Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Green, Christopher M.

Publications and source records attributed to Green, Christopher M..

4 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Space System Verification Approach Based on MEAL and Mission Risk Posture

There is no "one size fits all" solution for verifying space avionics systems to ensure safety and mission success. This paper presents a verification approach based on MEAL and risk posture for space systems. MEAL refers to Mission, mission Environment, Application, and Lifetime of the application. In addition to the description of the verification approach, the paper also provides the awareness of the different levels of risks associated with verification tests and inspections when performed at part-, board- and box-level, and discusses the applications of the approach for flight heritage verification, commercial off the shelf (COTS) verification and radiation-effects verification.

Mission Environment Application and Lifetime (MEAL↗
NASA NTRS2018

Space System Verification Approach Based on MEAL and Mission Risk Posture

There is no "one size fits all" solution for verifying space avionics systems to ensure safety and mission success. This paper presents a verification approach based on MEAL and risk posture for space systems. MEAL refers to Mission, mission Environment, Application, and Lifetime of the application. In addition to the description of the verification approach, the paper also provides the awareness of the different levels of risks associated with verification tests and inspections when performed at part-, board- and box-level, and discusses the applications of the approach for flight heritage verification, commercial off the shelf (COTS) verification and radiation-effects verification.

Mission Environment Application and Lifetime (MEAL↗
NASA NTRS2018

Guidelines for Verification Strategies to Minimize RISK Based on Mission Environment, -Application and -Lifetime (MEAL)

There is a trend of compromising verification testing to address the cost and schedule constraints, which poses a high-risk posture for programs/projects. Current and emerging aerospace scientific and/or human exploration programs continue to pose new technological challenges. These technological challenges combined with finite budgets and truncated schedules are forcing designers, scientists, engineers, and managers to push technologies to their physical limits. In addition, budget and schedule pressures challenge how those technologies/missions are verified. A clear understanding of the different verification processes is needed to ensure the proper verification of the technology within the mission (i.e., capabilities, advantages, and limitations). The goal of verification is to prove through test, analysis, inspection, and/or demonstration that a product provides its required function while meeting the performance requirements. It is important that verification yield understanding of representative performance under worst-case conditions so that margins to failure can be evaluated for proposed applications. The capabilities, advantages, and limitations of the testing and inspection performed at each level are different, and the risk incurred by omitting a verification step depends on the level of integration as well as Mission, Environment, Application and Lifetime (MEAL). This paper focuses on verification processes. The goal of the verification process is to ensure the given avionics technology could be safely implemented on the given MEAL consistent with the program/project risk posture.

Gonzalez, Oscar↗