Mars Science Helicopter Conceptual Design

Robotic planetary aerial vehicles increase the range of terrain that can be examined, compared to traditional landers and rovers, and have more near-surface capability than orbiters. Aerial mobility is a promising possibility for planetary exploration as it reduces the challenges that difficult obstacles pose to ground vehicles. The first use of a rotorcraft for a planetary mission will be in 2021, when the Mars Helicopter technology demonstrator will be deployed from the Mars 2020 rover. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA Ames Research Center are exploring possibilities for a Mars Science Helicopter, a second-generation Mars rotorcraft with the capability of conducting science investigations independently of a lander or rover (although this type of vehicle could also be used assist rovers or landers in future missions). This report describes the conceptual design of Mars Science Helicopters. The design process began with coaxial-helicopter and hexacopter configurations, with a payload in the range of two to three kilograms and an overall vehicle mass of approximately twenty kilograms. Initial estimates of weight and performance were based on the capabilities of the Mars Helicopter. Rotorcraft designs for Mars are constrained by the dimensions of the aeroshell for the trip to the planet, requiring attention to the aircraft packaging in order to maximize the rotor dimensions and hence overall performance potential. Aerodynamic performance optimization was conducted, particularly through airfoils designed specifically for the low Reynolds number and high Mach number inherent in operation on Mars. The final designs show a substantial capability for science operations on Mars: a 31 kg hexacopter that fits within a 2.5 m diameter aeroshell could carry a 5 kg payload for 10 min of hover time or over a range of 5 km

Mechanism Design for Data Science

Good economic mechanisms depend on the preferences of participants in the mechanism. For example, the revenue-optimal auction for selling an item is parameterized by a reserve price, and the appropriate reserve price depends on how much the bidders are willing to pay. A mechanism designer can potentially learn about the participants' preferences by observing historical data from the mechanism; the designer could then update the mechanism in response to learned preferences to improve its performance. The challenge of such an approach is that the data corresponds to the actions of the participants and not their preferences. Preferences can potentially be inferred from actions but the degree of inference possible depends on the mechanism. In the optimal auction example, it is impossible to learn anything about preferences of bidders who are not willing to pay the reserve price. These bidders will not cast bids in the auction and, from historical bid data, the auctioneer could never learn that lowering the reserve price would give a higher revenue (even if it would). To address this impossibility, the auctioneer could sacrifice revenue optimality in the initial auction to obtain better inference properties so that the auction's parameters can be adapted to changing preferences in the future. This paper develops the theory for optimal mechanism design subject to good inferability

How software engineering research aligns with design science: A review

Background: Assessing and communicating software engineering research can be challenging. Design science is recognized as an appropriate research paradigm for applied research but is seldom referred to in software engineering. Applying the design science lens to software engineering research may improve the assessment and communication of research contributions. Aim: The aim of this study is 1) to understand whether the design science lens helps summarize and assess software engineering research contributions, and 2) to characterize different types of design science contributions in the software engineering literature. Method: In previous research, we developed a visual abstract template, summarizing the core constructs of the design science paradigm. In this study, we use this template in a review of a set of 38 top software engineering publications to extract and analyze their design science contributions. Results: We identified five clusters of papers, classifying them according to their alignment with the design science paradigm. Conclusions: The design science lens helps emphasize the theoretical contribution of research output---in terms of technological rules---and reflect on the practical relevance, novelty, and rigor of the rules proposed by the research.Comment: 32 pages, 10 figure

Designing citizen science tools for learning: lessons learnt from the iterative development of nQuire

This paper reports on a 4-year research and development case study about the design of citizen science tools for inquiry learning. It details the process of iterative pedagogy-led design and evaluation of the nQuire toolkit, a set of web-based and mobile tools scaffolding the creation of online citizen science investigations. The design involved an expert review of inquiry learning and citizen science, combined with user experience studies involving more than 200 users. These have informed a concept that we have termed ‘citizen inquiry’, which engages members of the public alongside scientists in setting up, running, managing or contributing to citizen science projects with a main aim of learning about the scientific method through doing science by interaction with others. A design-based research (DBR) methodology was adopted for the iterative design and evaluation of citizen science tools. DBR was focused on the refinement of a central concept, ‘citizen inquiry’, by exploring how it can be instantiated in educational technologies and interventions. The empirical evaluation and iteration of technologies involved three design experiments with end users, user interviews, and insights from pedagogy and user experience experts. Evidence from the iterative development of nQuire led to the production of a set of interaction design principles that aim to guide the development of online, learning-centred, citizen science projects. Eight design guidelines are proposed: users as producers of knowledge, topics before tools, mobile affordances, scaffolds to the process of scientific inquiry, learning by doing as key message, being part of a community as key message, every visit brings a reward, and value users and their time

