Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “risk”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2013

NASA's Risk Management System

Phased‐approach for implementation of risk management is necessary. Risk management system will be simple, accessible and promote communication of information to all relevant stakeholders for optimal resource allocation and risk mitigation. Risk management should be used by all team members to manage risks - not just risk office personnel. Each group/department is assigned Risk Integrators who are facilitators for effective risk management. Risks will be managed at the lowest‐level feasible, elevate only those risks that require coordination or management from above. Risk informed decision making should be introduced to all levels of management.  Provide necessary checks and balances to insure that risks are caught/identified and dealt with in a timely manner. Many supporting tools, processes & training must be deployed for effective risk management implementation. Process improvement must be included in the risk processes.

Perera, Jeevan S.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Evidence Report: Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Other Degenerative Tissue Effects from Radiation Exposure

Occupational radiation exposure from the space environment may result in non-cancer or non-CNS degenerative tissue diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cataracts, and respiratory or digestive diseases. However, the magnitude of influence and mechanisms of action of radiation leading to these diseases are not well characterized. Radiation and synergistic effects of radiation cause DNA damage, persistent oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, and accelerated tissue aging and degeneration, which may lead to acute or chronic disease of susceptible organ tissues. In particular, cardiovascular pathologies such as atherosclerosis are of major concern following gamma-ray exposure. This provides evidence for possible degenerative tissue effects following exposures to ionizing radiation in the form of the GCR or SPEs expected during long-duration spaceflight. However, the existence of low dose thresholds and dose-rate and radiation quality effects, as well as mechanisms and major risk pathways, are not well-characterized. Degenerative disease risks are difficult to assess because multiple factors, including radiation, are believed to play a role in the etiology of the diseases. As additional evidence is pointing to lower, space-relevant thresholds for these degenerative effects, particularly for cardiovascular disease, additional research with cell and animal studies is required to quantify the magnitude of this risk, understand mechanisms, and determine if additional protection strategies are required.The NASA PEL (Permissive Exposure Limit)s for cataract and cardiovascular risks are based on existing human epidemiology data. Although animal and clinical astronaut data show a significant increase in cataracts following exposure and a reassessment of atomic bomb (A-bomb) data suggests an increase in cardiovascular disease from radiation exposure, additional research is required to fully understand and quantify these adverse outcomes at lower doses (less than 0.5 gray (SI unit for ionizing radiation dosage, i.e. one joule of radiation energy per one kilogram of matter)) to facilitate risk prediction. This risk has considerable uncertainty associated with it, and no acceptable model for projecting degenerative tissue risk is currently available. In particular, risk factors such as obesity, alcohol, and tobacco use can act as confounding factors that contribute to the large uncertainties. The PELs could be violated under certain scenarios, including following a large SPE (solar proton event) or long-term GCR (galactic cosmic ray) exposure. Specifically, for a Mars mission, the accumulated dose is sufficiently high that epidemiology data and preliminary risk estimates suggest a significant risk for cardiovascular disease. Ongoing research in this area is intended to provide the evidence base for accurate risk quantification to determine criticality for extended duration missions. Data specific to the space radiation environment must be compiled to quantify the magnitude of this risk to decrease the uncertainty in current PELs and to determine if additional protection strategies are required. New research results could lead to estimates of cumulative radiation risk from CNS and degenerative tissue diseases that, when combined with the cancer risk, may have major negative impacts on mission design, costs, schedule, and crew selection. The current report amends an earlier report (Human Research Program Requirements Document, HRP-47052, Rev. C, dated Jan 2009) in order to provide an update of evidence since 2009.

