SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CONTRACTORS”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,639 records · Page 91

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2010

Mission Control Center/Building 30. Historical Documentation

As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities was conducted by NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC s contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Mission Control Center (Building 30) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 30 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. It should be noted that the Mission Control Center was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1985 for its role in the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing. At the time of this documentation, Building 30 was still used to support the SSP as an engineering research facility, which is also sometimes used for astronaut training. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 30 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the structure. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 30 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2011

Crowdsourcing for Challenging Technical Problems - It Works!

The NASA Johnson Space Center Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) and Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering (Wyle) will conduct a one-day business cluster at the 62nd IAC so that IAC attendees will understand the benefits of open innovation (crowdsourcing), review successful results of conducting technical challenges in various open innovation projects, and learn how an organization can effectively deploy these new problem solving tools to innovate more efficiently and effectively. Results from both the SLSD open innovation pilot program and the open innovation workshop conducted by the NASA Human Health and Performance Center will be discussed. NHHPC members will be recruited to participate in the business cluster (see membership http://nhhpc.nasa.gov) and as IAF members. Crowdsourcing may be defined as the act of outsourcing tasks that are traditionally performed by an employee or contractor to an undefined, generally large group of people or community (a crowd) in the form of an open call. The open call may be issued by the organization wishing to find a solution to a particular problem or complete a task, or by an open innovation service provider on behalf of that organization. In 2008, the SLSD, with the support of Wyle, established and implemented pilot projects in open innovation (crowdsourcing) to determine if these new internet-based platforms could indeed find solutions to difficult technical challenges. These unsolved technical problems were converted to problem statements, called Challenges by some open innovation service providers, and were then posted externally to seek solutions to these problems. In addition, an open call was issued internally to NASA employees Agency wide (11 Field Centers and NASA HQ) using an open innovation service provider crowdsourcing platform to post NASA challenges from each Center for the others to propose solutions). From 2008 to 2010, the SLSD issued 34 challenges, 14 externally and 20 internally. The 14 external problems or challenges were posted through three different vendors: InnoCentive, yet2.com and TopCoder. The 20 internal challenges were conducted using the InnoCentive crowdsourcing platform designed for use internal to an organization and customized for NASA use, and promoted as NASA@Work. The results were significant. Of the seven InnoCentive external challenges, two full and five partial awards were made in complex technical areas such as predicting solar flares and long-duration food packaging.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Crowd Sourcing for Challenging Technical Problems and Business Model

Crowd sourcing may be defined as the act of outsourcing tasks that are traditionally performed by an employee or contractor to an undefined, generally large group of people or community (a crowd) in the form of an open call. The open call may be issued by an organization wishing to find a solution to a particular problem or complete a task, or by an open innovation service provider on behalf of that organization. In 2008, the Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD), with the support of Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering, established and implemented pilot projects in open innovation (crowd sourcing) to determine if these new internet-based platforms could indeed find solutions to difficult technical challenges. These unsolved technical problems were converted to problem statements, also called "Challenges" or "Technical Needs" by the various open innovation service providers, and were then posted externally to seek solutions. In addition, an open call was issued internally to NASA employees Agency wide (10 Field Centers and NASA HQ) using an open innovation service provider crowd sourcing platform to post NASA challenges from each Center for the others to propose solutions). From 2008 to 2010, the SLSD issued 34 challenges, 14 externally and 20 internally. The 14 external problems or challenges were posted through three different vendors: InnoCentive, Yet2.com and TopCoder. The 20 internal challenges were conducted using the InnoCentive crowd sourcing platform designed for internal use by an organization. This platform was customized for NASA use and promoted as NASA@Work. The results were significant. Of the seven InnoCentive external challenges, two full and five partial awards were made in complex technical areas such as predicting solar flares and long-duration food packaging. Similarly, the TopCoder challenge yielded an optimization algorithm for designing a lunar medical kit. The Yet2.com challenges yielded many new industry and academic contacts in bone imaging, microbial detection and even the use of pharmaceuticals for radiation protection. The internal challenges through NASA@Work drew over 6000 participants across all NASA centers. Challenges conducted by each NASA center elicited ideas and solutions from several other NASA centers and demonstrated rapid and efficient participation from employees at multiple centers to contribute to problem solving. Finally, on January 19, 2011, the SLSD conducted a workshop on open collaboration and innovation strategies and best practices through the newly established NASA Human Health and Performance Center (NHHPC). Initial projects will be described leading to a new business model for SLSD.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗

NASA NTRS2010

The 2010 Field Demonstration of the Solar Carbothermal Reduction of Regolith to Produce Oxygen

This slide presentation reviews a demonstration of the use of solar carbothermal reduction processing of regolith to produce oxygen and silicon from silica. A contractor developed the Carbothermal Regolith Reduction Module to demonstrate the extraction of oxygen from lunar regolith simulant using concentrated solar energy at a site that has similar terrain to the moon and Mars.

