Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “procedures”

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 1,495 records · Page 83
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2005

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing-testing standardization. To be discussed are: 1.Neutral pressures, neutral gases, and vacuum chamber sizes. 2. Electron and ion densities, plasma uniformity, sample sizes, and Debuy lengths. 3. Biasing samples versus self-generated voltages. Floating samples versus grounded. 4. Power supplies and current limits. Isolation of samples from power supplies during arcs. 5. Arc circuits. Capacitance during biased arc-threshold tests. Capacitance during sustained arcing and damage tests. Arc detection. Prevention sustained discharges during testing. 6. Real array or structure samples versus idealized samples. 7. Validity of LEO tests for GEO samples. 8. Extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests. 9. Snapover and current collection at positive sample bias. Glows at positive bias. Kapon (R) pyrolisis. 10. Trigger arc thresholds. Sustained arc thresholds. Paschen discharge during sustained arcing. 11. Testing for Paschen discharge threshold. Testing for dielectric breakdown thresholds. Testing for tether arcing. 12. Testing in very dense plasmas (ie thruster plumes). 13. Arc mitigation strategies. Charging mitigation strategies. Models. 14. Analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.↗
NASA NTRS2005

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space flight Center (MSFC) for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing testing standardization. To be discussed are: 1. Neutral pressures, neutral gases, and vacuum chamber sizes. 2. Electron and ion densities, plasma uniformity, sample sizes, and Debye lengths. 3. Biasing samples versus self-generated voltages. Floating samples versus grounded. 4. Power supplies and current limits. Isolation of samples from power supplies during arcs. Arc circuits. Capacitance during biased arc-threshold tests. Capacitance during sustained arcing and damage tests. Arc detection. Preventing sustained discharges during testing. 5. Real array or structure samples versus idealized samples. 6. Validity of LEO tests for GEO samples. 7. Extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests. 8 . Snapover and current collection at positive sample bias. Glows at positive bias. Kapton pyrolization. 9. Trigger arc thresholds. Sustained arc thresholds. Paschen discharge during sustained arcing. 10. Testing for Paschen discharge thresholds. Testing for dielectric breakdown thresholds. Testing for tether arcing. 11. Testing in very dense plasmas (ie thruster plumes). 12. Arc mitigation strategies. Charging mitigation strategies. Models. 13. Analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.a↗
NASA NTRS2005

Spoken Language Processing in the Clarissa Procedure Browser

Clarissa, an experimental voice enabled procedure browser that has recently been deployed on the International Space Station, is as far as we know the first spoken dialog system in space. We describe the objectives of the Clarissa project and the system's architecture. In particular, we focus on three key problems: grammar-based speech recognition using the Regulus toolkit; methods for open mic speech recognition; and robust side-effect free dialogue management for handling undos, corrections and confirmations. We first describe the grammar-based recogniser we have build using Regulus, and report experiments where we compare it against a class N-gram recogniser trained off the same 3297 utterance dataset. We obtained a 15% relative improvement in WER and a 37% improvement in semantic error rate. The grammar-based recogniser moreover outperforms the class N-gram version for utterances of all lengths from 1 to 9 words inclusive. The central problem in building an open-mic speech recognition system is being able to distinguish between commands directed at the system, and other material (cross-talk), which should be rejected. Most spoken dialogue systems make the accept/reject decision by applying a threshold to the recognition confidence score. NASA shows how a simple and general method, based on standard approaches to document classification using Support Vector Machines, can give substantially better performance, and report experiments showing a relative reduction in the task-level error rate by about 25% compared to the baseline confidence threshold method. Finally, we describe a general side-effect free dialogue management architecture that we have implemented in Clarissa, which extends the "update semantics'' framework by including task as well as dialogue information in the information state. We show that this enables elegant treatments of several dialogue management problems, including corrections, confirmations, querying of the environment, and regression testing.