Design science, engineering science and requirements engineering

For several decades there has been a debate in the computing sciences about the relative roles of design and empirical research, and about the contribution of design and research methodology to the relevance of research results. In this minitutorial we review this debate and compare it with evidence about the relation between design and research in the history of science and technology. Our review shows that research and design are separate but concurrent activities, and that relevance of research results depends on problem setting rather than on rigorous methods. We argue that rigorous scientific methods separate design from research, and we give simple model for how to do this in a problem-driven way

Proceedings of the ECCS 2005 satellite workshop: embracing complexity in design - Paris 17 November 2005

Embracing complexity in design is one of the critical issues and challenges of the 21st century. As the realization grows that design activities and artefacts display properties associated with complex adaptive systems, so grows the need to use complexity concepts and methods to understand these properties and inform the design of better artifacts. It is a great challenge because complexity science represents an epistemological and methodological swift that promises a holistic approach in the understanding and operational support of design. But design is also a major contributor in complexity research. Design science is concerned with problems that are fundamental in the sciences in general and complexity sciences in particular. For instance, design has been perceived and studied as a ubiquitous activity inherent in every human activity, as the art of generating hypotheses, as a type of experiment, or as a creative co-evolutionary process. Design science and its established approaches and practices can be a great source for advancement and innovation in complexity science. These proceedings are the result of a workshop organized as part of the activities of a UK government AHRB/EPSRC funded research cluster called Embracing Complexity in Design (www.complexityanddesign.net) and the European Conference in Complex Systems (complexsystems.lri.fr). Embracing complexity in design is one of the critical issues and challenges of the 21st century. As the realization grows that design activities and artefacts display properties associated with complex adaptive systems, so grows the need to use complexity concepts and methods to understand these properties and inform the design of better artifacts. It is a great challenge because complexity science represents an epistemological and methodological swift that promises a holistic approach in the understanding and operational support of design. But design is also a major contributor in complexity research. Design science is concerned with problems that are fundamental in the sciences in general and complexity sciences in particular. For instance, design has been perceived and studied as a ubiquitous activity inherent in every human activity, as the art of generating hypotheses, as a type of experiment, or as a creative co-evolutionary process. Design science and its established approaches and practices can be a great source for advancement and innovation in complexity science. These proceedings are the result of a workshop organized as part of the activities of a UK government AHRB/EPSRC funded research cluster called Embracing Complexity in Design (www.complexityanddesign.net) and the European Conference in Complex Systems (complexsystems.lri.fr)

Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory - Preliminary Design Report

The DUSEL Project has produced the Preliminary Design of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) at the rehabilitated former Homestake mine in South Dakota. The Facility design calls for, on the surface, two new buildings - one a visitor and education center, the other an experiment assembly hall - and multiple repurposed existing buildings. To support underground research activities, the design includes two laboratory modules and additional spaces at a level 4,850 feet underground for physics, biology, engineering, and Earth science experiments. On the same level, the design includes a Department of Energy-shepherded Large Cavity supporting the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment. At the 7,400-feet level, the design incorporates one laboratory module and additional spaces for physics and Earth science efforts. With input from some 25 science and engineering collaborations, the Project has designed critical experimental space and infrastructure needs, including space for a suite of multidisciplinary experiments in a laboratory whose projected life span is at least 30 years. From these experiments, a critical suite of experiments is outlined, whose construction will be funded along with the facility. The Facility design permits expansion and evolution, as may be driven by future science requirements, and enables participation by other agencies. The design leverages South Dakota's substantial investment in facility infrastructure, risk retirement, and operation of its Sanford Laboratory at Homestake. The Project is planning education and outreach programs, and has initiated efforts to establish regional partnerships with underserved populations - regional American Indian and rural populations

From Science to Design: the Design4Materials virtuous cycle

Despite the large number of innovative materials developed in laboratories worldwide, their application in new mass-produced products is complicated. Design can reduce the risk that the research developed in scientific laboratories could fail to be properly exploited and triggering a beneficial cycle linking Science to Design. This paper present the Design4Materials, an italian network founded by the laboratories of leading schools of design: MaterialdesignLab|Sapienza Rome, Madec|Politecnico di Milano, HybridesignLab|SUN Naples, Soft Surfaces and Polisensoriality|Poliba Bari. After presenting the different skills of the network members, the authors describe the capabilities and the goals of the network and the main results developed like the project that define characteristics and identities for an open material, starting from a research of the IIT of Genoa. The Design4Materials aim is to play a leading role on design-driven innovation process, responding to society’s changing needs and developing a ‘circular’ methodology of innovation from a design standpoint