Patel, Zarana↗
NASA NTRS2022

Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, and Psychosocial Adaptions within a Team

The Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team (the Team Risk) is primarily performance-focused, with a secondary emphasis on behavioral health outcomes resulting from team performance and interpersonal interactions. Monitoring tools, measures, and countermeasures are aimed at enhancing team processes and team composition configurations to optimize team performance and functioning. Long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs) will include major challenges that could affect team performance, including social isolation, physical confinement, a small and diverse crew, communication delays between crew and ground, limited or no crew rotation or evacuation options, limited or no resupply, and a high-consequence environment. Each of these conditions will affect the crew’s coordination, cooperation, psychological well-being, and performance. Although the International Space Station (ISS) remains important for studies that require spaceflight testing and validation, the current conditions on the ISS do not adequately mimic the exploration environment that is required for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) teams research, and thus access to terrestrial or ground-based analogs of LDEM conditions is paramount. The emphasis on analogs for research is reflected in this updated evidence review of the Team Risk, and includes data from studies conducted at isolated, confined, extreme (ICE) environments (e.g., Antarctic stations), and from several mission simulation analogs such as the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) (HERA Experiment Information Package, 2014), also known as isolated, confined, controlled (ICC) environments. These studies have characterized many team factors regarding LDEMs, and the Team Risk has now matured from risk characterization to focusing more on countermeasure development. Because spaceflight evidence for team-level research is lacking, no reliable data is available to quantify the impact of team-level variables on individual and team-level outcomes during spaceflight missions. Until recently, no systematic attempt had been undertaken to measure the performance effects of team cohesion, team composition, team training, or team-related psychosocial adaptation during spaceflight. The Team Risk is a relatively young research area for NASA, with substantial growth only since the 2000s, and with limited access to spaceflight performance data. As a result, spaceflight evidence is lacking to identify specifically what team composition, level of training, amount of cohesion, or quality of psychosocial adaptation is necessary to reduce the risk of performance errors in space. However, astronaut journals and interviews and reports from spaceflight subject matter experts (SMEs) provide testimonies that team performance during spaceflight is important for mission success and to maintain crew health. Team spaceflight data is now being collected as part of the Spaceflight Standard Measures task (Clement, 2021)—a set of core measurements related to many human spaceflight risks that are collected from astronauts before, during, and after long-duration missions. The team-related standard measures focus on team cohesion, team performance, group living, team climate, and team processes. Collection of standard measures data is ongoing and published data is not yet available. Finally, although spaceflight evidence is lacking, evidence gleaned from ground studies and spaceflight analog studies will help close the gaps outlined in the Team Risk. Ground-based studies provide quantitative evidence for team functioning in ICE environments. Academic research on teams has produced dozens of meta-analyses that can be used to understand the general relationships among team inputs (e.g., team member characteristics and skills, job context), team processes, and emergent states (e.g., coordination, communication, cooperation, cohesion, trust, shared cognition), and team outcomes (e.g., effectiveness, errors, adaptation). Teams are complex, incorporating individual characteristics of team members, but also existing at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, the Team Risk must be integrated with other individual-focused NASA Human Research Program (HRP) risks, including Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Sleep, and Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA), and emerging research indicates more integration may needed between the Team Risk and the physiologically oriented risks. Much of this integration occurs through the Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB). A lack of team functioning may be a stressor in some circumstances, but the team often acts as a countermeasure. For example, support for team leaders and teammates can facilitate individual functioning and encourage psychological and physically healthy behaviors and attitudes. However, more research is needed regarding teams during LDEMs and the remaining gaps in the research are described in the current report.

