Innovation at JPL
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
innovation JPL missions development↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “innovation JPL missions development”
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.
Space Mission Concept Development Using Concept Maturity Levels; JPL Innovation Foundry
No abstract available
mission design↗
Leveraging knowledge: impact on low cost planetary mission design
This paper discusses innovations developed by the JPL Librarians to reduce the information query cycle time for teams planning low-cost, planetary missions.
library cycle time↗
JPL Innovation Foundry
Space science missions are increasingly challenged today: in ambition, by increasingly sophisticated hypotheses tested; in development, by the increasing complexity of advanced technologies; in budgeting, by the decline of flagship-class mission opportunities; in management, by expectations for breakthrough science despite a risk-averse programmatic climate; and in planning, by increasing competition for scarce resources. How are the space-science missions of tomorrow being formulated? The paper describes the JPL Innovation Foundry, created in 2011, to respond to this evolving context. The Foundry integrates methods, tools, and experts that span the mission concept lifecycle. Grounded in JPL's heritage of missions, flight instruments, mission proposals, and concept innovation, the Foundry seeks to provide continuity of support and cost-effective, on-call access to the right domain experts at the right time, as science definition teams and Principal Investigators mature mission ideas from "cocktail napkin" to PDR. The Foundry blends JPL capabilities in proposal development and concurrent engineering, including Team X, with new approaches for open-ended concept exploration in earlier, cost-constrained phases, and with ongoing research and technology projects. It applies complexity and cost models, projectformulation lessons learned, and strategy analyses appropriate to each level of concept maturity. The Foundry is organizationally integrated with JPL formulation program offices; staffed by JPL's line organizations for engineering, science, and costing; and overseen by senior Laboratory leaders to assure experienced coordination and review. Incubation of each concept is tailored depending on its maturity and proposal history, and its highest leverage modeling and analysis needs.
mission development↗
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↗
A Closer Look at Quality Control
Spectrometers, which are durable, lightweight, and compact instruments, are a requirement for NASA deep space science missions, especially as NASA strives to conduct these missions with smaller spacecraft. NASA s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) awarded the Brimrose Corporation of America a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract to develop a compact, rugged, near-infrared spectrometer for possible future missions. Spectrometers are of particular importance on NASA missions because they help scientists to identify the make-up of a planet s surface and analyze the molecules in the atmosphere. Minerals and molecules emit light of various colors. The light, identified as spectra, is difficult to see, and spectrometers, which are essentially special cameras that collect the separate colors of light in an object, allow scientists to identify the different materials. For example, spectrometers can help scientists determine whether soil was created from lava flows or from meteorites.
Source record↗
Evolution of the Scope and Capabilities of Uplink Support Software for Mars Surface Operations
In January of 2004 both of the Mars Exploration Rover spacecraft landed safely, initiating daily surface operations at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for what was anticipated to be approximately three months of mobile exploration. The longevity of this mission, still ongoing after ten years, has provided not only a tremendous return of scientific data but also the opportunity to refine and improve the methodology by which robotic Mars surface missions are commanded. Since the landing of the Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft in August of 2012, this methodology has been successfully applied to operate a Martian rover which is both similar to, and quite different from, its predecessors. For MER and MSL, daily uplink operations can be most broadly viewed as converting the combined interests of both the science and engineering teams into a spacecraft-safe set of transmittable command files. In order to accomplish these ends a discrete set of mission-critical software tools were developed which not only allowed for conformation to established JPL standards and practices but also enabled innovative technologies specific to each mission. Although these primary programs provided the requisite capabilities for meeting the high-level goals of each distinct phase of the uplink process, there was little in the way of secondary software to support the smooth flow of data from one phase to the next. In order to address this shortcoming a suite of small software tools was developed to aid in phase transitions, as well as to automate some of the more laborious and error-prone aspects of uplink operations. This paper describes the evolution of this software suite, from its initial attempts to merely shorten the duration of the operator's shift, to its current role as an indispensable tool enforcing workflow of the uplink operations process and agilely responding to the new and unexpected challenges of missions which can, and have, lasted many years longer than originally anticipated.
CoUGAR↗
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↗
Reengineering the Project Design Process
In response to NASA's goal of working faster, better and cheaper, JPL has developed extensive plans to minimize cost, maximize customer and employee satisfaction, and implement small- and moderate-size missions. These plans include improved management structures and processes, enhanced technical design processes, the incorporation of new technology, and the development of more economical space- and ground-system designs. The Laboratory's new Flight Projects Implementation Office has been chartered to oversee these innovations and the reengineering of JPL's project design process, including establishment of the Project Design Center and the Flight System Testbed. Reengineering at JPL implies a cultural change whereby the character of its design process will change from sequential to concurrent and from hierarchical to parallel. The Project Design Center will support missions offering high science return, design to cost, demonstrations of new technology, and rapid development. Its computer-supported environment will foster high-fidelity project life-cycle development and cost estimating.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory JPL project design concu↗
JPL Advanced Thermal Control Technology Roadmap - 2012
NASA's new emphasis on human exploration program for missions beyond LEO requires development of innovative and revolutionary technologies. Thermal control requirements of future NASA science instruments and missions are very challenging and require advanced thermal control technologies. Limited resources requires organizations to cooperate and collaborate; government, industry, universities all need to work together for the successful development of these technologies.
