The Art and Science of Systems Engineering

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established in 1958, and its Marshall Space Flight Center was founded in 1960, as space-related work was transferred from the Army Ballistic Missile Agency at Redstone Arsenal, where Marshall is located. With this heritage, Marshall contributes almost 50 years of systems engineering experience with human-rated launch vehicles and scientific spacecraft to fulfill NASA's mission exploration and discovery. These complex, highly specialized systems have provided vital platforms for expanding the knowledge base about Earth, the solar system, and cosmos; developing new technologies that also benefit life on Earth; and opening new frontiers for America's strategic space goals. From Mercury and Gemini, to Apollo and the Space Shuttle, Marshall's systems engineering expertise is an unsurpassed foundational competency for NASA and the nation. Current assignments comprise managing Space Shuttle Propulsion systems; developing environmental control and life support systems and coordinating science operations on the International Space Station; and a number of exploration-related responsibilities. These include managing and performing science missions, such as the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter slated to launch for the Moon in April 2009, to developing the Ares I crew launch vehicle upper stage and integrating the vehicle stack in house, as well as designing the Ares V cargo launch vehicle and contributing to the development of the Altair Lunar Lander and an International Lunar Network with communications nodes and other infrastructure

Getting to First Flight: Equipping Space Engineers to Break the Start-Stop-Restart Cycle

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA s) history is built on a foundation of can-do strength, while pointing to the Saturn/Apollo Moon missions in the 1960s and 1970s as its apex a sentiment that often overshadows the potential that lies ahead. The chronicle of America s civil space agenda is scattered with programs that got off to good starts with adequate resources and vocal political support but that never made it past a certain milestone review, General Accountability Office report, or Congressional budget appropriation. Over the decades since the fielding of the Space Shuttle in the early 1980s, a start-stop-restart cycle has intervened due to many forces. Despite this impediment, the workforce has delivered engineering feats such as the International Space Station and numerous Shuttle and science missions, which reflect a trend in the early days of the Exploration Age that called for massive infrastructure and matching capital allocations. In the new millennium, the aerospace industry must respond to transforming economic climates, the public will, national agendas, and international possibilities relative to scientific exploration beyond Earth s orbit. Two pressing issues - workforce transition and mission success - are intertwined. As this paper will address, U.S. aerospace must confront related workforce development and industrial base issues head on to take space exploration to the next level. This paper also will formulate specific strategies to equip space engineers to move beyond the seemingly constant start-stop-restart mentality to plan and execute flight projects that actually fly

Building on 50 Years of Mission Operations Experience for a New Era of Space Exploration

The U.S. National Space Policy, I the 14-nation Global Exploration Strategy,2 and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2006 Strategic Plan3 provide foundational direction for far-ranging missions, from safely flying the Space Shuttle and completing construction of the International Space Station by 2010, to fielding a next generation space transportation system consisting of the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle!Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle!Altair Lunar Lander (fig. 1). Transportation beyond low-Earth orbit will open the frontier for a lunar outpost, where astronauts will harness in-situ resources while exploring this 4 billion-year-old archaeological site, which may hold answers to how the Earth and its satellite were formed. Ultimately, this experience will pave the way for the first human footprint on Mars. In October 2007, NASA" announced assignments for this lunar exploration work.4 The Marshall Space Flight Center is responsible for designing, developing, testing, and evaluating the Ares I and Ares V, which are Space Shuttle derived launch vehicles, along with a number of lunar tasks. The Marshall Center's Engineering Directorate provides the skilled workforce and unique manufacturing, testing, and operational infrastructure needed to deliver space transportation solutions that meet the requirements stated in the Constellation Architecture Requirements Document (CARD). While defining design reference missions to the Station and the Moon, the CARD includes goals that include reducing recurring and nonrecurring costs, while increasing safety and reliability. For this reason, future systems are being designed with operability considerations and lifecycle expenses as independent variables in engineering trade studies

