Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Review”

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 1,477 records · Page 82
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

A Review of Aerothermal Modeling for Mars Entry Missions

The current status of aerothermal analysis for Mars entry missions is reviewed. The aeroheating environment of all Mars missions to date has been dominated by convective heating. Two primary uncertainties in our ability to predict forebody convective heating are turbulence on a blunt lifting cone and surface catalysis in a predominantly CO2 environment. Future missions, particularly crewed vehicles, will encounter additional heating from shock-layer radiation due to a combination of larger size and faster entry velocity. Localized heating due to penetrations or other singularities on the aeroshell must also be taken into account. The physical models employed to predict these phenomena are reviewed, and key uncertainties or deficiencies inherent in these models are explored. Capabilities of existing ground test facilities to support aeroheating validation are also summarized. Engineering flight data from the Viking and Pathfinder missions, which may be useful for aerothermal model validation, are discussed, and an argument is presented for obtaining additional flight data. Examples are taken from past, present, and future Mars entry missions, including the twin Mars Exploration Rovers and the Mars Science Laboratory, scheduled for launch by NASA in 2011.

Wright, Michael J↗
NASA NTRS2011

Human Research Program 2010 Chair Standing Review Panel Meeting

The 13 Human Research Program (HRP) Standing Review Panel (SRP) Chairs, and in some cases one or two additional panel members (see section XIV, roster) referred to as the Chair (+1) SRP throughout this document, met at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) on December 7, 2010 to allow the HRP Elements and Projects to report on their progress over the past year, their current status, and their plans for the upcoming year based on NASA's current goals and objectives for human space exploration. A large focus of the meeting was also used to discuss integration across the HRP scientific disciplines based on a recommendation from the 2009 HRP SRP review. During the one-day meeting, each of the HRP Elements and Projects presented the changes they made to the HRP Integrated Research Plan (IRP Rev. B) over the last year, and what their top three areas of integration are between other HRP Elements/Projects. The Chair (+1) SRP spent sufficient time addressing the panel charge, either as a group or in a separate closed session, and the Chair (+1) SRP and the HRP presenters and observers, in most cases, had sufficient time to discuss during and after the presentations. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist, Dr. John B. Charles, prior to the close of the meeting on December 7, 2010. Overall, the Chair (+1) SRP concluded that most of the HRP Elements/Projects did a commendable job during the past year in addressing integration across the HRP scientific disciplines with the available resources. The Chair (+1) SRP agreed that the idea of integration between HRP Elements/Projects is noble, but believes all parties involved should have the same definition of integration, in order to be successful. The Chair (+1) SRP also believes that a key to successful integration is communication among the HRP Elements/Projects which may present a challenge. The Chair (+1) SRP recommends that the HRP have a workshop on program integration (with HRP Element/Project representatives and maybe outside experts), to interpret the several meanings of integration and how they best can be implemented for the HRP. Another suggestion regarding integration between HRP Elements/Projects is that the HRP convene a meeting of scientists who have a good record of pursuing multidisciplinary/integrative research in the general areas that are relevant to the HRP; identify those that are of high priority; and then support research on those, giving priority to multidisciplinary/integrative teams in which all relevant HRP disciplines are represented. Some of these teams may be already established and functioning within the HRP; others might be organized in response to NASA's research announcements. Lastly, the Chair (+1) SRP felt that there were two overarching issues that spanned across all of the HRP Elements/Projects. The first, which was discussed in great detail, is access to the astronaut medical records, psychological as well as physical. New research will not be useful unless one has access to what has been done, what has worked, and what has not worked. Second is access to records of what medications are being taken by the astronauts while in-flight. The Chair (+1) SRP feels that there needs to be good medical reconciliation to know beginning to end what is happening healthwise to the astronauts.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2011

In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol Peer Review Assessment: Appendices - Part 2

The performance of extravehicular activity (EVA) by National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronauts involves the risk of decompression sickness. This risk has been mitigated by the use of oxygen "prebreathe" to effectively wash out tissue nitrogen prior to each EVA. Now that the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) is being retired, high-pressure oxygen will become a limited resource. The In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol offers several potential benefits including its potential to save 6 pounds of oxygen per EVA. At the request of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, the peer review convened on October 14, 2010. The major recommendation of the Review Committee was that the ISLE protocol was acceptable for operational use as a prebreathe option prior to EVA. The appendices to Volume I of the report are contained in this document.