Rayner, M.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Development of Advanced Verification and Validation Procedures and Tools for the Certification of Learning Systems in Aerospace Applications

Adaptive control technologies that incorporate learning algorithms have been proposed to enable automatic flight control and vehicle recovery, autonomous flight, and to maintain vehicle performance in the face of unknown, changing, or poorly defined operating environments. In order for adaptive control systems to be used in safety-critical aerospace applications, they must be proven to be highly safe and reliable. Rigorous methods for adaptive software verification and validation must be developed to ensure that control system software failures will not occur. Of central importance in this regard is the need to establish reliable methods that guarantee convergent learning, rapid convergence (learning) rate, and algorithm stability. This paper presents the major problems of adaptive control systems that use learning to improve performance. The paper then presents the major procedures and tools presently developed or currently being developed to enable the verification, validation, and ultimate certification of these adaptive control systems. These technologies include the application of automated program analysis methods, techniques to improve the learning process, analytical methods to verify stability, methods to automatically synthesize code, simulation and test methods, and tools to provide on-line software assurance.

Jacklin, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS2006

Synthetic Vision Enhanced Surface Operations and Flight Procedures Rehearsal Tool

Limited visibility has been cited as predominant causal factor for both Controlled-Flight-Into-Terrain (CFIT) and runway incursion accidents. NASA is conducting research and development of Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS) technologies which may potentially mitigate low visibility conditions as a causal factor to these accidents while replicating the operational benefits of clear day flight operations, regardless of the actual outside visibility condition. Two experimental evaluation studies were performed to determine the efficacy of two concepts: 1) head-worn display application of SVS technology to enhance transport aircraft surface operations, and 2) three-dimensional SVS electronic flight bag display concept for flight plan preview, mission rehearsal and controller-pilot data link communications interface of flight procedures. In the surface operation study, pilots evaluated two display devices and four display modes during taxi under unlimited and CAT II visibility conditions. In the mission rehearsal study, pilots flew approaches and departures in an operationally-challenged airport environment, including CFIT scenarios. Performance using the SVS concepts was compared to traditional baseline displays with paper charts only or EFB information. In general, the studies evince the significant situation awareness and enhanced operational capabilities afforded from these advanced SVS display concepts. The experimental results and conclusions from these studies are discussed along with future directions.

Arthur, Jarvis J., III↗
NASA NTRS1994

Using AI Planning Techniques to Automatically Generate Image Processing Procedures: A Preliminary Report

This paper describes work on the Multimission VICAR Planner (MVP) system to automatically construct executable image processing procedures for custom image processing requests for the JPL Multimission Image Processing Lab (MIPL). This paper focuses on two issues. First, large search spaces caused by complex plans required the use of hand encoded control information. In order to address this in a manner similar to that used by human experts, MVP uses a decomposition-based planner to implement hierarchical/skeletal planning at the higher level and then uses a classical operator based planner to solve subproblems in contexts defined by the high-level decomposition.

Laboratory MIPL VICAR artificial intelligence AI↗
NASA NTRS2007

Validation of Procedures for Monitoring Crewmember Immune Function SDBI-1900, SMO-015 - Integrated Immune

There is ample evidence to suggest that space flight leads to immune system dysregulation. This may be a result of microgravity, confinement, physiological stress, radiation, environment or other mission-associated factors. The clinical risk from prolonged immune dysregulation during space flight are not yet determined, but may include increased incidence of infection, allergy, hypersensitivity, hematological malignancy or altered wound healing. Each of the clinical events resulting from immune dysfunction has the potential to impact mission critical objectives during exploration-class missions. To date, precious little in-flight immune data has been generated to assess this phenomenon. The majority of recent flight immune studies have been post-flight assessments, which may not accurately reflect the in-flight condition. There are no procedures currently in place to monitor immune function or its effect on crew health. The objective of this Supplemental Medical Objective (SMO) is to develop and validate an immune monitoring strategy consistent with operational flight requirements and constraints. This SMO will assess the clinical risks resulting from the adverse effects of space flight on the human immune system and will validate a flight-compatible immune monitoring strategy. Characterization of the clinical risk and the development of a monitoring strategy are necessary prerequisite activities prior to validating countermeasures. This study will determine, to the best level allowed by current technology, the in-flight status of crewmembers immune system. Pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight assessments of immune status, immune function, viral reactivation and physiological stress will be performed. The in-flight samples will allow a distinction between legitimate in-flight alterations and the physiological stresses of landing and readaptation which are believed to alter landing day assessments. The overall status of the immune system during flight (activation, deficiency, dysregulation) and the response of the immune system to specific latent virus reactivation (known to occur during space flight) will be thoroughly assessed. Following completion of the SMO the data will be evaluated to determine the optimal set of assays for routine monitoring of crewmember immune system function, should the clinical risk warrant such monitoring.

