Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “top-down integrated assessment”

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.

9 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2021

Reconciling Assumptions in Bottom-up and Top-down Approaches for Estimating Aerosol Emission Rates from Wildland Fires using Observations from FIREX-AQ

Accurate fire emissions inventories are crucial to predict the impacts of wildland fires on air quality and atmospheric composition. Two traditional approaches are widely used to calculate fire emissions: a satellite-based top-down approach and a fuels-based bottom-up approach. However, these methods often considerably disagree on the amount of particulate mass emitted from fires. Previously available observational datasets tended to be sparse, and lacked the statistics needed to resolve these methodological discrepancies. Here, we leverage the extensive and comprehensive airborne in situ and remote sensing measurements of smoke plumes from the recent Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality (FIREX-AQ) campaign to statistically assess the skill of the two traditional approaches. We use detailed campaign observations to calculate and compare emission rates at an exceptionally high-resolution using three separate approaches: top-down, bottom-up, and a novel approach based entirely on integrated airborne in situ measurements. We then compute the daily average of these high-resolution estimates and compare with estimates from lower resolution, global top-down and bottom-up inventories. We uncover strong, linear relationships between all of the high-resolution emission rate estimates in aggregate, however no single approach is capable of capturing the emission characteristics of every fire. Global inventory emission rate estimates exhibited weaker correlations with the high-resolution approaches and displayed evidence of systematic bias. The disparity between the low resolution global inventories and the high-resolution approaches is likely caused by high levels of uncertainty in essential variables used in bottom-up inventories and imperfect assumptions in top-down inventories. Plain Language Summary Smoke emitted by wildland fires is dangerous to human health and contributes to climate change.To predict and evaluate the impacts of fires, we need to know how much smoke is emitted into the atmosphere. There are two state-of-the-art methods used to estimate the mass of smoke emitted by fires, but they often disagree. In this study, we use unusually detailed measurements collected using an aircraft that flew within wildland fire smoke plumes to calculate the amount ofsmoke emitted from fires in the Western United States. We compare emission rates derived from the exceptionally high spatial and temporal resolution approach to the two traditional, lower resolution approaches to understand why they sometimes diverge

E B Wiggins↗
NASA NTRS2005

Managed Development Environment Successes for MSFC's VIPA Team

This paper outlines the best practices of the Vehicle Design Team for VIPA. VIPA is the Vehicle Integrated Performance Analysis Team at MSFC. This team was created to reconnect the individual engineering disciplines to be able to perform system level technical assessments in support of program decisions. The functions of the VIPA Vehicle Design (VVD) discipline team are to maintain the controlled reference geometry and provide linked, simplified geometry for each of the other discipline analyses. The core of the VVD work, and the approach for VVD s first task of controlling the reference geometry, involves systems engineering, top-down, layout-based CAD modeling within a Product Data Manager (PDM) development environment. The topdown approach allcws for simple contrnl of very large, integrated assemblies and greatly enhances the ability to generate trade configurations and reuse data. The second W D task, model simplification for analysis, is handled within the managed environment through application of the master model concept. In this approach, there is a single controlling, or master, product definition dataset. Connected to this master model are reference datasets with live geometric and expression links. The referenced models can be for drawings, manufacturing, visualization, embedded analysis, or analysis simplification. A discussion of web based interaction, including visualization, between the design and other disciplines is included. Demonstrated examples are cited, including the Space Launch Initiative development cycle, the Saturn V systems integration and verification cycle, an Orbital Space Plane study, and NASA Exploration Office studies of Shuttle derived and clean sheet launch vehicles. The VIPA Team has brought an immense amount of detailed data to bear on program issues. A central piece of that success has been the Managed Development Environment and the VVD Team approach to modeling.

Finckenor, Jeff↗
NASA NTRS2013

Estimation Model of Spacecraft Parameters and Cost Based on a Statistical Analysis of COMPASS Designs

The Collaborative Modeling for Parametric Assessment of Space Systems (COMPASS) team at Glenn Research Center has performed integrated system analysis of conceptual spacecraft mission designs since 2006 using a multidisciplinary concurrent engineering process. The set of completed designs was archived in a database, to allow for the study of relationships between design parameters. Although COMPASS uses a parametric spacecraft costing model, this research investigated the possibility of using a top-down approach to rapidly estimate the overall vehicle costs. This paper presents the relationships between significant design variables, including breakdowns of dry mass, wet mass, and cost. It also develops a model for a broad estimate of these parameters through basic mission characteristics, including the target location distance, the payload mass, the duration, the delta-v requirement, and the type of mission, propulsion, and electrical power. Finally, this paper examines the accuracy of this model in regards to past COMPASS designs, with an assessment of outlying spacecraft, and compares the results to historical data of completed NASA missions.

cost modeling↗
NASA NTRS2006

Trade Studies of Space Launch Architectures using Modular Probabilistic Risk Analysis