Brady, Timothy K.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Implementation Reviews

The point of the implementation review is to prevent problems from occurring later by trying to get our arms around the planning from the start. fmplementation reviews set the tone for management of the project. They establish a teaming relationship (if they are run properly), and they level the playing field instead of setting up turf wars.

Murphy, Gerald↗
NASA NTRS2012

System and Method for Aiding Pilot Preview, Rehearsal, Review, and Real-Time Visual Acquisition of Flight Mission Progress

Embodiments of the invention permit flight paths (current and planned) to be viewed from various orientations to provide improved path and terrain awareness via graphical two-dimensional or three-dimensional perspective display formats. By coupling the flight path information with a terrain database, uncompromising terrain awareness relative to the path and ownship is provided. In addition, missed approaches, path deviations, and any navigational path can be reviewed and rehearsed before performing the actual task. By rehearsing a particular mission, check list items can be reviewed, terrain awareness can be highlighted, and missed approach procedures can be discussed by the flight crew. Further, the use of Controller Pilot Datalink Communications enables data-linked path, flight plan changes, and Air Traffic Control requests to be integrated into the flight display of the present invention.

Prinzel, III, Lawrence J.↗
NASA NTRS2012

A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Processes: Letter Report

At the request of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Institute of Medicine (IOM) convened the Committee on the Review of NASA Human Research Program's (HRP's) Scientific Merit Assessment Processes in December 2011. The committee was asked to evaluate the scientific merit assessment processes that are applied to directed research tasks2 funded through the HRP and to determine best practices from similar assessment processes that are used in other federal agencies. This letter report and its recommendations are the product of a 10-member ad hoc committee, which included individuals who had previously conducted research under the HRP, were familiar with the HRP s research portfolio and operations, had specific knowledge of peer review processes, or were familiar with scientific merit assessment processes used in other organizations and federal agencies, such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); National Institutes of Health (NIH); National Science Foundation (NSF); and U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), and Transportation.

Pawelczyk, James A.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Large Amplitude Whistler Waves and Electron Acceleration in the Earth's Radiation Belts: A Review of STEREO and Wind Observations

One of the critical problems for understanding the dynamics of Earth's radiation belts is determining the physical processes that energize and scatter relativistic electrons. We review measurements from the Wind/Waves and STEREO S/Waves waveform capture instruments of large amplitude whistler-mode waves. These observations have provided strong evidence that large amplitude (100s mV/m) whistler-mode waves are common during magnetically active periods. The large amplitude whistlers have characteristics that are different from typical chorus. They are usually nondispersive and obliquely propagating, with a large longitudinal electric field and significant parallel electric field. We will also review comparisons of STEREO and Wind wave observations with SAMPEX observations of electron microbursts. Simulations show that the waves can result in energization by many MeV and/or scattering by large angles during a single wave packet encounter due to coherent, nonlinear processes including trapping. The experimental observations combined with simulations suggest that quasilinear theoretical models of electron energization and scattering via small-amplitude waves, with timescales of hours to days, may be inadequate for understanding radiation belt dynamics.

Cattell, Cynthia↗
NASA NTRS2007

Enhancing the NASA Expendable Launch Vehicle Payload Safety Review Process Through Program Activities

The safety review process for NASA spacecraft flown on Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs) has been guided by NASA-STD 8719.8, Expendable Launch Vehicle Payload Safety Review Process Standard. The standard focused primarily on the safety approval required to begin pre-launch processing at the launch site. Subsequent changes in the contractual, technical, and operational aspects of payload processing, combined with lessons-learned supported a need for the reassessment of the standard. This has resulted in the formation of a NASA ELV Payload Safety Program. This program has been working to address the programmatic issues that will enhance and supplement the existing process, while continuing to ensure the safety of ELV payload activities.

Palo, Thomas E.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Structural Analysis Peer Review for the Static Display of the Orbiter Atlantis at the Kennedy Space Center Visitors Center

Mr. Christopher Miller with the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) NASA Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) office requested the NASA Engineering and Safety Center's (NESC) technical support on March 15, 2012, to review and make recommendations on the structural analysis being performed for the Orbiter Atlantis static display at the KSC Visitor Center. The principal focus of the assessment was to review the engineering firm's structural analysis for lifting and aligning the orbiter and its static display configuration

Minute, Stephen A.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Evolution of International Space Station Program Safety Review Processes and Tools

