Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Advocacy”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

Space Program Advocacy Can Distort Project Management and Damage Systems Engineering

Over-optimistic project advocacy often causes exaggerated performance claims and underestimated costs and schedules. This can distort project management and damage systems engineering. NASA projects such as the space shuttle and Hubble are extreme examples. NASA's spectacular success in the Apollo moon landings seems to have produced overconfidence and carelessness, but also to have gained tolerance for unrealistic claims and forgiveness when they were proven wrong. Apollo risk analysis predicted many astronaut fatalities. This was believed but was potentially damaging to the Apollo program, so risk analysis was discontinued. The moon landings beat bad odds because Apollo obsessively reduced risk. Its success seemed to confirm that risk analysis was unreasonably pessimistic and that risk could be overcome by good engineering. This understanding caused risk to be increased during space shuttle engineering and led to an unnecessarily dangerous approach. The shuttle design placed a fragile spacecraft next to the fuel tanks and failed to provide crew escape or launch abort. These design decisions directly caused the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. After Challenger, risk analysis was re-established. The current rocket and capsule design does consider risk and the result strongly resembles Apollo. Apollo advocacy led NASA to abandon risk analysis and this was ultimate cause of the Shuttle tragedies. Excessive advocacy that distorts risk, cost, and schedule could be prevented in an ideal organization that used systems engineering to make rational and fair decisions. However, most real organizations accommodate human and group needs using informal methods often described as "the system." Humans have biases, use innate decision making heuristics, instinctively rely on "gut feel," and establish deviant groups through groupthink. Expecting organizations to become totally rational is impractical, but specific problems such as neglecting risk and underestimating cost and schedule can be directly challenged with some hope of success.

Jones, Harry W.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Snowmass '21 Community Engagement Frontier 6: Public Policy and Government Engagement: Congressional Advocacy for Areas Beyond HEP Funding

This document has been prepared as a Snowmass contributed paper by the Public Policy & Government Engagement topical group (CEF06) within the Community Engagement Frontier. The charge of CEF06 is to review all aspects of how the High Energy Physics (HEP) community engages with government at all levels and how public policy impacts members of the community and the community at large, and to assess and raise awareness within the community of direct community-driven engagement of the US federal government (\textit{i.e.} advocacy). The focus of this paper is the potential for HEP community advocacy on topics other than funding for basic research.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRS1975

Advocacy and technology assessment

A highly structured treatment is presented of adversarial systems as they apply to technology assessment. One approach to the problem of adequate criteria of assessment focuses upon the internal operations of assessment entities; operations include problem perception, problem formulation, selection, utilization, determination, and evaluation. Potential contributions of advocacy as a mode of inquiry in technology are discussed; advocacy is evaluated by representative sets of criteria of adequate assessment which include participant criteria, perspectives criteria, situations criteria, base values criteria, and strategies criteria.

Jones, E. M.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Snowmass '21 Community Engagement Frontier 6: Public Policy and Government Engagement: Congressional Advocacy for HEP Funding (The "DC Trip'')

This document has been prepared as a Snowmass contributed paper by the Public Policy & Government Engagement topical group (CEF06) within the Community Engagement Frontier. The charge of CEF06 is to review all aspects of how the High Energy Physics (HEP) community engages with government at all levels and how public policy impacts members of the community and the community at large, and to assess and raise awareness within the community of direct community-driven engagement of the U.S. federal government (\textit{i.e.} advocacy). The focus of this paper is the advocacy undertaken by the HEP community that pertains directly to the funding of the field by the U.S. federal government.

