Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Modernization”

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 1,135 records · Page 63
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2021

Modernizing NASA’s Space Flight Safety and Mission Success (S&MS) Assurance Framework In Line With Evolving Acquisition Strategies and Systems Engineering Practices

This paper presents the objectives-driven, case-based safety and mission success (S&MS) assurance framework being developed by the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA), including its motivations and its implementation via a S&MS Assurance Standard that is under development, supplemented by supporting standards including an S&MS Analysis Management Standard that is also under development. A need to evolve NASA’s S&MS assurance framework has emerged in recent years, resulting from the need to accommodate new acquisition models; the need to accommodate evolving systems engineering (SE) practices; the need to stipulate acceptable levels of S&MS risk; the need for improved integration of S&MS into SE; and the need for clearer risk acceptance accountability. The objectives-driven, case-based S&MS assurance framework proposed here is responsive to that need. Its key features include: • The establishment, by NASA Acquirers, of fundamental S&MS performance objectives that define limits of acceptability for the likelihoods that mission technical objectives will be accomplished and that people, assets, and environments put at risk by the mission will not be adversely affected; • The development and approval of Providers’ S&MS plans for meeting Acquirers’ S&MS performance objectives, including commitments to support Acquirer audit, investigation, and reporting needs; • The development, by Providers, of S&MS assurance cases that argue, supported by evidence, that the Provider has met, or is on track to meeting, the fundamental S&MS objectives; • The evaluation, throughout the program/project life cycle, of Provider S&MS assurance cases as the primary S&MS-related technical basis for Acquirer risk acceptance and the granting to the Provider of authority to proceed through the program/project life cycle. This proposed S&MS assurance framework is notable for its lack of prescription of traditional S&MS requirements and strategies such as defined failure tolerances, margins, or analysis requirements. Instead, Providers are given latitude to propose their own strategies for meeting the fundamental S&MS performance objectives, subject to independent review and Acquirer approval. The result is a framework for S&MS assurance that is at once both rigorous and flexible.

Assurance Case↗
NASA NTRS2022

Flow Visualization to Complement Modern Wing Tunnel Testing

In recent times, wind tunnel testing at the NASA Ames Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT) seeks to validate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tools. To that end, we find that now more than ever, flow visualization is a powerful capability that provides context to the experimental results bringing real-time insight to the researcher. It enables us to answer questions like: “Why does this drag polar look different?” or “What is the source of this tone in the microphone data?”. Flow visualization can verify that assumptions made in the CFD model are correct, addressing questions like: “Are our trip dots the correct size and location?” or “Does the position of this shock match our prediction?”. Techniques such as infrared flow visualization and schlieren / shadowgraph are powerful capabilities that when taken together can provide results as to the nature of the fluid structure interaction at a test condition in a format that pairs well with computational results. When properly integrated these measurements can be taken with no impact on the productivity of the test program, supplementing traditional measurements and often discovering something unforeseen, helping the researcher to answer those slippery aerodynamic questions and ultimately build confidence in the accuracy of a model.

wind tunnel↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Risk Classification Modernization

NASA’s risk classification system dates back to an era when every new NASA space mission was a one-of-a-kind build, and the only way to obtain reliability was as a by-product through a combination of reliability analyses, extensive and stringent quality requirements, and extensive testing. Originally, there were very limited commercial capabilities to develop systems to work reliably in space, so NASA considered its own homegrown approach the only recipe for success. This approach involved very detailed and prescriptive piece-part controls and no reliance on (and to some extent a rejection of) any type of commercial practices. Often risk was considered to be the lowest when NASA had the maximum amount of control and prescription, and the highest when commercial practices were largely employed, and these principles drove risk classification in the agency. Over time, however, commercial capabilities grew, and many products became standardized and commercialized, while the agency maintained its tried-and-true approach, paying little attention to the evolution of the commercial sector. This presentation introduces GSFC’s new approach at risk classification, which includes classification of components and full spacecraft, as well as of constellations of spacecraft.

risk↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Risk Classification Modernization

NASA’s risk classification system dates back to an era when every new NASA space mission was a one-of-a-kind build, and the only way to obtain reliability was as a by-product through a combination of reliability analyses, extensive and stringent quality requirements, and extensive testing. Originally, there were very limited commercial capabilities to develop systems to work reliably in space, so NASA considered its own homegrown approach the only recipe for success. This approach involved very detailed and prescriptive piece-part controls and no reliance on (and to some extent a rejection of) any type of commercial practices. Often risk was considered to be the lowest when NASA had the maximum amount of control and prescription, and the highest when commercial practices were largely employed, and these principles drove risk classification in the agency. Over time, however, commercial capabilities grew, and many products became standardized and commercialized, while the agency maintained its tried-and-true approach, paying little attention to the evolution of the commercial sector. This presentation introduces GSFC’s new approach at risk classification, which includes classification of components and full spacecraft, as well as of constellations of spacecraft.

risk↗