Engineering topics
Anton, Wilma
Publications and source records attributed to Anton, Wilma.
Integrating Spaceflight Human System Risk Research
NASA is working to increase the likelihood of human health and performance success during exploration missions as well as to maintain the subsequent long-term health of the crew. To manage the risks in achieving these goals, a system modelled after a Continuous Risk Management framework is in place. "Human System Risks" (Risks) have been identified, and approximately 30 are being actively addressed by NASA's Human Research Program (HRP). Research plans for each of HRP's Risks have been developed and are being executed. Inter-disciplinary ties between the research efforts supporting each Risk have been identified; however, efforts to identify and benefit from these connections have been mostly ad hoc. There is growing recognition that solutions developed to address the full set of Risks covering medical, physiological, behavioural, vehicle, and organizational aspects of exploration missions must be integrated across Risks and disciplines. This paper discusses how a framework of factors influencing human health and performance in space is being applied as the backbone for bringing together sometimes disparate information relevant to the individual Risks. The resulting interrelated information enables identification and visualization of connections between Risks and research efforts in a systematic and standardized manner. This paper also discusses the applications of the visualizations and insights into research planning, solicitation, and decision-making processes.
Humans vs. Hardware: The Unique World of the NASA Human System Risk Assessment
No abstract available
Risk Interfaces to Support Integrated Systems Analysis and Development
Objectives for systems analysis capability: Develop integrated understanding of how a complex human physiological-socio-technical mission system behaves in spaceflight. Why? Support development of integrated solutions that prevent unwanted outcomes (Implementable approaches to minimize mission resources(mass, power, crew time, etc.)); Support development of tools for autonomy (need for exploration) (Assess and maintain resilience -individuals, teams, integrated system). Output of this exercise: -Representation of interfaces based on Human System Risk Board (HSRB) Risk Summary information and simple status based on Human Research Roadmap; Consolidated HSRB information applied to support communication; Point-of-Departure for HRP Element planning; Ability to track and communicate status of collaborations. 4
Determining the Relative Criticality of Diverse Exploration Risks in NASA's Human Research Program
The mission of NASA s Human Research Program (HRP) is to understand and reduce the risk to crew health and performance in exploration missions. The HRP addresses 27 specific risks, primarily in the context of Continuous Risk Management. Each risk is evaluated in terms of two missions (a six month stay on the Moon and a thirty month round trip to Mars) and three types of consequences (in-mission crew health, post-mission crew health, and in-mission performance). The lack of a common metric between the three consequence scales, such as financial costs or quality adjusted life years lost, makes it difficult to compare the relative criticality of the risks. We are, therefore, exploring the use of a ternary scale of criticality based on the common metric of influencing an operational decision. The three levels correspond to the level of concern the risk generates for a "go/no-go" decision to launch a mission: 1) no-go; 2) go with significant reservations; 3) go. The criticality of each of the 27 risks is scored for the three types of consequence in both types of mission. The scores are combined to produce an overall criticality rating for each risk. The overall criticality rating can then be used to guide the prioritization of resources to affect the greatest amount of risk reduction.