Carneiro, Mateus↗
NASA NTRS2014

Climate Change: On Scientists and Advocacy

Last year, I asked a crowd of a few hundred geoscientists from around the world what positions related to climate science and policy they would be comfortable publicly advocating. I presented a list of recommendations that included increased research funding, greater resources for education, and specific emission reduction technologies. In almost every case, a majority of the audience felt comfortable arguing for them. The only clear exceptions were related to geo-engineering research and nuclear power. I had queried the researchers because the relationship between science and advocacy is marked by many assumptions and little clarity. This despite the fact that the basic question of how scientists can be responsible advocates on issues related to their expertise has been discussed for decades most notably in the case of climate change by the late Stephen Schneider.

climate change↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advocacy and Allyship by Men for Women in Engineering-Related Fields at the College Level

Diversity enables better and more creative problem solving, with greater financial impact on organizations, according to multiple studies in the past 10 years. One long-standing limitation on diversity in technology fields is the persistently-low representation of females. This is often seen in the collegiate environment more than in the professional world, and greater efforts need to be made in college classrooms and labs to address it. Most succinctly, more men need to directly involve themselves as advocates for and allies of women. This panel engages with professionals of both binary gender identities who currently ally and advocate for women in engineering, computing, and technology fields. The goals of the panel are to identify common reasons why men should advocate for women, create support around the simple actions that can be taken in advocacy, and encourage greater allyship for women in the academic world and beyond. The panelists include both men and women from across multiple intersectional identities. The questions include (1) for what reasons are you an ally or advocate for women in engineering-related fields, (2) what experiences have you had in which you have had to take immediate action as an advocate or ally, (3) what do you recommend for easy-to-implement actions to advocate, and (4) how can advocates and allies help implement change at their own institutions. For the paper, each panelist would be asked these questions and their answers would be provided unedited, followed by a summary discussion of actionable items. For the panel presentation session, each panelist will have the opportunity to highlight aspects of their answers bring life to their thoughts to each question and together with other members of the panel can build for an in-depth discussion.

Brian Kirkmeyer↗
NASA NTRS1981

The International Halley Watch: A program of coordination, cooperation and advocacy

To prevent a repetition of the lack of reporting and dissemination of the data obtained during the 1910 observations of Comet Halley, a mechanism is proposed for coordinating the work of scientists and amateurs, including government, industrials, and academic personnel during the 1985-86 apparition of Comet Halley. Specialists from each discipline, in consultation with other experts in the field, would recommend specific objectives, standards, data format, and priorities for observations in that discipline. Following time for individual publication, scientists would be invited to contribute results to a multivolume compilation containing as complete as possible a record of the apparition. It is suggested that the discipline specialists be selected jointly by the IHW leader an by an international steering group with members from COSPAR, the IAU, etc., perhaps in response to some form of international announcement of opportunity.

Friedman, L.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Science objectives in the lunar base advocacy

The author considers the potential function of astronomy in planning for a lunar base during the 21st century. He is one of the leading advocates for a permanent settlement on the Moon and has given considerable thought to the possible impact of such a station on science. He considers the rationale for a lunar base, research on the Moon, and the definition of science objectives.

Mendell, Wendell W.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Focused Interest Groups Propel Innovation in the Emerging Data-Driven Hardware Ecosystem

Over the past several decades, the science of electron microscopy (EM) has risen to become one of the cornerstone approaches to understanding material structure, chemistry, and defects at exceptional spatial resolution. This rise can be attributed to the hard work of researchers and companies who have pushed the bounds of instrumentation and analysis, but it is also the result of advocacy by members of professional societies. Furthermore, such advocacy is exemplified by the Aberration Corrected EM (ACEM) focused interest group (FIG) of the Microscopy Society of America (MSA), which has played an important role in facilitating new hardware developments, promoting the exchange of ideas to catalyze discovery, and building the next generation of leaders in electron microscopy. From the early 2000s to the present, aberration correction has moved from proof-of-concept instrumentation to an established technique, providing unprecedented improvements in spatial and chemical resolution for breakthroughs in chemistry, physics, and materials science.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
NASA NTRS2004

Low Emissions Alternative Power (LEAP) Project Office Business Team of the Aeropropulsion Research Program Office (ARPO) Org. 0140