thermal control↗
Temporal Investment Strategy to Enable JPL Future Space Missions
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) formulates and conducts deep space missions for NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration). The Chief Technologist of JPL has the responsibility for strategic planning of the laboratory's advanced technology program to assure that the required technological capabilities to enable future JPL deep space missions are ready as needed; as such he is responsible for the development of a Strategic Plan. As part of the planning effort, he has supported the development of a structured approach to technology prioritization based upon the work of the START (Strategic Assessment of Risk and Technology) team. A major innovation reported here is the addition of a temporal model that supports scheduling of technology development as a function of time. The JPL Strategic Technology Plan divides the required capabilities into 13 strategic themes. The results reported here represent the analysis of an initial seven.
investment strategy↗
A Gentle Touch
One aspect of my job as Payload Manager on the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission involved keeping track of what the different science teams were working on, and offering help where it was needed. At first it seemed like many of the scientists or their technical staff were not sure how safe it was to confide in me. Everybody knew I had spent most of my career with NASA at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). All of my staff, initially four of them, came from JPL too. Left to our own devices, would we impose onerous NASA rules that could stifle innovation in the ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) mission instrument development labs? The challenge to my team was getting the science groups to regard us as partners, or as people who could help them rather than as what they seemed to expect--a troop of requirements enforcers.
Frandsen, Allan↗
Case Study of "Engineering Peer Meetings" in JPL's ST-6 Project
This design process error-proofing case study describes a design review practice implemented by a project manager at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. There are many types of reviews at NASA: required and not, formalized and informal, programmatic and technical. Standing project formal reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR) are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the engineering peer reviews that support teams technical work on such projects are often informal, ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. This case study discusses issues and innovations identified by a project manager at JPL and implemented in "engineering peer meetings" for his group.
Tumer, Irem Y.↗
Case Study of 'Engineering Peer Meetings' in JPL's ST-6 Project
This design process error-proofing case study describes a design review practice implemented by a project manager at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. There are many types of reviews at NASA: required and not, formalized and informal, programmatic and technical. Standing project formal reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR) are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the engineering peer reviews that support teams technical work on such projects are often informal, ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. This case study discusses issues and innovations identified by a project manager at JPL and implemented in 'engineering peer meetings' for his group.
Chao, Lawrence P.↗
Broadening JPL’s Mission Formulation Paradigm with Human Centered Design
Within NASA’s highly competitive environment for funding, Human Centered Design (HCD) and cybernetics could provide advantages to proposers during the mission formulation phase. Opportunities are limited when it comes to funding new science missions. Proposers are challenged to make a compelling case about the scientific desirability, technical feasibility, and resource viability of their concepts. Organizations follow established processes for proposal development using teams that typically include scientists, engineers, and managers. These team members are highly experienced subject matter experts (SME) in their own disciplines, and can respond to requirements from the solicitation. However, they are typically not trained as designers and communicators. Their approach is rooted within NASA’s science and technology paradigm. How can we improve the proposal development process, refine workflow between team members, and deliver clear and appealing offerings to the stakeholders and evaluators? These questions have been addressed by today’s most innovative companies (e.g., Apple, Google, 3M, Dyson), where the design process is not limited simply to engineering and management, but involves an all-encompassing approach drawing from fields such as social sciences, design, and the arts. Like these commercial enterprises, NASA currently employs systems thinking and integrated design, but can benefit further by moving beyond its current practices, which are mostly driven by rigid engineering, technology, science, and project management considerations. At JPL’s Innovation Foundry and through the Solar System Mission Formulation Office, we broadened this paradigm by including HCD in the mission formulation workflow. Our goal was to create a proposal with improved clarity and appeal, thus helping our team to communicate its message and aid evaluators with their work. In this paper we provide examples and lessons learned from our recent proposal development effort using HCD. We discuss touch points where we infused non-linear designerly approaches and cybernetic circularity into the workflow. Implemented design topics include operational design for team building; process design throughout distinct phases of the proposal development and writing process; communication design for streamlined exchange of information within the team and to stakeholders; interaction design; graphic design; and creating boundary objects. While these approaches may feel new or foreign to SMEs and managers in the aerospace community, they produced significant benefits in this mission formulation effort. We will describe how such approaches can be used to broaden NASA’s technology-driven paradigm through design, thus creating an environment which fosters innovation, improved communication, and strategic advantage for proposers and their organizations.
Turner, Neal↗
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.↗
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↗
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.↗