Lauren Blackwell Landon↗
DOE OSTI2023

PacWave South SeaRAY k2 Risk Registers

The SeaRAY is a deployable power system for maritime sensors, monitoring equipment, communications, unmanned underwater vehicles, and other similar payloads. This project is to design, deliver, and test a prototype low-power WEC that lowers the total cost of ownership and provides robust, new capabilities for customers in the maritime environment. Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is conducted to systematically identify all potential failure modes and their effects on the system, and to analyze the criticality of each risk based on the likelihood of the event and the severity of the impact. Actions may then be recommended to mitigate the criticality of a risk, either by reducing the likelihood of the risk or the severity of its impact. Risk assessment is executed iteratively as an integral part of the design process. By incorporating risk assessment early in the development cycle, mitigation of risk can be achieved cost effectively. The actions recommended to mitigate risk may be subsequently executed, and as the design progresses the risk assessment is reviewed and revised. Review of the risk assessment is integrated into structured design reviews, ensuring that critical risks are comprehended and that the Project will not progress to e.g. fabrication while intolerable risks remain. The risk assessment process results in the population and maintenance of Risk Registers (RRs). Each major system (and as needed, subsystem) will have a distinct RR. This allows each system or subsystem to be assessed individually, rendering the RRs to a manageable size for review.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2024

Marine Energy Technology Development Risk Management Framework

Over the past decades, the global marine energy industry has suffered a number of serious technological and commercial setbacks. To help reduce the risks of industry failures and advance the development of new technologies, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed a Marine Energy Risk Management Framework in 2015, with this revision published in 2024. This risk management framework shall be utilized on all DOE Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) projects that require system testing in the open water. By addressing uncertainties, the Marine Energy Risk Management Framework increases the likelihood of successful development of marine energy converter technology. It covers projects of any technology readiness level technology performance level (TPL) and all risk types (e.g. technological risk, regulatory risk, commercial risk) over the development cycle. This risk framework is not a substitute for other risk management procedures that may be required for marine operations, such as installations at sea, hoisting and rigging, safe diver operations, and other safety requirements. This risk framework is intended to meet DOE's risk management expectations for marine energy technology research and development efforts from WPTO. It also provides an overview of other relevant risk management tools and documentation.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
NASA NTRS1999

Monte Carlo mixture model of lifetime cancer incidence risk from radiation exposure on shuttle and international space station

Estimating uncertainty in lifetime cancer risk for human exposure to space radiation is a unique challenge. Conventional risk assessment with low-linear-energy-transfer (LET)-based risk from Japanese atomic bomb survivor studies may be inappropriate for relativistic protons and nuclei in space due to track structure effects. This paper develops a Monte Carlo mixture model (MCMM) for transferring additive, National Institutes of Health multiplicative, and multiplicative excess cancer incidence risks based on Japanese atomic bomb survivor data to determine excess incidence risk for various US astronaut exposure profiles. The MCMM serves as an anchor point for future risk projection methods involving biophysical models of DNA damage from space radiation. Lifetime incidence risks of radiation-induced cancer for the MCMM based on low-LET Japanese data for nonleukemia (all cancers except leukemia) were 2.77 (90% confidence limit, 0.75-11.34) for males exposed to 1 Sv at age 45 and 2.20 (90% confidence limit, 0.59-10.12) for males exposed at age 55. For females, mixture model risks for nonleukemia exposed separately to 1 Sv at ages of 45 and 55 were 2.98 (90% confidence limit, 0.90-11.70) and 2.44 (90% confidence limit, 0.70-10.30), respectively. Risks for high-LET 200 MeV protons (LET=0.45 keV/micrometer), 1 MeV alpha-particles (LET=100 keV/micrometer), and 600 MeV iron particles (LET=180 keV/micrometer) were scored on a per particle basis by determining the particle fluence required for an average of one particle per cell nucleus of area 100 micrometer(2). Lifetime risk per proton was 2.68x10(-2)% (90% confidence limit, 0.79x10(-3)%-0. 514x10(-2)%). For alpha-particles, lifetime risk was 14.2% (90% confidence limit, 2.5%-31.2%). Conversely, lifetime risk per iron particle was 23.7% (90% confidence limit, 4.5%-53.0%). Uncertainty in the DDREF for high-LET particles may be less than that for low-LET radiation because typically there is very little dose-rate dependence. Probability density functions for high-LET radiation quality and dose-rate may be preferable to conventional risk assessment approaches. Nuclear reactions and track structure effects in tissue may not be properly estimated by existing data using in vitro models for estimating RBEs. The method used here is being extended to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft shielding effectiveness in various space radiation environments.

