system of continuous improvement. In particular, they have advanced the ACRV Project Teams further down the path of continuous improvement, in support of a working philosophy of TQM.

Raiman, Laura B.↗
NASA NTRS1992

A status of the Turbine Technology Team activities

The recent activities of the Turbine Technology Team of the Consortium for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Application in Propulsion Technology is presented. The team consists of members from the government, industry, and universities. The goal of this team is to demonstrate the benefits to the turbine design process attainable through the application of CFD. This goal is to be achieved by enhancing and validating turbine design tools for improved loading and flowfield definition and loss prediction, and transferring the advanced technology to the turbine design process. In order to demonstrate the advantages of using CFD early in the design phase, the Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) turbines for the National Launch System (NLS) were chosen on which to focus the team's efforts. The Turbine Team activities run parallel to the STME design work.

Griffin, Lisa W.↗