Breaking the Vicious Start-Stop-Restart Cycle

NASA's history is built on a foundation of can-do strength, while pointing to the Apollo Moon missions in the 1960s and 1970s as its apex a sentiment that often overshadows the potential in store. The chronicle of America s civil space adventure is scattered with programs that got off to good starts with adequate resources and vocal political support but that never made it past a certain milestone review, General Accountability Office report, or Congressional budget appropriation. Over the decades since the fielding of the Space Shuttle in the early 1980s, a start-stop-restart cycle has intervened due to many forces. Despite this impediment, the workforce has delivered feats such as the International Space Station and numerous Shuttle and science missions, which reflect a trend in the early days of the Exploration Age that called for massive infrastructure and matching capital allocations. In the new millennium, the aerospace industry must respond to transforming economic climates, the public will, national agendas, and international possibilities relative to scientific exploration beyond Earth's orbit. Two pressing issues workforce transition and mission success are intertwined. As this briefing will show, U.S. aerospace must confront related workforce development and industrial base issues head on to take space exploration to the next level. This briefing also will formulate specific strategies to equip space engineers to move beyond the seemingly constant start-stop-restart mentality to plan and execute flight projects that actually fly

Low Mass Printable Devices for Energy Capture, Storage, and Use for Space Exploration Missions

The energy-efficient, environmentally friendly technology that will be presented is the result of a Space Act Agreement between -Technologies Worldwide, Inc., and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA s) Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). This work combines semiconductor and printing technologies to advance lightweight electronic and photonic devices having excellent potential for commercial and exploration applications, and is an example of industry and government cooperation that leads to novel inventions. Device development involves three energy generation and consumption projects: 1) a low mass efficient (low power, low heat emission) micro light-emitting diode (LED) area lighting device; 2) a low-mass omni-directional efficient photovoltaic (PV) device with significantly improved energy capture; and 3) a new approach to building supercapacitors. These three technologies - energy capture, storage, and usage (e.g., lighting) - represent a systematic approach for building efficient local micro-grids that are commercially feasible; furthermore, these same technologies will be useful for lightweight power generation that enables inner planetary missions using smaller launch vehicles and facilitates surface operations. The PV device model is a two-sphere, light-trapped sheet approximately 2-mm thick. The model suggests a significant improvement over current thin film systems. All three components may be printed in line by printing sequential layers on a standard screen or flexographic direct impact press using the threedimensional printing technique (3DFM) patented by NthDegree. MSFC is testing the robustness of prototype devices in the harsh space and lunar surface environments, and available results will be reported. Unlike many traditional light sources, this device does not contain toxic compounds, and the LED component has passed stringent off-gassing tests required for potential manifesting on spacecraft such as the International Space Station. Future exploration missions will benefit from "green" technology lighting devices such as this, which show great promise for both terrestrial use and space missions

NASA's Ares I and Ares V Launch Vehicles--Effective Space Operations Through Efficient Ground Operations

The United States (U.S.) is charting a renewed course for lunar exploration, with the fielding of a new human-rated space transportation system to replace the venerable Space Shuttle, which will be retired after it completes its missions of building the International Space Station (ISS) and servicing the Hubble Space Telescope. Powering the future of space-based scientific exploration will be the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle, which will transport the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle to orbit where it will rendezvous with the Altair Lunar Lander, which will be delivered by the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle (fig. 1). This configuration will empower rekindled investigation of Earth's natural satellite in the not too distant future. This new exploration infrastructure, developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), will allow astronauts to leave low-Earth orbit (LEO) for extended lunar missions and preparation for the first long-distance journeys to Mars. All space-based operations - to LEO and beyond - are controlled from Earth. NASA's philosophy is to deliver safe, reliable, and cost-effective architecture solutions to sustain this multi-billion-dollar program across several decades. Leveraging SO years of lessons learned, NASA is partnering with private industry and academia, while building on proven hardware experience. This paper outlines a few ways that the Engineering Directorate at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is working with the Constellation Program and its project offices to streamline ground operations concepts by designing for operability, which reduces lifecycle costs and promotes sustainable space exploration