NASA Center LaRC↗
NASA NTRS1998

T wave alternans as a predictor of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias in ICD recipients: prospective comparison with conventional risk markers

INTRODUCTION: The current standard for arrhythmic risk stratification is electrophysiologic (EP) testing, which, due to its invasive nature, is limited to patients already known to be at high risk. A number of noninvasive tests, such as determination of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or heart rate variability, have been evaluated as additional risk stratifiers. Microvolt T wave alternans (TWA) is a promising new risk marker. Prospective evaluation of noninvasive risk markers in low- or moderate-risk populations requires studies involving very large numbers of patients, and in such studies, documentation of the occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias is difficult. In the present study, we identified a high-risk population, recipients of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and prospectively compared microvolt TWA with invasive EP testing and other risk markers with respect to their ability to predict recurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias as documented by ICD electrograms. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with a history of ventricular tachyarrhythmias undergoing implantation of an ICD underwent EP testing, assessment of TWA, as well as determination of LVEF, baroreflex sensitivity, signal-averaged ECG, analysis of 24-hour Holter monitoring, and QT dispersion from the 12-lead surface ECG. The endpoint of the study was first appropriate ICD therapy for electrogram-documented ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia during follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that TWA (P < 0.006) and LVEF (P < 0.04) were the only significant univariate risk stratifiers. EP testing was not statistically significant (P < 0.2). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that TWA was the only statistically significant independent risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of microvolt TWA compared favorably with both invasive EP testing and other currently used noninvasive risk assessment methods in predicting recurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in ICD recipients. This study suggests that TWA might also be a powerful tool for risk stratification in low- or moderate-risk patients, and needs to be prospectively evaluated in such populations.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS2004

Uncertainties in estimates of the risks of late effects from space radiation

Methods used to project risks in low-Earth orbit are of questionable merit for exploration missions because of the limited radiobiology data and knowledge of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) heavy ions, which causes estimates of the risk of late effects to be highly uncertain. Risk projections involve a product of many biological and physical factors, each of which has a differential range of uncertainty due to lack of data and knowledge. Using the linear-additivity model for radiation risks, we use Monte-Carlo sampling from subjective uncertainty distributions in each factor to obtain an estimate of the overall uncertainty in risk projections. The resulting methodology is applied to several human space exploration mission scenarios including a deep space outpost and Mars missions of duration of 360, 660, and 1000 days. The major results are the quantification of the uncertainties in current risk estimates, the identification of factors that dominate risk projection uncertainties, and the development of a method to quantify candidate approaches to reduce uncertainties or mitigate risks. The large uncertainties in GCR risk projections lead to probability distributions of risk that mask any potential risk reduction using the "optimization" of shielding materials or configurations. In contrast, the design of shielding optimization approaches for solar particle events and trapped protons can be made at this time and promising technologies can be shown to have merit using our approach. The methods used also make it possible to express risk management objectives in terms of quantitative metrics, e.g., the number of days in space without exceeding a given risk level within well-defined confidence limits. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of COSPAR.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS2007

Robust Derivation of Risk Reduction Strategies

Effective risk reduction strategies can be derived mechanically given sufficient characterization of the risks present in the system and the effectiveness of available risk reduction techniques. In this paper, we address an important question: can we reliably expect mechanically derived risk reduction strategies to be better than fixed or hand-selected risk reduction strategies, given that the quantitative assessment of risks and risk reduction techniques upon which mechanical derivation is based is difficult and likely to be inaccurate? We consider this question relative to two methods for deriving effective risk reduction strategies: the strategic method defined by Kazman, Port et al [Port et al, 2005], and the Defect Detection and Prevention (DDP) tool [Feather & Cornford, 2003]. We performed a number of sensitivity experiments to evaluate how inaccurate knowledge of risk and risk reduction techniques affect the performance of the strategies computed by the Strategic Method compared to a variety of alternative strategies. The experimental results indicate that strategies computed by the Strategic Method were significantly more effective than the alternative risk reduction strategies, even when knowledge of risk and risk reduction techniques was very inaccurate. The robustness of the Strategic Method suggests that its use should be considered in a wide range of projects.