The International Space Station Program at NASA is constantly seeking to improve the processes and systems that support safe space operations. To that end, the ISS Program decided to upgrade their Safety and Hazard data systems with 3 goals: make safety and hazard data more accessible; better support the interconnection of different types of safety data; and increase the efficiency (and compliance) of safety-related processes. These goals are accomplished by moving data into a web-based structured data system that includes strong process support and supports integration with other information systems. Along with the data systems, ISS is evolving its submission requirements and safety process requirements to support the improved model. In contrast to existing operations (where paper processes and electronic file repositories are used for safety data management) the web-based solution provides the program with dramatically faster access to records, the ability to search for and reference specific data within records, reduced workload for hazard updates and approval, and process support including digital signatures and controlled record workflow. In addition, integration with other key data systems provides assistance with assessments of flight readiness, more efficient review and approval of operational controls and better tracking of international safety certifications. This approach will also provide new opportunities to streamline the sharing of data with ISS international partners while maintaining compliance with applicable laws and respecting restrictions on proprietary data. One goal of this paper is to outline the approach taken by the ISS Progrm to determine requirements for the new system and to devise a practical and efficient implementation strategy. From conception through implementation, ISS and NASA partners utilized a user-centered software development approach focused on user research and iterative design methods. The user-centered approach used on the new ISS hazard system utilized focused user research and iterative design methods employed by the Human Computer Interaction Group at NASA Ames Research Center. Particularly, the approach emphasized the reduction of workload associated with document and data management activities so more resources can be allocated to the operational use of data in problem solving, safety analysis, and recurrence control. The methods and techniques used to understand existing processes and systems, to recognize opportunities for improvement, and to design and review improvements are described with the intent that similar techniques can be employed elsewhere in safety operations. A second goal of this paper is to provide and overview of the web-based data system implemented by ISS. The software selected for the ISS hazard systemMission Assurance System (MAS)is a NASA-customized vairant of the open source software project Bugzilla. The origin and history of MAS as a NASA software project and the rationale for (and advantages of) using open-source software are documented elsewhere (Green, et al., 2009).

Ratterman, Christian D.↗
NASA NTRS2014

2013 Nutrition Risk Evidence Review Panel

The 2013 Nutrition Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on November 20 - 21, 2013. The SRP reviewed the new Evidence Report for the Risk Factor of Inadequate Nutrition (from here on referred to as the 2013 Nutrition Evidence Report), as well as the Research Plan for this Risk. Overall, the SRP thinks the well-qualified research team has compiled an excellent summary of background information in the 2013 Nutrition Evidence Report. The SRP would like to commend the authors in general and particularly note that while the 2013 Nutrition Evidence Report has been written using a single nutrient approach, the research plan takes a much more integrated and physiologically based approach.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2014

2013 Advanced Environmental Health/Advanced Food Technology Standing Review Panel Final Report

The 2013 Advanced Environmental Health/Advanced Food Technology (AEH/AFT) Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) participated in a WebEx/teleconference with members of the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) Element, representatives from the Human Research Program (HRP), and NASA Headquarters on November 22, 2013 (list of participants is in Section IX of this report). The SRP reviewed the updated research plans for the Risk of Adverse Health Effects Due to Alterations in Host-Microorganism Interactions (Host Microbe Risk) and the Risk of Performance Decrement and Crew Illness Due to an Inadequate Food System (Food Risk). The SRP also received a status update on the Risk of Adverse Health Effects of Exposure to Dust and Volatiles during Exploration of Celestial Bodies (Dust Risk). Overall, the SRP was impressed with the strong research plans presented by the scientists and staff associated with the SHFH Element. The SRP also thought that the updated research plans were thorough, well organized, and presented in a comprehensive manner. The SRP agrees with the changes made to the Host Microbe Risk and Food Risk portfolios and thinks that the targets for Gap closure are appropriate.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel

The Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met on December 17 - 18, 2014 in Houston, TX to review the current status of the Risk of Impaired Control of Spacecraft, Associated Systems and Immediate Vehicle Egress due to Vestibular/Sensorimotor Alteration Associated with Space Flight (Sensorimotor Risk) in the Integrated Research Plan (IRP). During the meeting, the SRP received an in-depth briefing of the current status of the Sensorimotor Risk from Dr. Jacob Bloomberg, the Human Research Program (HRP) Sensorimotor Discipline Lead Scientist and Dr. Millard Reschke, the Chief Scientist of the Neuroscience Laboratories at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). The SRP was impressed with the information that Dr. Bloomberg and Dr. Reschke presented and think that the in-person meeting (instead of WebEx/teleconference) allowed for more interactive and thoughtful conversations.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2015

