Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “A-team”

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.

18 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team (A-Team). The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an ATeam study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels (CML) are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram (SRD). In the process of developing the SRD, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid towards developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions and reveal the mission concept’s most compelling science. This paper will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.In June of 2011 a new collaborative engineering approach forearly concept formulation began in the JPL InnovationFoundry [1], six months later becoming the “A-Team” [2].Responding to a need for exploring mission architecturelevel trades [3], the A-Team precedes Team X [4,5] in asequence of concurrent engineering teams at JPL that can beused to mature a concept from a “cocktail napkin” level ideato a complete mission point design. The A-Team efficientlyexplores the science, implementation, and programmatictrade space in early concept formulation. Small, facilitatedgroups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitativelyassess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the tradespace through collaborative analysis and use of advancedmethods and tools. The A-Team process builds off theexperience within JPL and other recent approaches to earlyconcept formulation [6] including best practices of the JPLInnovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering &Formulation Section, Team Eureka and the Rapid MissionArchitecture Team[7].The A-Team is a focal point for innovative formulationapproaches and people within JPL. It relies on a largebackground of study resources, creative thinkers and “greybeard” scrutinizers, advanced tools, and subject matterexperts with both breadth and depth in experience andexpertise that are all available at JPL. The A-Team isdesigned to be a rapid and efficient process takingapproximately 6 weeks (the entire process can be as short asjust a few days or as long as up to three months) and costingthe equivalent of a work-month of a full-time employee orless. Studies begin with detailed planning and client reviewfollowed by study sessions, analysis work, and reporting.The staffing on each study is customized to the study goalsand objectives, and it is addressed early in the A-Teamprocess. Sessions are generally half-day or whole-day eventsand conducted over a series of days with focused agendas thatare moderated by a trained facilitator. Preliminary results andknowledge capture are available within hours of each session,and a final report is generally available two weeks later.One of the biggest challenges facing early conceptdevelopment is understanding the gradient in science returnversus various available mission scenarios and payload options. Often times, major areas of scientific inquiry havealready been prioritized by science groups, including throughthe National Research Council’s Decadal Studies inAstronomy, Planetary, and Earth Science. Yet science teamscontinue to struggle, especially in competitive missionsolicitations, to capture the right amount of scope that’sachievable within the cost constraints of the opportunity.Often the desire to completely and comprehensively study ascience area in just one mission (after all, true missionopportunities are rare) drives teams to take on too much,providing requirements that are unachievable within theresources of the opportunity without inducing unacceptableimplementation risk. Alternatively, science teams can seekto reduce risk by using an established instrument, but havenot thought through the traceability and key aspects of thescience question to justify its use. Both scenarios lead to badassumptions at the beginning of the concept development thatcan then ripple through implementation option choices,potentially preventing what would have been a good scienceinvestigation from being selected.The purpose of this paper is first to provide some additionalbackground and summary of the A-Team process, tools,people, and facilities. We then focus on the A-Teammethodology for overcoming the barriers of defining thescience scope well at the early concept development stage.This includes understanding the science story andtraceability, and then examining the gradient in science returnversus key characteristics of observables, developing theright payload and mission requirement specification throughexamining the science and implementation trade space.

Ziemer, John K.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Exploring Mission Concepts with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts called the A-Team. The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods with subject matter expertise and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an A-Team study. Methods are grouped by Concept Maturity Level (CML), from 1 through 3, including idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for each CML are presented, and the key team roles are described from two points of view: innovative methods and technical expertise. A-Team roles for providing innovative methods include the facilitator, study lead, and assistant study lead. A-Team roles for providing technical expertise include the architect, lead systems engineer, and integration engineer. In addition to these key roles, each A-Team study is uniquely staffed to match the study topic and scope including subject matter experts, scientists, technologists, flight and instrument systems engineers, and program managers as needed. Advanced analysis and collaborative engineering tools (e.g. cost, science traceability, mission design, knowledge capture, study and analysis support infrastructure) are also under development for use in A-Team studies and will be discussed briefly. The A-Team facilities provide a constructive environment for innovative ideas from all aspects of mission formulation to eliminate isolated studies and come together early in the development cycle when they can provide the biggest impact. This paper provides an overview of the A-Team, its study processes, roles, methods, tools and facilities.