Crucian, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2007

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing-testing standardization. Discussed herein are neutral gas conditions, plasma densities and uniformity, vacuum chamber sizes, sample sizes and Debye lengths, biasing samples versus self-generated voltages, floating samples versus grounded samples, test electrical conditions, arc detection, preventing sustained discharges during testing, real samples versus idealized samples, validity of LEO tests for GEO samples, extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests, snapover, current collection, and glows at positive sample bias, Kapton pyrolysis, thresholds for trigger arcs, sustained arcs, dielectric breakdown and Paschen discharge, tether arcing and testing in very dense plasmas (i.e. thruster plumes), arc mitigation strategies, charging mitigation strategies, models, and analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Safety and Performance Analysis of the Non-Radar Oceanic/Remote Airspace In-Trail Procedure

This document presents a safety and performance analysis of the nominal case for the In-Trail Procedure (ITP) in a non-radar oceanic/remote airspace. The analysis estimates the risk of collision between the aircraft performing the ITP and a reference aircraft. The risk of collision is only estimated for the ITP maneuver and it is based on nominal operating conditions. The analysis does not consider human error, communication error conditions, or the normal risk of flight present in current operations. The hazards associated with human error and communication errors are evaluated in an Operational Hazards Analysis presented elsewhere.

Carreno, Victor A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Maintenance Procedure Display: Head Mounted Display (HMD) Evaluations

A viewgraph presentation describing maintenance procedures for head mounted displays is shown. The topics include: 1) Study Goals; 2) Near Eye Displays (HMDs); 3) Design; 4) Phase I-Evaluation Methods; 5) Phase 1 Results; 6) Improved HMD Mounting; 7) Phase 2 -Evaluation Methods; 8) Phase 2 Preliminary Results; and 9) Next Steps.

Whitmore, Milrian↗
NASA NTRS2007

One-Dimensional Ablation with Pyrolysis Gas Flow Using a Full Newton's Method and Finite Control Volume Procedure

The development and verification of a one-dimensional material thermal response code with ablation is presented. The implicit time integrator, control volume finite element spatial discretization, and Newton's method for nonlinear iteration on the entire system of residual equations have been implemented and verified for the thermochemical ablation of internally decomposing materials. This study is a continuation of the work presented in "One-Dimensional Ablation with Pyrolysis Gas Flow Using a Full Newton's Method and Finite Control Volume Procedure" (AIAA-2006-2910), which described the derivation, implementation, and verification of the constant density solid energy equation terms and boundary conditions. The present study extends the model to decomposing materials including decomposition kinetics, pyrolysis gas flow through the porous char layer, and a mixture (solid and gas) energy equation. Verification results are presented for the thermochemical ablation of a carbon-phenolic ablator which involves the solution of the entire system of governing equations.

Amar, Adam J.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Validation of Procedures for Monitoring Crewmember Immune Function

There is ample evidence to suggest that space flight leads to immune system dysregulation. This may be a result of microgravity, confinement, physiological stress, radiation, environment or other mission-associated factors. The clinical risk (if any) from prolonged immune dysregulation during exploration-class space flight has not yet been determined, but may include increased incidence of infection, allergy, hypersensitivity, hematological malignancy or altered wound healing. Each of the clinical events resulting from immune dysfunction has the potential to impact mission critical objectives during exploration-class missions. To date, precious little in-flight immune data has been generated to assess this phenomenon. The majority of recent flight immune studies have been post-flight assessments, which may not accurately reflect the in-flight status of immunity as it resolves over prolonged flight. There are no procedures currently in place to monitor immune function or its effect on crew health. The objective of this Supplemental Medical Objective (SMO) is to develop and validate an immune monitoring strategy consistent with operational flight requirements and constraints. This SMO will assess immunity, latent viral reactivation and physiological stress during both short and long duration flights. Upon completion, it is expected that any clinical risks resulting from the adverse effects of space flight on the human immune system will have been determined. In addition, a flight-compatible immune monitoring strategy will have been developed with which countermeasures validation could be performed. This study will determine, to the best level allowed by current technology, the in-flight status of crewmembers' immune systems. The in-flight samples will allow a distinction between legitimate in-flight alterations and the physiological stresses of landing and readaptation which are believed to alter R+0 assessments. The overall status of the immune system during flight (activation, deficiency, dysregulation) and the response of the immune system to specific latent virus reactivation (known to occur during space flight) will be thoroughly assessed. The first in-flight activity for integrated immunity very recently occurred during the STS-120 Space Shuttle mission. The protocols functioned well from a technical perspective, and accurate in-flight data was obtained from 1 Shuttle and 2 ISS crewmembers. Crew participation rates for the study continue to be robust.