Muscatello, Anthony↗

NASA NTRS2011

Taking the Evolutionary Road to Developing an In-House Cost Estimate

This slide presentation reviews the process and some of the problems and challenges of developing an In-House Cost Estimate (IHCE). Using as an example the Space Network Ground Segment Sustainment (SGSS) project, the presentation reviews the phases for developing a Cost estimate within the project to estimate government and contractor project costs to support a budget request.

Jacintho, David↗

NASA NTRS2011

A Comparison of the Capability of Sensitivity Level 3 and Sensitivity Level 4 Fluorescent Penetrants to Detect Fatigue Cracks in Various Metals

In April 2008, NASA-STD-5009 established a requirement that only sensitivity level 4 penetrants are acceptable for NASA Standard Level liquid penetrant inspections. Having NASA contractors change existing processes or perform demonstration tests to certify sensitivity level 3 penetrants posed a potentially huge cost to the Agency. This study was conducted to directly compare the probability of detection (POD) of sensitivity level 3 and level 4 penetrants using both Method A and Method D inspection processes. POD demonstration tests were performed on 6061-Al, Haynes 188 and Ti-6Al-4V crack panel sets. The study results strongly support the conclusion that sensitivity level 3 penetrants are acceptable for NASA Standard Level inspections.

Parker, Bradford H.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Experimental Plans for Subsystems of a Shock Wave Driven Gas Core Reactor

This Contractor Report proposes a number of plans for experiments on subsystems of a shock wave driven pulsed magnetic induction gas core reactor (PMI-GCR, or PMD-GCR pulsed magnet driven gas core reactor). Computer models of shock generation and collision in a large-scale PMI-GCR shock tube have been performed. Based upon the simulation results a number of issues arose that can only be addressed adequately by capturing experimental data on high pressure (approx.1 atmosphere or greater) partial plasma shock wave effects in large bore shock tubes ( 10 cm radius). There are three main subsystems that are of immediate interest (for appraisal of the concept viability). These are (1) the shock generation in a high pressure gas using either a plasma thruster or pulsed high magnetic field, (2) collision of MHD or gas dynamic shocks, their interaction time, and collision pile-up region thickness, and (3) magnetic flux compression power generation (not included here).

Kazeminezhad, F.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Independent Review of U.S. and Russian Probabilistic Risk Assessments for the International Space Station Mini Research Module #2 Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

The Mini-Research Module-2 (MRM-2), a Russian module on the International Space Station, does not meet its requirements for micrometeoroid and orbital debris probability of no penetration (PNP). To document this condition, the primary Russian Federal Space Agency ISS contractor, S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation-Energia (RSC-E), submitted an ISS non-compliance report (NCR) which was presented at the 5R Stage Operations Readiness Review (SORR) in October 2009. In the NCR, RSC-E argued for waiving the PNP requirement based on several factors, one of which was the risk of catastrophic failure was acceptably low at 1 in 11,100. However, NASA independently performed an assessment of the catastrophic risk resulting in a value of 1 in 1380 and believed that the risk at that level was unacceptable. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center was requested to evaluate the two competing catastrophic risk values and determine which was more accurate. This document contains the outcome of the assessment.

Squire, Michael D.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Aerospace Medical Support in Russia

This slide presentation reviews the role of the flight surgeon in support of aerospace medical support operations at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center (GCTC), also known as Star City, in Russia. The flight surgeon in this role is the medical advocate for non-russian astronauts, and also provides medical care for illness and injury for astronauts, family members, and guests as well as civil servants and contractors. The flight surgeon also provides support for hazardous training. There are various photos of the area, and the office, and some of the equipment that is used.

