Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CuSe”

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.

Investigation into the Use of the Concept Laser QM System as an In-Situ Research and Evaluation Tool

The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is using a Concept Laser Fusing (Cusing) M2 powder bed additive manufacturing system for the build of space flight prototypes and hardware. NASA MSFC is collecting and analyzing data from the M2 QM Meltpool and QM Coating systems for builds. This data is intended to aide in understanding of the powder-bed additive manufacturing process, and in the development of a thermal model for the process. The QM systems are marketed by Concept Laser GmbH as in-situ quality management modules. The QM Meltpool system uses both a high-speed near-IR camera and a photodiode to monitor the melt pool generated by the laser. The software determines from the camera images the size of the melt pool. The camera also measures the integrated intensity of the IR radiation, and the photodiode gives an intensity value based on the brightness of the melt pool. The QM coating system uses a high resolution optical camera to image the surface after each layer has been formed. The objective of this investigation was to determine the adequacy of the QM Meltpool system as a research instrument for in-situ measurement of melt pool size and temperature and its applicability to NASA's objectives in (1) Developing a process thermal model and (2) Quantifying feedback measurements with the intent of meeting quality requirements or specifications. Note that Concept Laser markets the system only as capable of giving an indication of changes between builds, not as an in-situ research and evaluation tool. A secondary objective of the investigation is to determine the adequacy of the QM Coating system as an in-situ layer-wise geometry and layer quality evaluation tool.

Bagg, Stacey↗

Oversimplification of Systems Engineering Goals, Processes, and Criteria in NASA Space Life Support

This paper investigates the oversimplification of the inherently complex systems engineering process in space life support. The standard systems engineering process steps are described. The International Space Station (ISS) life support system is explained with its goals and performance criteria. Although it is not usually emphasized, the essential function of developing a hierarchy of systems and subsystems is to simplify the design process. The System Complexity Metric (SCM) shows how this di-vide-and-conquer approach also reduces the system complexity. The complete systems engineering process has many detailed steps. It is often simplified because of the effort required and the human limitations on working memory and decision span. Systems analysis demands slow, logical, and fo-cused thinking but is often bypassed in favor of quick, intuitive, subconscious “gut feel.” A study of 100 system designs found examples of 12 specific mental mistakes, such as ignoring stakeholder needs, and these mistakes are essentially oversimplifications of the systems engineering process. An analysis of space life support goals, options, criteria, and processes found 11 examples of oversimplifications in systems engineering, such as neglecting safety and cost. All these 11 oversimplifications could be traced to one or more of the 12 previously identified mental mistakes or other well-known ones, such as ig-noring sunk costs. Oversimplification of the systems engineering process is rarely noticed but is a common and harmful problem. A study of failures in 50 different space systems found that problems in systems engineering caused failures and often led to errors in design, development, and test that further contributed to failure. It seems that more diligent systems engineering could prevent many project problems and failures, but projects seem to be more guided by “gut feel” based on tradition, authority, and consensus than on the logical, rational systems engineering approach.

Simplified systems engineering↗