The program for which I am working at this summer is Propulsion and Power/Low Emissions Alternative Power (P&P/LEAP). It invests in a fundamental TRL 1-6 research and technology portfolio that will enable the future of: Alternative fuels and/or alternative propulsion systems, non-combustion (electric) propulsion systems. P&P/LEAP will identify and capitalize on the highest potential concepts generated both internal and external to the Agency. During my 2004 summer at NASA Glenn Research Center, I worked with my mentor Barbara Mader, in the Project Office with the Business Team completing various tasks for the project and personnel. The LEAP project is a highly matrixed organization. The Project Office is responsible for the goals advocacy and dollar (budget) of the LEAP project. The objectives of the LEAP Project are to discover new energy sources and develop unconventional engines and power systems directed towards greatly reduced emissions, enable new vehicle concepts for public mobility, new science missions and national security. The Propulsion and PowerLow Emissions Alternative Power directly supports the environmental, mobility, national security objectives of the Vehicle Systems Program and the Aeronautics Technology Theme. Technology deliverables include the demonstration through integrated ground tests, a constant volume combustor in an engine system, and UAV/small transport aircraft all electric power system. My mentor serves as a key member of the management team for the Aeropropulsion Research Program Office (ARPO). She has represented the office on numerous occasions, and is a member of a number of center-wide panels/teams, such as the Space management Committee and is chair to the Business Process Consolidation Team. She is responsible for the overall coordination of resources for the Propulsion and Power Project - from advocacy to implementation. The goal for my summer at NASA was to document processes and archive program documents from the past years. I used the computer and office machines, and also worked with personnel in setting up a Cost Estimation Plan. I gained office experience in Word, Excel, and Power Point, with the completion of a variety of tasks. I made spreadsheets that pertained to the budget plan for Journey to Tomorrow, to name a few I have supported the office by tracking resource information: including programmatic travel, project budget at the center level to budgets for individual research sub-projects and grants. I also assisted the Program Support Office in their duties including, representing the office on numerous occasions on center-wide team/panels, such as the Space management committee, IFMP Budget Formulation, Journey to Tomorrow Committee, and the Vehicle Systems Program Business Process Team.

Buttler, Jennifer A.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Second Annual Transformative Vertical Flight Concepts Workshop: Enabling New Flight Concepts Through Novel Propulsion and Energy Architectures

On August 3rd and 4th, 2015, a workshop was held at the NASA Ames Research Center, located at the Moffett Federal Airfield in California to explore the aviation communities interest in Transformative Vertical Flight (TVF) Concepts. The Workshop was sponsored by the AHS International (AHS), the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and hosted by the NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI). This second annual workshop built on the success and enthusiasm generated by the first TVF Workshop held in Washington, DC in August of 2014. The previous Workshop identified the existence of a multi-disciplinary community interested in this topic and established a consensus among the participants that opportunities to establish further collaborations in this area are warranted. The desire to conduct a series of annual workshops augmented by online virtual technical seminars to strengthen the TVF community and continue planning for advocacy and collaboration was a direct outcome of the first Workshop. The second Workshop organizers focused on four desired action-oriented outcomes. The first was to establish and document common stakeholder needs and areas of potential collaborations. This includes advocacy strategies to encourage the future success of unconventional vertiport capable flight concept solutions that are enabled by emerging technologies. The second was to assemble a community that can collaborate on new conceptual design and analysis tools to permit novel configuration paths with far greater multi-disciplinary coupling (i.e., aero-propulsive-control) to be investigated. The third was to establish a community to develop and deploy regulatory guidelines. This community would have the potential to initiate formation of an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F44 Committee Subgroup for the development of consensus-based certification standards for General Aviation scale vertiport capable flight systems. These standards need to accommodate novel fixed wing concepts that do not fit within the existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rotorcraft certification framework (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 27). The fourth desired outcome was to launch an information campaign to ensure key U.S. Government agencies understand the potential benefits and industry interest in establishing new vertiport capable flight markets. This record of the Workshop proceedings documents Workshop activities and products including summaries of the video recorded technical presentations, overviews of three breakout sessions (Missions Operational Concepts, Prioritized Technical Challenges, Regulatory Roadmap), and a preliminary draft roadmap framework for TVF.