risk reduction↗
NASA NTRS2020

Ensemble Methodologies for Astronaut Cancer Risk Assessment in the face of Large Uncertainties

A new approach to NASA space radiation risk modeling has successfully extended the current NASA probabilistic cancer risk model to an ensemble framework able to consider sub-model parameter uncertainty (e.g. uncertainty in a radiation quality parameter) as well as model-form uncertainty associated with differing theoretical or empirical formalisms (e.g. combined dose-rate and radiation quality effects). Ensemble methodologies are already widely used in weather prediction, modeling of infectious disease outbreaks, and certain terrestrial radiation protection applications to better understand how uncertainty may influence risk decision-making. Applying ensemble methodologies to space radiation risk projections offers the potential to efficiently incorporate emerging research results, allow for the incorporation of future (including international) models, improve uncertainty quantification for underlying sub-models developed against sparse experimental data, and reduce the impact of subjective bias on risk projections. Moreover, risk forecasting across an ensemble of multiple predictive models can provide stakeholders additional information on risk acceptance if current health/medical standards cannot be met or the level of knowledge doesn’t permit a specific risk or exposure limit to be developed for future space exploration missions. In this work, ensemble risk projections implementing multiple sub-models of radiation quality, dose and dose-rate effectiveness factors, excess risk, and latency as ensemble members are presented. Initial consensus methods for ensemble model weights and correlations to account for individual model bias are discussed. In these analyses, the ensemble forecast compares well to results from NASA's current operational cancer risk projection model used to assess permissible exposure limits and permissible mission durations for astronauts. However, a large range of projected risk values are obtained at the upper 95th confidence level where models must extrapolate beyond available biological data sets; closer agreement is seen at the median + one sigma due to the inherent similarities in available models. Future work, including the addition of new models and methods for statistical correlation between predictive members are discussed to define alternate ways of thinking about risk and ‘acceptable’ uncertainty with respect to NASA’s current permissible exposure limits.

space radiation↗
NASA NTRS2004

Integrated Risk Management Within NASA Programs/Projects

As NASA Project Risk Management activities continue to evolve, the need to successfully integrate risk management processes across the life cycle, between functional disciplines, stakeholders, various management policies, and within cost, schedule and performance requirements/constraints become more evident and important. Today's programs and projects are complex undertakings that include a myriad of processes, tools, techniques, management arrangements and other variables all of which must function together in order to achieve mission success. The perception and impact of risk may vary significantly among stakeholders and may influence decisions that may have unintended consequences on the project during a future phase of the life cycle. In these cases, risks may be unintentionally and/or arbitrarily transferred to others without the benefit of a comprehensive systemic risk assessment. Integrating risk across people, processes, and project requirements/constraints serves to enhance decisions, strengthen communication pathways, and reinforce the ability of the project team to identify and manage risks across the broad spectrum of project management responsibilities. The ability to identify risks in all areas of project management increases the likelihood a project will identify significant issues before they become problems and allows projects to make effective and efficient use of shrinking resources. By getting a total team integrated risk effort, applying a disciplined and rigorous process, along with understanding project requirements/constraints provides the opportunity for more effective risk management. Applying an integrated approach to risk management makes it possible to do a better job at balancing safety, cost, schedule, operational performance and other elements of risk. This paper will examine how people, processes, and project requirements/constraints can be integrated across the project lifecycle for better risk management and ultimately improve the chances for mission success.