Crucian, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2008

The New NASA Orbital Debris Mitigation Procedural Requirements and Standards

NASA has issued major updates to its principal orbital debris mitigation policy directive and standards. The new NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris (NPR 8715.6), with its supporting NASA Standard 8719.14, both refine earlier orbital debris mitigation documents and in some areas expand their applicability. Organizational and individual responsibilities along with general directives are set forth in NPR 8715.6. New requirements include routine conjunction assessments for all maneuverable NASA spacecraft in LEO and GEO, prompt notifications of intended or unintended debris generation, preparation and maintenance of formal end-of-mission plans, and disposal of vehicles in operation around the Moon and Mars and at the Earth-Sun Lagrangian points. NASA Standard 8719.14 replaces the 1995 NASA Safety Standard 1740.14 with no major new requirements but with several refinements and additions, some of which had already been adopted. Compliance with human casualty risk limitations from reentering debris will be calculated explicitly and not be expressed in terms of average debris casualty area. Moreover, the minimum kinetic energy threshold for potentially injurious reentering debris is set at 15 Joules. The overarching requirement for the disposal of GEO spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages is to ensure that the vehicles do not come within GEO + 200 km for at least 100 km after end of mission, rather than setting specific requirements for the disposal orbit. Spacecraft operating in or routinely transiting LEO must remain in the region for no more than 25 years after end of mission or 30 years after launch, whichever occurs sooner. A comprehensive new NASA handbook on orbital debris has also been prepared to provide background on the orbital debris environment and the related NASA mitigation requirements and standards.

Johnson, Nicholas L.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Pilot In-Trail Procedure Validation Simulation Study

A Human-In-The-Loop experiment was conducted at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) to investigate the viability of the In-Trail Procedure (ITP) concept from a flight crew perspective, by placing participating airline pilots in a simulated oceanic flight environment. The test subject pilots used new onboard avionics equipment that provided improved information about nearby traffic and enabled them, when specific criteria were met, to request an ITP flight level change referencing one or two nearby aircraft that might otherwise block the flight level change. The subject pilots subjective assessments of ITP validity and acceptability were measured via questionnaires and discussions, and their objective performance in appropriately selecting, requesting, and performing ITP flight level changes was evaluated for each simulated flight scenario. Objective performance and subjective workload assessment data from the experiment s test conditions were analyzed for statistical and operational significance and are reported in the paper. Based on these results, suggestions are made to further improve the ITP.

Bussink, Frank J. L.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Are Current SEE Test Procedures Adequate for Modern Devices and Electronics Technologies?

Believe it or not, this has been a simplistic look at starting a checklist for SEE testing. Given a memory that has 68 operating modes, when a SEU occurs that changes the mode, just how do you determine what's going on? Laser and microbeam tests can help, but not easily for modern packaged devices. Expanding this approach to other more complex devices such as ADCs or processors as well as analog devices should be considered. The recommendation is to use the existing text standards as the starting point. Just make your own checklist for the device/technology/issues being considered. At HEART 2007, we presented some of the burgeoning challenges associated with single event effect(SEE) testing of modern commercial memories: a) Package, device complexity, test fixture, and data analysis issues were discussed; b) "Complete" SEE Characterization would take 15 years; c) Qualification test costs have a greater than 4 times increase over the last decade. In this talk, we continue to explore the roles of technology with an emphasis on the existing SEE Test Procedures and some of the concerns related to modern devices. The primary objective of the briefing is to provide some overarching guidance concerning the many considerations involved in the formulation of a SEE test plan provided in a " Checklist" format.we note that there is no such thing as a complete check list and that the best approach is to develop a flexible test plan that takes into account the device type and functions, the device technology, circuit and package design, and, of course, test facility and beam characteristics.

LaBel, Kenneth A.↗