Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Financing”

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.

130 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MIKA: Manager for Intelligent Knowledge Access Toolkit for Engineering Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval

Repositories of safety reports are often underutilized and only analyzed manually by trained experts, despite safety management systems requiring reports. These collections of documents contain a wealth of information from past projects and operations that could improve system safety and design. Advances in natural language processing techniques have improved information extraction and retrieval in consumer technology, biomedicine, and finance, for instance, but have not been applied to engineering documents on the same scale. To this end, the Manager for Intelligent Knowledge Access (MIKA) open-source toolkit has been developed for rapid knowledge discovery and information retrieval in safety engineering applications. The MIKA toolkit uses state-of-the-art natural language processing algorithms and allows a user to apply these methods to their own dataset. This paper describes the MIKA toolkit and its two primary capabilities, knowledge discovery and information retrieval, and demonstrates the toolkit via a case study on National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports.

Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2000

A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest pose a threat to the integrity of scientific research. The current regulations of the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation require that medical schools and other research institutions report the existence of conflicts of interest to the funding agency but allow the institutions to manage conflicts internally. The regulations do not specify how to do so. METHODS: We surveyed all medical schools (127) and other research institutions (170) that received more than $5 million in total grants annually from the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation; 48 journals in basic science and clinical medicine; and 17 federal agencies in order to analyze their policies on conflicts of interest. RESULTS: Of the 297 institutions, 250 (84 percent) responded by March 2000, as did 47 of the 48 journals and 16 of the 17 federal agencies. Fifteen of the 250 institutions (6 percent)--5 medical schools and 10 other research institutions--reported that they had no policy on conflicts of interest. Among the institutions that had policies, there was marked variation in the definition and management of conflicts. Ninety-one percent had policies that adhered to the federal threshold for disclosure ($10,000 in annual income or equity in a relevant company or 5 percent ownership), and 9 percent had policies that exceeded the federal guidelines. Only 8 percent had policies requiring disclosure to funding agencies, only 7 percent had such policies regarding journals, and only 1 percent had policies requiring the disclosure of information to the relevant institutional review boards or to research subjects. Twenty journals (43 percent) reported that they had policies requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest. Only four federal agencies had policies that explicitly addressed conflicts of interest in extramural research, and all but one of the agencies relied primarily on institutional discretion. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation among policies on conflicts of interest at medical schools and other research institutions. This variation, combined with the fact that many scientific journals and funding agencies do not require disclosure of conflicts of interest, suggests that the current standards may not be adequate to maintain a high level of scientific integrity.

Human↗
NASA NTRS2000

Managing schedule and financial risk in a faster, better, cheaper development

The X2000 Program is a technology development program that will provide next generation avionics for missions to deep space. The goal of the X2000 Program is to develop revolutionary flight and ground systems which can be replicated by missions at a low cost, affording timely new science and mission opportunities to investigators and institutions.

risk finance schedule↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going South: Warnings from the Largest Project Engineering Failure in Modern History

NASA’s successful conduct of the Apollo Program greatly enhanced the prestige of the United States and remains broadly accepted as America’s gift “for all Mankind.” NASA’s Artemis Program to return humanity to the Moon promises to again reveal America’s leadership in this field. In preparation for the initiation of Artemis and its predecessor project Constellation, NASA thoroughly examined space program precedents. There remains, however, another relevant precedent which has not been examined in this context. Though this project involved technology radically different from that managed by NASA, its scope and environment in many ways parallel NASA’s large programs. This project was initiated by a private sector team that had, ten years before, successfully completed an effort that, at a cost of $275 billion (in 2021 USD), had stimulated new technology, had brought economic growth, had established their country as the world leader in engineering innovation, and, though it was a commercial success, had been broadly accepted as their nation’s gift “to all Mankind.” The new project was inspired by popular belief that private capital could again be marshalled to enhance national prestige and make yet another major contribution to the progress of Humanity. This new effort was predicted to require eight years and $258 billion. However, after the passage of nine years, achievement of only 45% complete on the baseline design, and expenditures 96% beyond the baseline cost, the project collapsed amid bankruptcy, political scandal, and criminal prosecution. While the private sector team that carried out this project was exceptionally well educated and experienced in the field, their efforts resulted in what remains (in terms of the money wasted) the largest project engineering failure in modern history. This paper examines what went wrong.

Project Management↗