Connley, Warren↗
NASA NTRS2007

Evaluating Shielding Effectiveness for Reducing Space Radiation Cancer Risks

We discuss calculations of probability distribution functions (PDF) representing uncertainties in projecting fatal cancer risk from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar particle events (SPE). The PDF s are used in significance tests of the effectiveness of potential radiation shielding approaches. Uncertainties in risk coefficients determined from epidemiology data, dose and dose-rate reduction factors, quality factors, and physics models of radiation environments are considered in models of cancer risk PDF s. Competing mortality risks and functional correlations in radiation quality factor uncertainties are treated in the calculations. We show that the cancer risk uncertainty, defined as the ratio of the 95% confidence level (CL) to the point estimate is about 4-fold for lunar and Mars mission risk projections. For short-stay lunar missions (<180 d), SPE s present the most significant risk, however one that is mitigated effectively by shielding, especially for carbon composites structures with high hydrogen content. In contrast, for long duration lunar (>180 d) or Mars missions, GCR risks may exceed radiation risk limits, with 95% CL s exceeding 10% fatal risk for males and females on a Mars mission. For reducing GCR cancer risks, shielding materials are marginally effective because of the penetrating nature of GCR and secondary radiation produced in tissue by relativistic particles. At the present time, polyethylene or carbon composite shielding can not be shown to significantly reduce risk compared to aluminum shielding based on a significance test that accounts for radiobiology uncertainties in GCR risk projection.

Cucinotta, Francis A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Space Radiation Cancer Risks

Space radiation presents major challenges to astronauts on the International Space Station and for future missions to the Earth s moon or Mars. Methods used to project risks on Earth need to be modified because of the large uncertainties in projecting cancer risks from space radiation, and thus impact safety factors. We describe NASA s unique approach to radiation safety that applies uncertainty based criteria within the occupational health program for astronauts: The two terrestrial criteria of a point estimate of maximum acceptable level of risk and application of the principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) are supplemented by a third requirement that protects against risk projection uncertainties using the upper 95% confidence level (CL) in the radiation cancer projection model. NASA s acceptable level of risk for ISS and their new lunar program have been set at the point-estimate of a 3-percent risk of exposure induced death (REID). Tissue-averaged organ dose-equivalents are combined with age at exposure and gender-dependent risk coefficients to project the cumulative occupational radiation risks incurred by astronauts. The 95% CL criteria in practice is a stronger criterion than ALARA, but not an absolute cut-off as is applied to a point projection of a 3% REID. We describe the most recent astronaut dose limits, and present a historical review of astronaut organ doses estimates from the Mercury through the current ISS program, and future projections for lunar and Mars missions. NASA s 95% CL criteria is linked to a vibrant ground based radiobiology program investigating the radiobiology of high-energy protons and heavy ions. The near-term goal of research is new knowledge leading to the reduction of uncertainties in projection models. Risk projections involve a product of many biological and physical factors, each of which has a differential range of uncertainty due to lack of data and knowledge. The current model for projecting space radiation cancer risk relies on the three assumptions of linearity, additivity, and scaling along with the use of population averages. We describe uncertainty estimates for this model, and new experimental data that sheds light on the accuracy of the underlying assumptions. These methods make it possible to express risk management objectives in terms of quantitative metrics, i.e., the number of days in space without exceeding a given risk level within well defined confidence limits. The resulting methodology is applied to several human space exploration mission scenarios including lunar station, deep space outpost, and a Mars mission. Factors that dominate risk projection uncertainties and application of this approach to assess candidate mitigation approaches are described.