2014 Bone and Muscle Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Bone and Muscle Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 17 - 18, 2014. The SRP reviewed the updated Evidence Reports for the Risk of Impaired Performance Due to Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength and Endurance and (from here on referred to as the 2014 Muscle Evidence Report) and the Risk of Reduced Physical Performance Capabilities Due to Reduced Aerobic Capacity (from here on referred to as the 2014 Aerobic Evidence Report), as well as the Research Plans for these Risks. The SRP agreed the Evidence Reports were comprehensive and described a logical sequence of steps taken by NASA and the scientific community to address the risk of impaired performance as a result of muscle atrophy, i.e., reduced muscle mass, loss of strength and loss of endurance in a microgravity environment. The interdependence of the three physiological systems represented by this SRP (i.e., skeletal, muscular and cardiovascular) supports a level of discussion on system integration that is now appreciated by the Chief Scientist of the Human Research Program (HRP). The Evidence Reports cover the effects of microgravity on muscle, ranging from the cellular and molecular levels to whole muscle function. The reports also addressed other factors related to muscle (e.g., neural influences, insulin resistance, heat stress, and nutrition) that will serve as a basis for future discussions on the integration of physiological systems and the response to microgravity. The SRP agreed the Evidence Reports were balanced, provided insight to muscle function, and laid the foundation for the integrated approach now taken by the SRP.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Space Human Factors Engineering Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) participated in a WebEx/teleconference with members of the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) Element, representatives from the Human Research Program (HRP), the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), and NASA Headquarters on November 17, 2014 (list of participants is in Section XI of this report). The SRP reviewed the updated research plans for the Risk of Incompatible Vehicle/Habitat Design (HAB Risk) and the Risk of Performance Errors Due to Training Deficiencies (Train Risk). The SRP also received a status update on the Risk of Inadequate Critical Task Design (Task Risk), the Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI Risk), and the Risk of Inadequate Human-Computer Interaction (HCI Risk).

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Decompression Sickness/Extravehicular Activity Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Decompression Sickness (DCS)/Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on November 4 - 5, 2014. The SRP reviewed the Research Plans for The Risk of Decompression Sickness and the Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations, as well as the Evidence Reports for both of these Risks. The SRP found that the NASA DCS/EVA team did an excellent job of presenting their research plans. The SRP considers it critical that NASA proceeds with the high priority tasks identified in this report (DCS1, DCS3, DCS5). The highest priority is to determine the acceptable DCS and hypoxia risk associated with the planned human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The risk of DCS is highly dependent upon the pressure within the exploration vehicle. If slightly more hypoxia is permitted then (even with the same percentage of oxygen) the pressure within the exploration vehicle can be lowered thus further mitigating the risk of DCS. The second highest priority is to test and validate the recommended 8.2psi/34% O2 atmosphere. Development of procedures and equipment for human exploration missions are very limited until the results of this testing are completed. The SRP also suggests that DCS7 be separated into two Gaps. Gap DCS7 should deal with DCS treatment while a new Gap should be created to deal with the long-term effects of DCS. The SRP also encourages NASA to increase collaboration with other organizations and pool resources where possible. The current NASA DCS/EVA team has the extensive expertise and a wealth of knowledge in this area. The SRP suggests that increased manpower for this team would be highly productive.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Bone and Muscle Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Bone and Muscle Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 17 - 18, 2014. The SRP reviewed the updated research plans for the Risk of Impaired Performance Due to Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength and Endurance (Muscle Risk) and the Risk of Reduced Physical Performance Capabilities Due to Reduced Aerobic Capacity (Aerobic Risk). The SRP also received a status update on the Risk of Bone Fracture (Bone Risk), the Risk of Early Onset Osteoporosis Due To Spaceflight (Osteo Risk), the Risk of Intervertebral Disc Damage (IVD Risk), and the Risk of Renal Stone Formation (Renal Risk).

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2015

2014 Cardiovascular Risks SRP Evidence Review Final Report

The 2014 Cardiovascular Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 17-18, 2014. The SRP reviewed the updated evidence report for The Risk of Orthostatic Intolerance During re-Exposure to Gravity (OI Risk). The SRP found the 2014 OI Evidence Report to be a well written, comprehensive overview of the OI risk; that clearly documents the key scientific evidence relevant for both mechanistic understanding and countermeasure development. The 2014 OI Evidence Report could be further strengthened by addressing the points discussed below.

Steinberg, Susan↗