When Failure Means Success: Accepting Risk in Aerospace Development

Over the last three decades, NASA has been diligent in qualifying systems for human space flight. As the Agency transitions from operating the Space Shuttle, its employees must learn to accept higher risk levels to generate the data needed to certify its next human space flight system. The Marshall Center s Engineering workforce is developing the Ares I crew launch vehicle and designing the Ares V cargo launch vehicle for safety, reliability, and cost-effective operations. This presentation will provide a risk retrospective, using first-hand examples from the Delta Clipper-Experimental Advanced (DC-XA) and the X-33 single-stage-to-orbit flight demonstrators, while looking ahead to the upcoming Ares I-X uncrewed test flight. The DC-XA was successfully flown twice in 26 hours, setting a new turnaround-time record. Later, one of its 3 landing gears did not deploy, it tipped over, and was destroyed. During structural testing, the X-33 s advanced composite tanks were unable to withstand the forces to which it was subjected and the project was later cancelled. These are examples of successful failures, as the data generated are captured in databases used by vehicle designers today. More recently, the Ares I-X flight readiness review process was streamlined in keeping with the mission's objectives, since human lives are not at stake, which reflects the beginning of a cultural change. Failures are acceptable during testing, as they provide the lessons that actually lead to mission success. These and other examples will stimulate the discussion of when to accept risk in aerospace projects

Cutting More Than Metal: Breaking the Development Cycle

No abstract availabl

Rats that sign-track are resistant to Pavlovian but not instrumental extinction

Individuals vary in the extent to which they attribute incentive salience to a discrete cue (conditioned stimulus; CS) that predicts reward delivery (unconditioned stimulus; US), which results in some individuals approaching and interacting with the CS (sign-trackers; STs) more than others (goal-trackers; GTs). Here we asked how periods of non-reinforcement influence conditioned responding in STs vs. GTs, in both Pavlovian and instrumental tasks. After classifying rats as STs or GTs by pairing a retractable lever (the CS) with the delivery of a food pellet (US), we introduced periods of non-reinforcement, first by simply withholding the US (i.e., extinction training; experiment 1), then by signaling alternating periods of reward (R) and non-reward (NR) within the same session (experiments 2 and 3). We also examined how alternating R and NR periods influenced instrumental responding for food (experiment 4). STs and GTs did not differ in their ability to discriminate between R and NR periods in the instrumental task. However, in Pavlovian settings STs and GTs responded to periods of non-reward very differently. Relative to STs, GTs very rapidly modified their behavior in response to periods of non-reward, showing much faster extinction and better and faster discrimination between R and NR conditions. These results highlight differences between Pavlovian and instrumental extinction learning, and suggest that if a Pavlovian CS is strongly attributed with incentive salience, as in STs, it may continue to bias attention toward it, and to facilitate persistent and relatively inflexible responding, even when it is no longer followed by reward

Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Study Drug Discontinuation: Post-Hoc Analysis of Findings from ROCKET AF.

IntroductionPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction endpoints are increasingly important in clinical trials and may be associated with treatment adherence. In this post hoc substudy from ROCKET AF, we examined whether patient-reported satisfaction was associated with study drug discontinuation.MethodsROCKET AF (n = 14,264) compared rivaroxaban with warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. We analyzed treatment satisfaction scores: the Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II (TSQM II). We compared satisfaction with study drug between the two treatment arms, and examined the association between satisfaction and patient-driven study drug discontinuation (stopping study drug due to withdrawal of consent, noncompliance, or loss to follow-up).ResultsA total of 1577 (11%) patients participated in the Patient Satisfaction substudy; 1181 (8.3%) completed both the ACTS and TSQM II 4 weeks after starting study drug. Patients receiving rivaroxaban did not experience significant differences in satisfaction compared with those receiving warfarin. During a median follow-up of 1.6 years, 448 premature study drug discontinuations occurred (213 rivaroxaban group; 235 warfarin group), of which 116 (26%) were patient-driven (52 [24%] rivaroxaban group; 64 [27%] warfarin group). No significant differences were observed between satisfaction level and rates of patient-driven study drug discontinuation.ConclusionsStudy drug satisfaction did not predict rate of study drug discontinuation. No significant difference was observed between satisfaction with warfarin and rivaroxaban, as expected given the double-blind trial design. Although these results are negative, the importance of PRO data will only increase, and these analyses may inform future studies that explore the relationship between drug-satisfaction PROs, adherence, and clinical outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT00403767.FundingThe ROCKET AF trial was funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer