CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Systems Engineering Methodologies and ApplicationsSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsModeling and Simulation Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

NASA Standard for Models and Simulations: Philosophy and Requirements Overview

Open access
Blattnig, Steve R., Luckring, James M., Morrison, Joseph H., Sylvester, Andre J., Tripathi, Ram K., Zang, Thomas A.·2013·Journal of Aircraft
DOI 10.2514/1.c000303
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Following the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report, the NASA Administrator chartered an executive team (known as the Diaz Team) to identify those report elements with NASA-wide applicability and to develop corrective measures to address each element. One such measure was the development of a standard for the development, documentation, and operation of models and simulations. The resulting standard attempts to develop a general framework for communicating information to decision makers by including programmatic, documentation, and reporting requirements. It also includes a scale intended to measure the credibility associated with model and simulation results. This report describes the philosophy and requirements overview of the resulting NASA Standard for Models and Simulations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2514/1.c000303

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The misuse of an existing model and the reliance on engineers' judgment led to the false conclusion that shuttle reentry would not be affected by a small hole in the heat shield caused by a debris strike during takeoff.

    “The misuse of an existing model and the reliance on engineers’ judgment led to the false conclusion that shuttle reentry would not be affected by a small hole in the heat shield caused by a debris strike during takeoff [57, 58].”

    From Adapting modeling and simulation credibility standards to computational systems biology (2023) · cites this paper as [57]

  • The CAS can be useful in measuring model development progress or in identifying areas where improvement is most needed.

    “Additionally, it can be useful in measuring model development progress or in identifying areas where improvement is most needed [57].”

    From Adapting modeling and simulation credibility standards to computational systems biology (2023) · cites this paper as [57]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bertch W. J., 2008, 2008 SISO Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
  2. Bacon R., 1879, Opus Maius

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Blattnig, S. R., Luckring, J. M., Morrison, J. H., Sylvester, A. J., Tripathi, R. K., & Zang, T. A.
Affiliations
  • Langley Research Center (US)
  • Johnson Space Center (US)
ORCID
Blattnig, Steve R.
Venue
Journal of Aircraft
Publisher
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Published
2013-01
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
20-28
ISSN
  • 0021-8669 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-3868
DOI
10.2514/1.c000303
OpenAlex
W2107426725
Cited by
12
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Aircraft (publishedVersion)
  • NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • Glenn Research Center
  • Kennedy Space Center
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory
  • Marshall Space Flight Center
  • Goddard Space Flight Center
  • Langley Research Center
  • Stennis Space Center
  • NASA Engineering and Safety Center
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Systems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Simulation Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Modeling and Simulation Systems
Keywords
model documentation, model credibility, Columbia Accident Investigation Board, reporting requirements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review