A top-down risk assessment in the early phases of space exploration architecture development can provide understanding and intuition of the potential risks associated with new designs and technologies. In this approach, risk analysts draw from their past experience and the heritage of similar existing systems as a source for reliability data. This top-down approach captures the complex interactions of the risk driving parts of the integrated system without requiring detailed knowledge of the parts themselves, which is often unavailable in the early design stages. Traditional probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) technologies, however, suffer several drawbacks that limit their timely application to complex technology development programs. The most restrictive of these is a dependence on static planning scenarios, expressed through fault and event trees. Fault trees incorporating comprehensive mission scenarios are routinely constructed for complex space systems, and several commercial software products are available for evaluating fault statistics. These static representations cannot capture the dynamic behavior of system failures without substantial modification of the initial tree. Consequently, the development of dynamic models using fault tree analysis has been an active area of research in recent years. This paper discusses the implementation and demonstration of dynamic, modular scenario modeling for integration of subsystem fault evaluation modules using the Space Architecture Failure Evaluation (SAFE) tool. SAFE is a C++ code that was originally developed to support NASA s Space Launch Initiative. It provides a flexible framework for system architecture definition and trade studies. SAFE supports extensible modeling of dynamic, time-dependent risk drivers of the system and functions at the level of fidelity for which design and failure data exists. The approach is scalable, allowing inclusion of additional information as detailed data becomes available. The tool performs a Monte Carlo analysis to provide statistical estimates. Example results of an architecture system reliability study are summarized for an exploration system concept using heritage data from liquid-fueled expendable Saturn V/Apollo launch vehicles.

Mathias, Donovan L.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Optimization of Second Fault Detection Thresholds to Maximize Mission Probability of Success

In order to support manned spaceflight safety requirements, the Space Launch System (SLS) has defined program-level requirements for key systems to ensure successful operation under single fault conditions. The SLS program has also levied requirements relating to the capability of the Inertial Navigation System to detect a second fault. This detection functionality is required in order to feed abort analysis and ensure crew safety. Increases in navigation state error due to sensor faults in a purely inertial system can drive the vehicle outside of its operational as-designed environmental and performance envelope. As this performance outside of first fault detections is defined and controlled at the vehicle level, it allows for the use of system level margins to increase probability of mission success on the operational edges of the design. A top-down approach is utilized to assess vehicle sensitivity to second sensor faults. A wide range of failure scenarios in terms of both fault magnitude and time is used for assessment. The approach also utilizes a schedule to change fault detection thresholds autonomously. These individual values are optimized along a nominal trajectory in order to maximize probability of mission success in terms of system-level insertion requirements while minimizing the probability of false positives. This paper will describe an approach integrating Genetic Algorithms and Monte Carlo analysis to tune the threshold parameters to maximize vehicle resilience to second fault events over an ascent mission profile. The analysis approach and performance assessment and verification will be presented to demonstrate the applicability of this approach to second fault detection optimization to maximize mission probability of success through taking advantage of existing margin.

Anzalone, Evan J.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Development of a Ground Test and Analysis Protocol for NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗
NASA NTRS2020

The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017

Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. Atmospheric emissions and concentrations of CH4 continue to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing, after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relative importance of CH4 compared to CO2 depends on its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger warming potential, and variations in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the atmospheric growth rate arise from the variety of geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the destruction of CH4 by short-lived hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate new research aimed at improving and regularly updating the global methane budget. Following Saunois et al. (2016), we present here the second version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-down studies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). For the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 Tg CH4/yr (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4/yr or ∼ 60 % is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that is emissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 Tg CH4/yr or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is 29 Tg CH4/yr larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009), and 24 Tg CH4/yr larger than the one reported in the previous budget for 2003–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016). Since 2012, global CH4 emissions have been tracking the warmest scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bottom-up methods suggest almost 30 % larger global emissions (737 Tg CH4/yr, range 594–881) than top-down inversion methods. Indeed, bottom-up estimates for natural sources such as natural wetlands, other inland water systems, and geological sources are higher than top-down estimates. The atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget suggest that at least some of these bottom-up emissions are overestimated. The latitudinal distribution of atmospheric observation-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical emissions (∼ 65 % of the global budget, < 30° N) compared to mid-latitudes (∼ 30 %, 30–60° N) and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90° N). The most important source of uncertainty in the methane budget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and other inland waters. Some of our global source estimates are smaller than those in previously published budgets (Saunois et al., 2016; Kirschke et al., 2013). In particular wetland emissions are about 35 Tg CH4/yr lower due to improved partition wetlands and other inland waters. Emissions from geological sources and wild animals are also found to be smaller by 7 Tg CH4/yr by 8 Tg CH4/yr, respectively. However, the overall discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates has been reduced by only 5 % compared to Saunois et al. (2016), due to a higher estimate of emissions from inland waters, highlighting the need for more detailed research on emissions factors. Priorities for improving the methane budget include (i) a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting methane based on a robust classification of different types of emitting habitats; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of methane observations at local scales (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements) and urban-scale monitoring to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scales (surface networks and satellites) to constrain atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) development of a 3D variational inversion system using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane to improve source partitioning.