Team Eureka↗
NASA NTRS2021

Remote Concurrent Engineering: A-Team Studies in the Virtual World

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s)Architecture Team (A-Team) has nearly a decade of experiencein maturing early formulation mission and technology conceptsby combining innovative collaborative engineering methodswith cutting-edge subject matter expertise and advancedanalysis tools in an in-person environment. When COVID-19forced JPL’s workforce to work remotely in March 2020, ATeamhad to quickly pivot from an in-person collaborativeenvironment to a remote working environment.Through introspection, careful planning, and considerablepractice, A-Team was able to develop new operating proceduresto effectively continue early formulation studies in a virtualenvironment. A-Team has held over 57 remote studies in the 10months since the start of mandatory telework at JPL in March2020. In the remote setting, A-Team conducts studies in half-daysessions with clients and subject matter experts (SMEs) viavideoconferencing, shared computer screens, and digitalcollaborative tools.The key lesson is that increased staffing and planning is neededto prepare and successfully run remote A-Team studies. RemoteA-Team studies require careful selection of the appropriatetools for security, accessibility, and usability within theNASA/JPL environment. Knowledge capture methods andtemplates need to be thought out and agreed upon in advance asthere is less room for improvising in a remote format. Variouscommunication channels have to be monitored to allow for teamcoordination while maintaining fruitful participant engagementduring a session. In addition, technical backup for all roleswithin the A-Team have to be identified to allow the study tocontinue even if a team member’s connectivity is temporarilyinterrupted. Finally, careful thought has to be put into methodsand processes to create a collaborative environment in a virtualspace such that a group of experts who are only connected viathe internet can experience the creative spark and flow of a greatcollaborative and innovative study.

Zusack, Steven↗
NASA NTRS2017

Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team. The Architecture Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an A-Team study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (Concept Maturity Level 1), initial feasibility assessment (Concept Maturity Level 2), and trade space exploration (Concept Maturity Level 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including the use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram. In the process of developing the Science Return Diagram, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid toward developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions, and reveal the mission concept's most compelling science. This article will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.

science↗
NASA NTRS2018

Flight Plasma Diagnostics for High-Power, Solar-Electric Deep-Space Spacecraft

NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM) mission concept plans included a set of plasma and space environment instruments, the Plasma Diagnostic Package (PDP), to fulfill ARRM requirements for technology extensibility to future missions. The PDP objectives were divided into the classes of 1) Plasma thruster dynamics, 2) Solar array-specific environmental effects, 3) Plasma environmental spacecraft effects, and 4) Energetic particle spacecraft environment. A reference design approach and interface requirements for ARRM’s PDP was generated by the PDP team at JPL and GRC. The reference design consisted of redundant single-string avionics located on the ARRM spacecraft bus as well as solar array, driving and processing signals from multiple copies of several types of plasma, effects, and environments sensors distributed over the spacecraft and array. The reference design sensor types were derived in part from sensors previously developed for USAF Research Laboratory (AFRL) plasma effects campaigns such as those aboard TacSat-2 in 2007 and AEHF-2 in 2012. ARRM project leadership also encouraged the PDP team to convene a team of topical subject matter experts from across the country to review and confirm the reference design and to consider effective alternatives and/or enhancements to the reference design. This activity was proposed and accepted as an interactive, informal JPL “A-team” study and a cadre of 25 participants gathered in early 2017 for discussions. The outcome of the two-day A-team study was that the PDP reference design would allow the most important induced-environment unknowns to be measured in the appropriate space environment. Another outcome addressed technology developments of new or improved space plasma environmental sensors. The A-team study concluded that selected developments would lead to improved measurements that could efficiently provide important and otherwise unavailable information about plasma thruster operation in the space environment as well as the plasma induced spacecraft environment. Specifically, the A-team group recommended greater sensor diversity, by inclusion of deployed sensor capabilities in the thruster plume, or by occasional gimbaling of the thruster(s) toward the sensor arrays. The A-team also recommended developing high-speed probes, optical plasma probes, energy selective probes, and direct erosion/deposition sensors, among others; and recommended the inclusion of cameras as well as, since ARRM was to be recovered in cis-lunar orbit by a crewed mission, astronaut assessments of thruster induced environments and collection of sample coupons. Overall, the PDP A-team study provided a clear, consensus supported validation of the reference design PDP approach and pointed out important directions for future flight plasma sensor development.