V/STOL↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Robust and Mass Efficient Thermal Protection Systems for Future Venus Missions

Several international Venus missions, both orbiter, and in-situ probe are in the works after a prolonged absence. Future missions are expected to be long-duration lander missions and balloon missions to investigate the cloud layer. The entry mass for these in-situ missions will be significantly higher, and the aeroshell will be larger, than previous missions. Two cardinal requirements govern the selection and use of thermal protection systems (TPS), namely, robustness to assure mission safety during entry and mass efficiency so that the useful mass for science is maximized. One cannot trade mission safety for mass when it comes to TPS. The robustness of the TPS is a paramount requirement as it is a single point of system failure. At the same time, TPS mass is carried for the entire mission duration prior to entry, and any excess TPS mass is at the cost of science payload. Future missions will benefit enormously from TPS options with mass and performance benefits far beyond advanced carbon-carbon (ACC) that is currently proposed for the DAVINCI mission. NASA STMD, and SMD jointly invested in the development of 3-D woven thermal protection systems in the last decade, and as a result, the Heat-shield for Extreme Entry Environment Technology (HEEET) TPS has been matured to TRL 6. It is ready for future mission use including Venus. The HEEET project focused on developing a broad technology base, applicable for missions not only to Venus, but also to Saturn, the Ice Giants, and higher speed sample return missions such as Mars Sample Return requiring extreme robustness due to bio-hazards. The dual-layer HEEET (DL-HEEET) is proven to be extremely robust. DL-HEEET performed well in arc jet and laser testing conditions where heritage carbon-phenolic failed. HEEET also proved to be more mass efficient compared to Carbon-Phenolic. Recently, the principal author was invited to present his perspectives to the 2023-2032 Planetary Sciences Decadal Venus subcommittee on the current state of TPS for future Venus missions [1]. In addition to pointing out successful TPS and other developments in the last decade in support of entry systems, the principal author made two findings: 1) importance of and need to sustain TPS capabilities that took nearly a decade to develop and 2) the opportunity to further optimize TPS mass without sacrificing robustness to further enable future in-situ missions. This talk will focus on the above two recommendations and provide the rationale for them. The intent of the talk is to seek advocacy from the VEXAG community for the criticality of TPS sustainment and the benefits of 3D woven TPS optimization. TPS Capability Sustainment: HEEET development was necessitated by the atrophy of heritage carbon-phenolic. Atrophy has impacted other TPS materials as well. Avcoat, the TPS that successfully allowed astronauts to explore the Moon in the 1960s and 70s, took nearly a decade and $10’sM to recover in support of Orion/Artemis. One of the most used TPS materials, SLA 561V, had to be recovered prior to its use on Mars Pathfinder. Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA), the TPS that replaced SLA 561V on MSL, has undergone multiple replacements and recovery due to constituent rayon changes. Recently, NASA invested in a domestic rayon replacement program and also invested in FMI to consolidate PICA capability for NASA missions, as a result of FMI’s decision to discontinue commercial FiberForm, which is needed for PICA. TPS used for planetary missions are unique and have no other commercial or defense use. In addition, low mission cadence is also a driver for TPS atrophy. Hence, NASA, as the steward, must take steps to ensure and sustain TPS capabilities. In this talk, we outline steps NASA can take to keep abreast of emerging risks and target risk mitigation steps to ensure TPS capability sustainment for Venus and other extreme environment missions. Next Generation of Mass efficient and Robust TPS: NASA invested in an alternate TPS to PICA based on felt-technology called Conformal-PICA which has the potential to save 30% - 50% mass over PICA. The development was discontinued at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of ~ 5. 3D Mid-Density Carbon Phenolic (3MDCP) is a single layer variant of HEEET, based on the insulating layer only (SL-HEEET) and currently baselined for the Mars Sample Return Mission Earth Entry System due to its mass efficiency (30% more mass efficient than DL- HEEET). Currently, SL-HEEET is limited to aeroshell diameters of < 1.3m. The SL-HEEET was compared to DL-HEEET in the recent ADVENT flag-ship class mission study in support of the Planetary Science Decadal. SL HEEET was the recommended TPS based on 30% mass savings for both the balloon and lander missions. Given C-PICA and SL-HEEET have superior reliability and mass efficiency, advocacy from VEXAG is sought for completing their further development to TRL 5/6 in this decade so as to enable TPS readiness for future missions.

Thermal Protection Systems↗