methane budget↗
NASA NTRS2002

The Integrated Air Transportation System Evaluation Tool

Throughout U.S. history, our nation has generally enjoyed exceptional economic growth, driven in part by transportation advancements. Looking forward 25 years, when the national highway and skyway systems are saturated, the nation faces new challenges in creating transportation-driven economic growth and wealth. To meet the national requirement for an improved air traffic management system, NASA developed the goal of tripling throughput over the next 20 years, in all weather conditions while maintaining safety. Analysis of the throughput goal has primarily focused on major airline operations, primarily through the hub and spoke system.However, many suggested concepts to increase throughput may operate outside the hub and spoke system. Examples of such concepts include the Small Aircraft Transportation System, civil tiltrotor, and improved rotorcraft. Proper assessment of the potential contribution of these technologies to the domestic air transportation system requires a modeling capability that includes the country's numerous smaller airports, acting as a fundamental component of the National Air space System, and the demand for such concepts and technologies. Under this task for NASA, the Logistics Management Institute developed higher fidelity demand models that capture the interdependence of short-haul air travel with other transportation modes and explicitly consider the costs of commercial air and other transport modes. To accomplish this work, we generated forecasts of the distribution of general aviation based aircraft and GA itinerant operations at each of nearly 3.000 airport based on changes in economic conditions and demographic trends. We also built modules that estimate the demand for travel by different modes, particularly auto, commercial air, and GA. We examined GA demand from two perspectives: top-down and bottom-up, described in detail.

Wingrove, Earl R., III↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance Integration - the Future of Safe Deep Space Human Exploration

As a foundational element of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis Campaign, the Gateway is an incrementally built cislunar spacecraft that will serve as a platform for deep space human exploration, science, and technology demonstration. The Gateway will be a unifying catalyst for international partners around the world to establish sustained deep space scientific investigations, lunar surface access, and missions to Mars. As human exploration moves farther away from Earth, spacecraft designs must prioritize and optimize mass and volume allocations, while minimizing human and spacecraft risk. To accomplish this objective, the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance functions develop, implement, and ensure compliance with requirements, in concert with the accurate characterization and transparent communication of residual hazard risks, for integrated safety, reliability and maintainability and quality assurance. Safety and Mission Assurance was a key contributor during Gateway program pre-formulation and formulation activities where safety and reliability analysis was embedded in the Gateway Systems Engineering and Integration team. During these early program stages, a preliminary Gateway Integrated Hazard Analysis and Preliminary Gateway Probabilistic Risk Assessment assisted in Gateway architectural and operational definition as part of a risk-informed design process. As the deep space architecture has matured, the integrated Safety and Mission Assurance analyses have matured, new safety review processes have been developed, and requirements have been refined to ensure compliance with integrated safety and mission assurance objectives. The Gateway Program is currently concluding the preliminary design review informed milestone, where the primary objectives included: - Ensured completeness and consistency of the preliminary design, including the meeting of all requirements within appropriate margins and acceptable risk posture. - Identification of any major issues moving forward to the Critical Design phase. At this milestone, Safety and Mission Assurance provided numerous products, including Gateway Top Risks and Risk Mitigation Plans, updated integrated hazard analyses, updated probabilistic risk assessment, Crew Survival Analysis Report, and updated Safety and Mission Assurance Requirements and Plans. These products provide a many-faceted perspective on the inherent risk and available mitigations involved in flying the current proposed vehicle design and anticipated stack configurations. In addition, Safety and Mission Assurance identified top technical, process and workforce concerns to be addressed as the program progresses toward the critical design phase. This paper will detail the evolution of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance integration functions, provide its current status and lessons learned for future human spaceflight programs. Throughout this paper the key tenets of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance will be discussed: - Application of a risk-informed approach to identify and mitigate areas of highest risk. - Leverage of valuable processes and lessons learned from earlier spaceflight programs. - Development of Safety and Mission Assurance products to inform design risk trades. - Utilization of common Safety and Mission Assurance practices to identify safety risks for multiple perspectives: top-down, bottom-up, and across lines of integration. - Approval of safety hazards at the appropriate level of authority, keeping most deliberation closest to design expertise and elevating risks of greatest concern for program-level consideration. - Championing of Safety and Mission Assurance processes and forums to foster a pervasive safety culture that is transparent, inclusive, and collaborative between all partners. These tenets have allowed the Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance function to play a key role in optimized vehicle design evolution, and early identification and mitigation of Gateway program and Artemis mission risk.

Helen Vaccaro↗