Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “peer review”

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 NTRS1991

Portable Common Execution Environment (PCEE) project review: Peer review

The purpose of the review was to conduct an independent, in-depth analysis of the PCEE project and to provide the results of said review. The review team was tasked with evaluating the potential contribution of the PCEE project to the improvement of the life cycle support of mission and safety critical (MASC) computing components for large, complex, non-stop, distributed systems similar to those planned for such NASA programs as the space station, lunar outpost, and manned missions to Mars. Some conclusions of the review team are as follow: The PCEE project was given high marks for its breath of vision on the overall problem with MASC software; Correlated with the sweeping vision, the Review Team is very skeptical that any research project can successfully attack such a broad range of problems; and several recommendations are made such as to identify the components of the broad solution envisioned, prioritizing them with respect to their impact and the likely ability of the PCEE or others to attack them successfully, and to rewrite its Concept Document differentiating the problem description, objectives, approach, and results so that the project vision becomes assessible to others.

Locke, C. Douglass↗
NASA NTRS2009

NASA Product Peer Review Process

This viewgraph presentation describes NASA's product peer review process. The contents include: 1) Inspection/Peer Review at NASA; 2) Reasons for product peer reviews; 3) Different types of peer reviews; and 4) NASA requirements for peer reviews. This presentation also includes a demonstration of an actual product peer review.

Jenks, Ken↗
NASA NTRS2003

A Study of Technical Engineering Peer Reviews at NASA

This report describes the state of practices of design reviews at NASA and research into what can be done to improve peer review practices. 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 and Critical Design Review are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the technical, engineering peer reviews that support teams' work on such projects are informal, some times ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. The goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA's experience, supported by academic research and methodologies to ultimately improve the process. This research has determined that the organization, composition, scope, and approach of the reviews impact their success. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can identify key areas of concern before or in the reviews. Product definition tools like the Project Priority Matrix, engineering-focused Customer Value Chain Analysis (CVCA), and project or system-based Quality Function Deployment (QFD) help prioritize resources in reviews. The use of information technology and structured design methodologies can strengthen the engineering peer review process to help NASA work towards error-proofing the design process.

Chao, Lawrence P.↗
NASA NTRS2009

The JSC Engineering Directorate Product Peer Review Process

The JSC Engineering Directorate has developed a Product Peer Review process in support of NASA policies for project management and systems engineering. The process complies with the requirements of NPR 7120.5, NPR 7123.1 and NPR 7150.2 and follows the guidance in NASA/SP-2007-6105. This presentation will give an overview of the process followed by a brief demonstration of an actual peer review, with audience participation.

Jenks, Kenneth C.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Independent Peer Review of Communications, Navigation, and Networking re-Configurable Testbed (CoNNeCT) Project Antenna Pointing Subsystem (APS) Integrated Gimbal Assembly (IGA) Structural Analysis

Glenn Research Center Chief Engineer's Office requested an independent review of the structural analysis and modeling of the Communications, Navigation, and Networking re-Configurable Testbed (CoNNeCT) Project Antenna Pointing Subsystem (APS) Integrated Gimbal Assembly (IGA) to be conducted by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). At this time, the IGA had completed its critical design review (CDR). The assessment was to be a peer review of the NEi-NASTRAN1 model of the APS Antenna, and not a peer review of the design and the analysis that had been completed by the GRC team for CDR. Thus, only a limited amount of information was provided on the structural analysis. However, the NESC team had difficulty separating analysis concerns from modeling issues. The team studied the NASTRAN model, but did not fully investigate how the model was used by the CoNNeCT Project and how the Project was interpreting the results. The team's findings, observations, and NESC recommendations are contained in this report.

Raju, Ivatury S.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

The Editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics are deeply indebted to the many people among the research community that serve this journal through peer review. The journal could not exist without the time and effort invested by the community through this voluntary activity, providing expert evaluations and thoughtful assessments of the work of others. In 2015, the journal had 1506 scientists contribute to the process with at least one peer review, for a total of 3575 reviews completed, including additional reviews of resubmitted manuscripts. There were 277 reviewers that contributed four or more reports in 2015. The average number of reviews per referee in 2015 was, therefore, 2.4. Note that the total number of manuscript final decisions (i.e., accept or reject) for Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) Space Physics was 1147 in 2015. Of this, 774 were accepted and 373 were declined, for an acceptance rate of 67% last year. If the 1334 "revision" decisions are included in the tally, then the total number of decisions made in 2015 was 2481. Working out the arithmetic, it means that on average, a manuscript gets about 1.2 revision decisions before a final accept-or-reject decision. This explains the ~3.1 average number of reviews per manuscript throughout each paper's lifetime in the submission-revision editorial process. We are pleased and happy that the research community is willing and able to devote their resources toward this service endeavor. We appreciate each and every one of you that helped maintain the high quality of papers in JGR Space Physics last year. We look forward to another excellent year working with all of you through the year ahead.

Liemohn, Michael W.↗
NASA NTRS2011

In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol Peer Review Assessment

The performance of extravehicular activity (EVA) by National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronauts involves the risk of decompression sickness. This risk has been mitigated by the use of oxygen "prebreathe" to effectively wash out tissue nitrogen prior to each EVA. Now that the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) is being retired, high-pressure oxygen will become a limited resource. The In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol offers several potential benefits including its potential to save 6 pounds of oxygen per EVA. At the request of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, the peer review convened on October 14, 2010. The major recommendation of the Review Committee was that the ISLE protocol was acceptable for operational use as a prebreathe option prior to EVA. The results from the peer review are contained in this document.

