China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Role of Human Systems Integration Standards in the Modern Department of Defense Acquisition Process
Published in Waldemar Karwowski, Anna Szopa, Marcelo M. Soares, Handbook of Standards and Guidelines in Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2021
Joe W. McDaniel, Gerald Chaikin
In addition to the basic document, additional volumes of the MSIS are created and maintained, which specifically address the human factors and crew interface needs for that program. As specialized volumes of this type are updated and revised, the information gathered for them is also evaluated for possible inclusion in the basic MSIS volume. To date, there are three volumes planned, with four already published and released:Vol. I, Man-Systems Integration Standards, first published in 1987 and last updated as Rev. B in June 1995 [http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/]Vol. II, Man-Systems Integration Standards—Appendices, first published in 1987 and last updated in 1995, at the same time as, and to the same revision letter as Vol. I [http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/]Vol. III, Man-Systems Integration Standards—Design Handbook (the data in this volume coincides with Rev. A, of Vol. I)Vol. IV, Space Station Freedom Man-Systems Integration Standards, a subset of Vol. I, published in 1987 (Inactive)
Software Management Domain
Published in Marvin Gechman, Project Management of Large Software-Intensive Systems, 2019
Lessons Learned. At one time I was the Software Lead on the Space Station Freedom program at Lockheed. Since we were a subcontractor, every month the VP in charge of our program participated in a JMR at the prime contractor’s site. Since his presentation was to their Senior Managers it had a time constraint; each area of our responsibility was restricted to a one chart update. There was so much software activity going on that it was difficult to get a meaningful update on one chart. So, I came up with a technique of multiplying the content density of that one chart. I did that by using the four corners of each rectangular box on the chart to contain, or represent, some data. It was a simple but effective way of conveying more of the key information in the same limited space.
Concurrent Engineering Background
Published in Thomas A. Salomone, What Every Engineer Should Know About, 2019
Another example of concurrent engineering exists within McDonnell Douglas Aerospace. Their effort on the U.S. Space Station, Freedom, has been widely recognized for its success throughout the industry. Their Concurrent Engineering/Integrated Product Definition Team (CE/IPD) comprised of all appropriate disciplines, customers, and suppliers also included an experienced CE mentor who provided team training, guidance, as well as lessons learned from previous activities. The team consistently used CE methodologies. One of these, Design for Experiments allowed system analysts to reduce the number of non-linear rigid body dynamic computations by 65% saving more than 700 hours per analysis model. They also leveraged an impressive implementation of a nationwide network of 350+ UNIX Workstations and over 2,200 PC’s. Their software included among others 3D solids modeling, analysis tools, visualization and animation of parts to demonstrate the operation of the Space Station. Their networks allowed simultaneous access by team members in distant locations. Thus, the same files could be viewed at the same time and the details discussed. The results were impressive with a 30% reduction in cycle time, and a 84% reduction in engineering change orders when compared to previous projects without CE. They also achieved 99.4% first time quality. Their design technology implementation won the “Excellence in Computer-Aided Engineering” award in October 1993, awarded by Computer Aided Engineering Magazine. Additionally they were declared the “Best Practice” within the industry by the government-sponsored Best Manufacturing Practices Team.
Nuclear Power Concepts and Development Strategies for High-Power Electric Propulsion Missions to Mars
Published in Nuclear Technology, 2022
Lee Mason, Steve Oleson, David Jacobson, Paul Schmitz, Lou Qualls, Michael Smith, Brian Ade, Jorge Navarro
The power conversion trade studies comparing HeXe and SCO2 Brayton favored the SCO2 option. The SCO2 option yielded an ~20% increase in power output for the same total radiator area. The reference 1.9-MW(electric) power system concept assumes four SCO2 Brayton converters, each producing 25% of the total power, shown in Fig. 7 coupled to the Li-cooled reactor through four liquid-to-gas heat exchangers. The use of a primary loop with separate heat exchangers permits the system to produce partial power should one or more Brayton units fail. Each Brayton unit includes a turboalternator-compressor, recuperator, and gas cooler. The development of an ~500-kW(electric)–class Brayton unit is a significant scale-up from the experience base for HeXe Brayton technology, represented by the 10-kW(electric) Brayton rotating unit (BRU), the 2-kW(electric) mini-BRU, the 36-kW(electric) converter for the Space Station Freedom Solar Dynamic Power Module, and the 100-kW(electric) converter for the Prometheus/JIMO mission.11 Legacy HeXe Brayton technology, with superalloy hot-side materials that permit turbine inlet temperatures up to 1150 K, has undergone considerable NASA testing to demonstrate performance in relevant environments and for extended operating times (e.g., ~50 000 h of BRU testing).