Choi, Maria↗
NASA NTRS2019

An Exploration of Mission Concepts That Could Utilize Small RPS

The NASA Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Program Mission Analysis Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) requested a JPL Innovation Foundry Architecture Team (A-Team) study to assess mission pull for small RPS (1 mWe - 40 We) in order to inform the RPS Program Office on what future power system developments should be focused on. The A-Team is JPL’s concurrent engineering design team for science definition and early mission concept development, targeting concept maturation levels of 1 through 3. The requested small RPS study was tasked to identify the architecture space of potential small RPS missions, and suggest power levels that could enable or enhance potential future small spacecraft missions. This paper describes the collaborative engineering processes that the A-Team and Mission Analysis Team used to reach results quickly and the findings to inform the RPS Program about mission concept power requirements on RPS for small missions.

Bairstow, Brian K.↗
NASA NTRS2016

JPL's Foundry Furnace: Web-Based Concurrent Engineering for Formulation

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Innovation Foundry is an enterprise tasked with shepherding space mission concepts through the formulation lifecycle. It oversees a number of “virtual teams” for the various stages of formulation. Among these is Team X, which has had considerable success over its more than 20-year history. In a Team X study, domain experts (including engineers devoted to the various spacecraft subsystems) work concurrently and collaboratively over several days to arrive at a feasible point design with a reasonable cost estimate. They use a set of linked Excel workbooks, each developed and approved by a responsible “line organization” within JPL. This toolset has served Team X well over the years, and has evolved since its inception. At the same time, the Innovation Foundry’s portfolio of formulation teams has expanded, and so has the scope of the design challenges they face. The A-Team runs workshop-like architecture studies to focus science investigations, generate mission concepts, assess feasibility, and explore trade spaces. Team Xc performs rapid point design in the style of Team X, but for CubeSats and small spacecraft, using a different toolset. Proposal teams further mature concepts to the point where they can be proposed. Recognizing the importance of trade space modeling combined with new IT services for providing and integrating data, JPL is developing the Foundry Furnace web-based software infrastructure. It will support A-Team, Team Xc, and Team X, providing study management, a catalog of hardware components, a library of re-usable analyses, and a design environment. It is a modernization of JPL’s concurrent engineering infrastructure, embracing the core concepts of Model-Based Systems Engineering, and built with modern software design philosophies.

Murphy, Jonathan↗
NASA NTRS1993

LDEF data: Comparisons with existing models

The relationship between the observed cratering impact damage on the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) versus the existing models for both the natural environment of micrometeoroids and the man-made debris was investigated. Experimental data was provided by several LDEF Principal Investigators, Meteoroid and Debris Special Investigation Group (M&D SIG) members, and by the Kennedy Space Center Analysis Team (KSC A-Team) members. These data were collected from various aluminum materials around the LDEF satellite. A PC (personal computer) computer program, SPENV, was written which incorporates the existing models of the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) environment. This program calculates the expected number of impacts per unit area as functions of altitude, orbital inclination, time in orbit, and direction of the spacecraft surface relative to the velocity vector, for both micrometeoroids and man-made debris. Since both particle models are couched in terms of impact fluxes versus impactor particle size, and much of the LDEF data is in the form of crater production rates, scaling laws have been used to relate the two. Also many hydrodynamic impact computer simulations were conducted, using CTH, of various impact events, that identified certain modes of response, including simple metallic target cratering, perforations and delamination effects of coatings.

Coombs, Cassandra R.↗
NASA NTRS2018

How Do You Go From a Concept Idea to a NASA Selected Mission? Formulating the Psyche Discovery Mission with JPL's Concurrent Engineering Teams

JPL’s Office of Formulation provides continuity of support and access to domain subject matter experts, as Principal Investigators mature their mission concepts from “cocktail napkin” ideas to Preliminary Design Reviews [1]. Using NASA’s Psyche mission as a case study, we describe JPL’s concurrent engineering A-Team and Team X support to the Psyche competed concept study team in the areas of 1) Initial Feasibility, 2) Trade Space Exploration, 3) Spacecraft Point Design and Cost Estimate, 4) Science, Technical, Management, and Cost Review, and 5) Strategy and Communication Development. NASA’s Psyche Discovery-class mission started as a grassroots idea from Principal Investigator L.T. ElkinsTanton. Is there a compelling Discovery mission to visit the interior of a body for the first time, by sending a mission to an iron metal asteroid? In less than five years the Psyche concept was selected as a mission under NASA’s Discovery Program. While Psyche had a dedicated concept development team [2], they utilized JPL’s concurrent engineering teams, methods, analysis tools, and subject matter experts throughout their mission concept formulation lifecycle

Ziemer, John↗
NASA NTRS2018

An Affordable Lunar Architecture Emphasizing Commercial and International Partnering Opportunities

Since the cancellation of the Constellation Program, NASA officially has been focused on Mars as the next step for human exploration. Yet many in the space community believe that returning humans to the moon is more logical. Often-cited reasons for this include: (1) should Nature prove to be favorable, the moon could be the basis for expanding the space economy through Off-Earth Mining (OEM) and other commercial endeavors; (2) the moon is scientifically interesting and could serve as a platform for scientific facilities; and (3) useful experience could be gained there for the human journey to Mars. With this in mind, JPL’s A-Team (Architecture Team) was tasked with developing conceptual lunar surface architectures that could simultaneously provide “living on another world” proving ground experience, but would also be affordable and offer truly significant commercial and international partnering opportunities. The task also required that the resulting architectures must eventually lead to and flow seamlessly into planning for human missions to Mars in the 2030s/2040s, if “things go well.” This aspect has been critically missing in other lunar architecture proposals.

Elliott, John↗
NASA NTRS2018

How Do You Go From a Concept Idea to a NASA Selected Mission? Formulating the Psyche Discovery Mission with JPL's Concurrent Engineering Teams

JPL’s Office of Formulation provides continuity of support and access to domain subject matter experts, as Principal Investigators mature their mission concepts from “cocktail napkin” ideas to Preliminary Design Reviews [1]. Using NASA’s Psyche mission as a case study, we will describe JPL’s concurrent engineering ATeam and Team X support to the Psyche competed concept study team in the areas of 1) Science Feasibility, 2) Trade Space Exploration, 3) Spacecraft Point Design and Cost Estimate, 4) Science, Technical, Management, and Cost Review, and 5) Strategy and Communication Development. NASA’s Psyche Discovery class mission started as a grassroots idea in our A-Team facility, and in less than five years was selected as a mission under NASA’s Discovery Program. While Psyche had a dedicated concept development team [2], they utilized JPL’s concurrent engineering teams, methods, analysis tools, and experts throughout their mission concept lifecycle.

Ziemer, John↗
NASA NTRS2020

Estimate Early and Estimate Often: How Your Concurrent Engineering Design Team Can Bootstrap Your Organizations Programmatic Capabilities

What do you do when it is necessary to generate reasonable cost estimates at the earliest Concept Maturity Levels and you have never flown any similar missions before? This paper describes the current and future Team X and A-Team cost processes and methods, how they are being used to expand our data frontiers, cost modelling capabilities and how this enables the ability to estimate early and estimate often.

Hihn, Jairus↗
NASA NTRS2012

JPL Innovation Foundry

NASA supports the community of mission principal investigators by helping them ideate, mature, and propose concepts for new missions. As NASA's Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), JPL is a primary resource for providing this service. The environmental context for the formulation lifecycle evolves continuously. Contemporary trends include: more competitors; more-complex mission ideas; scarcer formulation resources; and higher standards for technical evaluation. Derived requirements for formulation support include: stable, clear, reliable methods tailored for each stage of the formulation lifecycle; on-demand access to standout technical and programmatic subject-matter experts; optimized, outfitted facilities; smart access to learning embodied in a vast oeuvre of prior formulation work; hands-on method coaching. JPL has retooled its provision of integrated formulation lifecycle support to PIs, teams, and program offices in response to this need. This mission formulation enterprise is the JPL Innovation Foundry.

foundry↗