Cucinotta, Francis A.↗
NASA NTRS2013

PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessments) Participation versus Validation

Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs) are performed for projects or programs where the consequences of failure are highly undesirable. PRAs primarily address the level of risk those projects or programs posed during operations. PRAs are often developed after the design has been completed. Design and operational details used to develop models include approved and accepted design information regarding equipment, components, systems and failure data. This methodology basically validates the risk parameters of the project or system design. For high risk or high dollar projects, using PRA methodologies during the design process provides new opportunities to influence the design early in the project life cycle to identify, eliminate or mitigate potential risks. Identifying risk drivers before the design has been set allows the design engineers to understand the inherent risk of their current design and consider potential risk mitigation changes. This can become an iterative process where the PRA model can be used to determine if the mitigation technique is effective in reducing risk. This can result in more efficient and cost effective design changes. PRA methodology can be used to assess the risk of design alternatives and can demonstrate how major design changes or program modifications impact the overall program or project risk. PRA has been used for the last two decades to validate risk predictions and acceptability. Providing risk information which can positively influence final system and equipment design the PRA tool can also participate in design development, providing a safe and cost effective product.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Bone and Muscle Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Bone and Muscle Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 17 - 18, 2014. The SRP reviewed the updated research plans for the Risk of Impaired Performance Due to Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength and Endurance (Muscle Risk) and the Risk of Reduced Physical Performance Capabilities Due to Reduced Aerobic Capacity (Aerobic Risk). The SRP also received a status update on the Risk of Bone Fracture (Bone Risk), the Risk of Early Onset Osteoporosis Due To Spaceflight (Osteo Risk), the Risk of Intervertebral Disc Damage (IVD Risk), and the Risk of Renal Stone Formation (Renal Risk).

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2016

Post-Flight Back Pain Following International Space Station Missions: Evaluation of Spaceflight Risk Factors

INTRODUCTION Back pain during spaceflight has often been attributed to the lengthening of the spinal column due to the absence of gravity during both short and long-duration missions. Upon landing and re-adaptation to gravity, the spinal column reverts back to its original length thereby causing some individuals to experience pain and muscular spasms, while others experience no ill effects. With International Space Station (ISS) missions, cases of back pain and injury are more common post-flight, but little is known about the potential risk factors. Thus, the purpose of this project was to perform an initial evaluation of reported post-flight back pain and injury cases to relevant spaceflight risk factors in United States astronauts that have completed an ISS mission. METHODS All US astronauts who completed an ISS mission between Expeditions (EXP) 1 and 41 (2000-2015) were included in this evaluation. Forty-five astronauts (36 males and 9 females) completed 50 ISS missions during the study time period, as 5 astronauts completed 2 ISS missions. Researchers queried medical records of the 45 astronauts for occurrences of back pain and injury. A case was defined as any reported event of back pain or injury to the cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, or coccyx spine regions. Data sources for the cases included the Flight Medicine Clinic's electronic medical record; Astronaut Strength, Conditioning and Rehabilitation electronic documentation; the Private Medical Conference tool; and the Space Medicine Operations Team records. Post-flight cases were classified as an early case if reported within 45 days of landing (R + 45) or a late case if reported from R + 46 to R + 365 days after landing (R + 1y). Risk factors in the astronaut population for back pain include age, sex, prior military service, and prior history of back pain. Additionally, spaceflight specific risk factors such as type of landing vehicle and onboard exercise countermeasures were included to evaluate their contribution to post-flight cases. Prior history of back pain included back pain recorded in the medical record within 3 years prior to launch. Landing vehicle was included in the model to discern if more astronauts experienced back pain or injury following a Shuttle or Soyuz landing. Onboard exercise countermeasures were noted for those astronauts who had a mission following 2009 deployment of the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (aRED) (EXP 19 to 41). T-test and chi-squared tests were performed to evaluate the association between each individual risk factor and post-flight case. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the combined contribution of all the risk factors on post-flight cases. Separate models were calculated for cases reported by R + 45 and R + 1y. RESULTS During the study time period, there were 13 post-flight cases reported by R + 45 and an additional 5 reported by R + 1y. Most of these cases have been reported since EXP 19 with 10 cases by R + 45 and 4 by R + 1y. Individual risk factors of age, sex, landing vehicle, and prior military service were not significantly associated with post-flight cases identified at R + 45 or R + 1y (p greater than 0.05). Having back pain or injury within 3 years prior to launch significantly increased the likelihood of becoming a case by R + 1y (p = 0.041), but not at R+45 (p=0.204). Additionally, astronauts who experienced onboard exercise countermeasures that included aRED had a significantly increased risk of becoming a case at R + 45 (p = 0.024) and R + 1y (p=0.003). Multiple logistic regression evaluating all the risk factors for cases identified no significant risk factors at either the R + 45 or R + 1y time period (p greater than 0.05). Overall model fit was poor for both the R + 45 (R(exp 2) = 0.132) and R + 1y (R(exp 2) = 0.186) cases showing that there are risk factors not represented in our model. CONCLUSIONS Regardless of cause, post-flight cases are reported more often since aRED was deployed in 2009. This may reflect improved documentation or unidentified risk factors. No spaceflight risk factor explains the data fully. Post-flight cases are probably due to multi-faceted factors that are not easily elucidated in the medical data.