Castleberry, Tara↗

NASA NTRS2011

SOFIA Program SE and I Lessons Learned

Once a "Troubled Project" threatened with cancellation, the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) Program has overcome many difficult challenges and recently achieved its first light images. To achieve success, SOFIA had to overcome significant deficiencies in fundamental Systems Engineering identified during a major Program restructuring. This presentation will summarize the lessons learn in Systems Engineering on the SOFIA Program. After the Program was reformulated, an initial assessment of Systems Engineering established the scope of the problem and helped to set a list of priorities that needed to be work. A revised Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) was written to address the new Program structure and requirements established in the approved NPR7123.1A. An important result of the "Technical Planning" effort was the decision by the Program and Technical Leadership team to re-phasing the lifecycle into increments. The reformed SOFIA Program Office had to quickly develop and establish several new System Engineering core processes including; Requirements Management, Risk Management, Configuration Management and Data Management. Implementing these processes had to consider the physical and cultural diversity of the SOFIA Program team which includes two Projects spanning two NASA Centers, a major German partnership, and sub-contractors located across the United States and Europe. The SOFIA Program experience represents a creative approach to doing "System Engineering in the middle" while a Program is well established. Many challenges were identified and overcome. The SOFIA example demonstrates it is never too late to benefit from fixing deficiencies in the System Engineering processes.

Ray, Ronald J.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Ares I-X Flight Test Development Challenges and Success Factors

The NASA Constellation Program's Ares I-X rocket launched successfully on October 28, 2009 collecting valuable data and providing risk reduction for the Ares I project. The Ares I-X mission was formulated and implemented in less than four years commencing with the Exploration Systems Architecture Study in 2005. The test configuration was founded upon assets and processes from other rocket programs including Space Shuttle, Atlas, and Peacekeeper. For example, the test vehicle's propulsion element was a Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor. The Ares I-X rocket comprised a motor assembly, mass and outer mold line simulators of the Ares I Upper Stage, Orion Spacecraft and Launch Abort System, a roll control system, avionics, and other miscellaneous components. The vehicle was 327 feet tall and weighed approximately 1,800,000 pounds. During flight the rocket reached a maximum speed of Mach 4.8 and an altitude of 150,000 feet. The vehicle demonstrated staging at 130,000 feet, tested parachutes for recovery of the motor, and utilized approximately 900 sensors for data collection. Developing a new launch system and preparing for a safe flight presented many challenges. Specific challenges included designing a system to withstand the environments, manufacturing large structures, and re-qualifying heritage hardware. These and other challenges, if not mitigated, may have resulted in test cancellation. Ares I-X succeeded because the mission was founded on carefully derived objectives, led by decisive and flexible management, implemented by an exceptionally talented and dedicated workforce, and supported by a thorough independent review team. Other major success factors include the use of proven heritage hardware, a robust System Integration Laboratory, multi-NASA center and contractor team, concurrent operations, efficient vehicle assembly, effective risk management, and decentralized element development with a centralized control board. Ares I-X was a technically complex test that required creative thinking, risk taking, and a passion to succeed.

Askins, Bruce↗

NASA NTRS2011

Fluid Acquisition and Resupply Experiments on Space Shuttle Flights STS-53 and STS-57

The Fluid Acquisition and Resupply Experiment (FARE) program, managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center Space Propulsion Branch with Martin Marietta Civil Space and Communications as the contractor, consisted of two flights designated FARE I and FARE II. FARE I flew in December 1992 on STS-53 with a screen channel liquid acquisition device (LAD) and FARE II flew in June 1993 on STS-57 with a vane-type LAD. Thus, the FARE I and II flights represent the two basic LAD categories usually considered for in-space fluid management. Although both LAD types have been used extensively, the usefulness of the on-orbit data has been constrained by the lack of experimentation beyond predicted performance limits, including both propellant fill and expulsion. Therefore, the FARE tests were designed to obtain data that would satisfy two primary objectives: (1) Demonstrate the performance of the two types of LADs, screen channel and vane, and (2) support the anchoring of analytical models. Both flights were considered highly successful in meeting these two primary objectives.

S M Dominick↗

NASA NTRS2011

Lessons Learned in Engineering

This Contractor Report (CR) is a compilation of Lessons Learned in approximately 55 years of engineering experience by each James C. Blair, Robert S. Ryan, and Luke A. Schutzenhofer. The lessons are the basis of a course on Lessons Learned that has been taught at Marshall Space Flight Center. The lessons are drawn from NASA space projects and are characterized in terms of generic lessons learned from the project experience, which are further distilled into overarching principles that can be applied to future projects. Included are discussions of the overarching principles followed by a listing of the lessons associated with that principle. The lesson with sub-lessons are stated along with a listing of the project problems the lesson is drawn from, then each problem is illustrated and discussed, with conclusions drawn in terms of Lessons Learned. The purpose of this CR is to provide principles learned from past aerospace experience to help achieve greater success in future programs, and identify application of these principles to space systems design. The problems experienced provide insight into the engineering process and are examples of the subtleties one experiences performing engineering design, manufacturing, and operations.