Brady, Timothy K.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Peer Review of Launch Environments

Catastrophic failures of launch vehicles during launch and ascent are currently modeled using equivalent trinitrotoluene (TNT) estimates. This approach tends to over-predict the blast effect with subsequent impact to launch vehicle and crew escape requirements. Bangham Engineering, located in Huntsville, Alabama, assembled a less-conservative model based on historical failure and test data coupled with physical models and estimates. This white paper summarizes NESC's peer review of the Bangham analytical work completed to date.

Wilson, Timmy R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol Peer Review Assessment: Appendices - Part 2

The performance of extravehicular activity (EVA) by National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronauts involves the risk of decompression sickness. This risk has been mitigated by the use of oxygen "prebreathe" to effectively wash out tissue nitrogen prior to each EVA. Now that the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) is being retired, high-pressure oxygen will become a limited resource. The In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol offers several potential benefits including its potential to save 6 pounds of oxygen per EVA. At the request of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, the peer review convened on October 14, 2010. The major recommendation of the Review Committee was that the ISLE protocol was acceptable for operational use as a prebreathe option prior to EVA. The appendices to Volume I of the report are contained in this document.

Brady, Timothy K.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Using Arcane Data: Past Performance in NASA Science’s Principal Investigator (PI) Development Programs and Improving Future Peer Review for Space Flight Missions

This panel will explore challenges and initial findings from three qualitative studies that use the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Science Mission Directorate's(SMD) internal administrative data to begin to assess program effectiveness and document outputs and outcomes. SMD has funded both at and outside NASA, projects that promotethe development of SMD's future principal investigators (PI) workforce and science and technology investigations on space flight missions that advance the high priority science,technology, and exploration objectives. NASA's internal administrative data are arcane because they developed outside of relational databases. The studies reveal unique challenges to locating and using these data to document effective program processes, i.e.,peer review criteria for large flight missions, and results from the PI-development projects,e.g. the Hands-On Project Experience (HOPE) Training Opportunity solicitations limited to NASA Centers the Jet Propulsion Laboratory; and graduate student/postdoctoral opportunities at higher education institutions.

Sladek, Mary Frances↗
NASA NTRS2022

The need for reference-able and peer reviewed position papers

Space Physics community members are putting substantial efforts and ideas into position papers, in preparation for the U.S. Heliophysics Decadal Survey process; an analysis of the current state of the field and where future research, mission programs, and funding should focus. Furthermore, Space Physics community members in Europe and the U.S. have recently put substantial efforts and ideas into position papers for Vision 2050 and Heliophysics 2050. There are also other ideas in the community about the needs and focus of future Space Physics research efforts, whether they were submitted to other road mapping activities, or have yet to find the appropriate home. With this in mind, we have created a Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences Research Topic ’The Future of Space Physics 2022’, to provide a format for a reference-able, peer reviewed, archived, accessible collection of these ideas from around the world. We wish to make these ideas available to the national academies decadal survey committees, the broader research community and a wider audience, by developing this collection. The collection will publish high-quality papers on key topics across the field of Space Physics, aiming to highlight recent advances in the field, whilst emphasizing important directions and new possibilities for future inquiries.

Alexa Jean Halford↗
NASA NTRS1980

Validation Methods Research for Fault-Tolerant Avionics and Control Systems Sub-Working Group Meeting. CARE 3 peer review

A computer aided reliability estimation procedure (CARE 3), developed to model the behavior of ultrareliable systems required by flight-critical avionics and control systems, is evaluated. The mathematical models, numerical method, and fault-tolerant architecture modeling requirements are examined, and the testing and characterization procedures are discussed. Recommendations aimed at enhancing CARE 3 are presented; in particular, the need for a better exposition of the method and the user interface is emphasized.

Trivedi, K. S.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Peer Review of a Formal Verification/Design Proof Methodology

The role of formal verification techniques in system validation was examined. The value and the state of the art of performance proving for fault-tolerant compuers were assessed. The investigation, development, and evaluation of performance proving tools were reviewed. The technical issues related to proof methodologies are examined. The technical issues discussed are summarized.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

NESC Peer-Review of the Flight Rationale for Expected Debris Report

Since the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) has significantly improved the understanding of launch and ascent debris, implemented hardware modifications to reduce debris, and conducted tests and analyses to understand the risks associated with expected debris. The STS-114 flight rationale for expected debris relies on a combination of all three of these factors. A number of design improvements have been implemented to reduce debris at the source. The External Tank (ET) thermal protection system (TPS) foam has been redesigned and/or process improvements have been implemented in the following locations: the bipod closeout, the first ten feet of the liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank protuberance air load (PAL) ramp, and the LH2 tank-to-intertank flange closeout. In addition, the forward bipod ramp has been eliminated and heaters have been installed on the bipod fittings and the liquid oxygen (LO2) feedline forward bellows to prevent ice formation. The Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) bolt catcher has been redesigned. The Orbiter reaction control system (RCS) thruster cover "butcher paper" has been replaced with a material that sheds at a low velocity. Finally, the pad area has been cleaned to reduce debris during lift-off.

Harris, Charles E.↗