FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2317169543> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2317169543 abstract "The success of the operational space systems that our nation currently relies upon for National Security is largely attributable to the well-constructed precursor research and development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) missions that focused on transforming immature technologies into reliable and operable solutions. Unfortunately, as valuable as these RDT&E missions have proven to be in the past, they are consistently under-funded and forced to execute on excessively ambitious development schedules. Due to these constraints, space mission development teams that serve the RDT&E community are faced with a number of unique technical and programmatic challenges. The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate (AFRL/VS) and the Department of Defense Space Test Program (STP) are two organizations that have partnered on more than 85 missions since 1968 to develop, launch, and operate RDT&E space missions. They have repeatedly come up with creative solutions to the problem of getting developmental technologies into an appropriate environment for evaluation. When possible, they develop ground tests or simulations targeted at giving the operational customer confidence that a technology can add an effective and reliable capability to their next-generation space asset. When ground testing is insufficient, they look for low-cost opportunities to get payloads into space. These include “piggybacking” an experimental payload on an operational spacecraft or, until recently, using excess space on the Space Shuttle. However, when experiment requirements are sufficiently restrictive to prohibit such partnerships, AFRL and STP are forced to choose the more costly option of developing, launching, and operating a dedicated RDT&E spacecraft. In order to make a convincing case for a dedicated RDT&E program, an organization must perform a Cost-Benefit Analysis and demonstrate that they can complete the mission and retrieve relevant data for a relatively low price. If the cost of the RDT&E effort is not sufficiently small compared to the operational system it will benefit or if the mission can’t return relevant data in time to benefit a planned operational system, the program is at risk of being cancelled. For these reasons, severe budgetary and schedule constraints are common to all AFRL or STP missions. In an effort to meet cost constraints, AFRL and STP often bundle numerous experimental technologies that need access to a similar space environment and on-orbit resources on a single spacecraft bus. This approach benefits the entire RDT&E community by making the most efficient use of available bus and launch vehicle resources, but more importantly, it makes the program executable by combining the funding and advocacy of several different organizations. Ironically, this approach, intended to make the program executable from a programmatic standpoint, threatens its success from a technical perspective. Each payload and funding organization comes with requirements and constraints that magnify the overall complexity of the program. Therefore, engineering and test efforts, introduced to meet and validate these requirements, inevitably extend the development schedule and increase program costs. To combat this, AFRL and STP have taken various approaches throughout the mission lifecycle to accelerate their development schedules, without sacrificing cost or system reliability. In the areas of test and operations, they currently employ one of two strategies. Their mission successes and failures are testaments to the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. This paper seeks to compare and contrast the “decoupled test and operations” approach, used by such missions as C/NOFS and Coriolis, with the “coupled test and operations” approach, adopted by the XSS-11 and Roadrunner missions. Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit 28 30 September 2004, San Diego, California AIAA 2004-5822" @default.
• W2317169543 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2317169543 creator A5060801877 @default.
• W2317169543 date "2004-06-19" @default.
• W2317169543 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2317169543 title "The Marriage of Test and Operations in a Low-Budget Spacecraft Development" @default.
• W2317169543 doi "https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-5822" @default.
• W2317169543 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2317169543 type Work @default.
• W2317169543 sameAs 2317169543 @default.
• W2317169543 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2317169543 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2317169543 hasAuthorship W2317169543A5060801877 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C146978453 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C178802073 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C29829512 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConcept C87355193 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C121332964 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C127313418 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C127413603 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C146978453 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C151730666 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C178802073 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C2777267654 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C29829512 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C41008148 @default.
• W2317169543 hasConceptScore W2317169543C87355193 @default.
• W2317169543 hasLocation W23171695431 @default.
• W2317169543 hasOpenAccess W2317169543 @default.
• W2317169543 hasPrimaryLocation W23171695431 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W1627778053 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W1966945977 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W1989685856 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W2046610921 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W2064021740 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W2064999371 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W2070342490 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W4231206427 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W4246387517 @default.
• W2317169543 hasRelatedWork W4255478570 @default.
• W2317169543 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2317169543 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2317169543 magId "2317169543" @default.
• W2317169543 workType "article" @default.