Laughlin, M. S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Identified Risk of Adverse Outcomes due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture

The NASA Human System Risk Board (HSRB) is responsible for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks identified to be associated with human spaceflight. As part of this process, the Board is charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to evaluate those risks and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. Risks are ranked by likelihood and consequence. Intermediate causal relationships between risk contributing factors and countermeasures that link hazards to outcomes are described using Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs). The DAGs are also useful for identifying common factors and countermeasures across the top 30 risks as well as communicating how astronaut exposure to spaceflight hazards leads to meaningful mission-level health and performance outcomes. One of the top risks tracked by the HSRB is The Risk of Adverse Outcomes Due to Inadequate Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA). This risk captures the possibility that due to decreasing real-time ground support during missions beyond LEO, crew will be unable to adequately respond to unanticipated critical malfunctions or detect safety-critical procedural errors. The HSIA risk is ranked red (high) for Lunar surface and Mars missions due to the probability of Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission consequences. This paper describes the evidence that supports the HSIA risk ranking and presents the central narrative of the HSIA risk DAG-- i.e., anomaly detection, diagnosis, intervention, and task performance. Characterizations of the current state of practice for each of the DAG’s central nodes and the future tools needed for successful anomaly response are provided.

human-systems integration architecture↗
NASA NTRS2024

Alignment of NASA’s Human System Risks with Technological Capability Gaps to Enable Integrated Research and Technology Development Strategic Planning

BACKGROUND: Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains a set of twenty-nine different Human System Risks with subject matter experts from across the agency providing regular updates to the estimated likelihood and consequence associated with each risk. The Human Research Program (HRP) has historically used these risk classifications as a primary basis for identifying and prioritizing human research investments aimed at characterizing and/or mitigating the respective human system risks. In many cases, technology development is required to mature and validate risk mitigation strategies, however, NASA’s primary technology development programs have not typically used Human System Risks as a basis for strategic planning. A primary function of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is to continually identify, review, and update technological capability gaps and to establish and oversee multiyear strategic roadmaps aimed at guiding NASA’s technology development priorities in these areas. These roadmaps are intended to be agency-wide and independent of any program, directorate, or other organization within NASA. DESCRIPTION: The SCLT and HRP collaborated to establish a set of Human System Capability Gaps, which establish a formal linkage between the capability gaps used to prioritize investments across much of NASA, and the Human System Risks that are primarily used to inform and prioritize human research. This set of twenty-eight gaps was developed by subject matter experts, and each gap mapped to the primary associated Human System Risks. The gaps and risk mapping were then reviewed and approved via the HSRB, thereby formally aligning the research-focused Human System Risks with the technology-focused capability gaps. DISCUSSION: This effort has enabled development of integrated roadmaps and budget coordination with research and technology development activities that are formally linked to agency-recognized capability gaps and Human System Risks. Close and ongoing coordination between the SCLT, HRP, Mars Campaign Office, and the Health & Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) is essential to ensure alignment and prioritization of CHP-related research and technology development to enable NASA’s future exploration missions.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