Blair, J. C.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Lessons Learned in Engineering

Blair, James C.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Structural Verification of the First Orbital Wonder of the World - The Structural Testing and Analysis of the International Space Station (ISS)

The International Space Station (ISS) can be considered one of the structural engineering wonders of the world. On par with the World Trade Center, the Colossus of Rhodes, the Statue of Liberty, the Great Pyramids, the Petronas towers and the Burj Khalifa skyscraper of Dubai, the ambition and scope of the ISS structural design, verification and assembly effort is a truly global success story. With its on-orbit life projected to be from its beginning in 1998 to the year 2020 (and perhaps beyond), all of those who participated in its development can consider themselves part of an historic engineering achievement representing all of humanity. The structural design and verification of the ISS could be the subject of many scholarly papers. Several papers have been written on the structural dynamic characterization of the ISS once it was assembled on-orbit [1], but the ground-based activities required to assure structural integrity and structural life of the individual elements from delivery to orbit through assembly and planned on-orbit operations have never been totally summarized. This paper is intended to give the reader an overview of some of the key decisions made during the structural verification planning for the elements of the U.S. On-Orbit Segment (USOS) as well as to summarize the many structural tests and structural analyses that were performed on its major elements. An effort is made for this paper to be summarily comprehensive, but as with all knowledge capture efforts of this kind, there are bound to be errors of omission. Should the reader discover any of these, please feel free to contact the principal author. The ISS (Figure 1) is composed of pre-integrated truss segments and pressurized elements supplied by NASA, the Russian Federal Space Agency (RSA), the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Each of these elements was delivered to orbit by a launch vehicle and connected to one another either robotically or autonomously. The primary structure of each element was assembled and verified by teams of responsible structural engineers within and among their respective agencies and agency contractors.

Zipay, John J.↗

NASA NTRS2011

NASA TEERM Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives Projects

The overall objective of the Hex Chrome Free Coatings for Electronics project is to evaluate and test pretreatment coating systems not containing hexavalent chrome in avionics and electronics housing applications. This objective will be accomplished by testing strong performing coating systems from prior NASA and DoD testing or new coating systems as determined by the stakeholders. The technical stakeholders have agreed that this protocol will focus specifically on Class 3 coatings. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), depots, and support contractors have to be prepared to deal with an electronics supply chain that increasingly provides parts with lead-free finishes, some labeled no differently and intermingled with their SnPb counterparts. Allowance of lead-free components presents one of the greatest risks to the reliability of military and aerospace electronics. The introduction of components with lead-free terminations, termination finishes, or circuit boards presents a host of concerns to customers, suppliers, and maintainers of aerospace and military electronic systems such as: 1. Electrical shorting due to tin whiskers 2. Incompatibility of lead-free processes and parameters (including higher melting points of lead-free alloys) with other materials in the system 3. Unknown material properties and incompatibilities that could reduce solder joint reliability

Kessel, Kurt R.↗

NASA NTRS2004

History of Reliability and Quality Assurance at Kennedy Space Center

This Kennedy Historical Document (KHD) provides a unique historical perspective of the organizational and functional responsibilities for the manned and un-manned programs at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. As systems become more complex and hazardous, the attention to detailed planning and execution continues to be a challenge. The need for a robust reliability and quality assurance program will always be a necessity to ensure mission success. As new space missions are defined and technology allows for continued access to space, these programs cannot be compromised. The organizational structure that has provided the reliability and quality assurance functions for both the manned and unmanned programs has seen many changes since the first group came to Florida in the 1950's. The roles of government and contractor personnel have changed with each program and organizational alignment has changed based on that responsibility. The organizational alignment of the personnel performing these functions must ensure independent assessment of the processes.

Childers, Frank M.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Range Information Systems Management (RISM) Phase 1 Report

RISM investigated alternative approaches, technologies, and communication network architectures to facilitate building the Spaceports and Ranges of the future. RISM started by document most existing US ranges and their capabilities. In parallel, RISM obtained inputs from the following: 1) NASA and NASA-contractor engineers and managers, and; 2) Aerospace leaders from Government, Academia, and Industry, participating through the Space Based Range Distributed System Working Group (SBRDSWG), many of whom are also; 3) Members of the Advanced Range Technology Working Group (ARTWG) subgroups, and; 4) Members of the Advanced Spaceport Technology Working Group (ASTWG). These diverse inputs helped to envision advanced technologies for implementing future Ranges and Range systems that builds on today s cabled and wireless legacy infrastructures while seamlessly integrating both today s emerging and tomorrow s building-block communication techniques. The fundamental key is to envision a transition to a Space Based Range Distributed Subsystem. The enabling concept is to identify the specific needs of Range users that can be solved through applying emerging communication tech

Bastin, Gary L.↗