Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk Informed Decision Making”

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 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action: Applying Research to Practice

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗
NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗
NASA NTRS1995

Decision Making in the Airplane

The Importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful In improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking In response to a problem, This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗
NASA NTRS2023

Aviation 2072: Scenario Planning for Wicked Problems

The world is changing rapidly. And with it, so are the potential futures for humanity. Many of these potential futures pose hidden threats, while others offer new opportunities for aviation and the broader aerospace community. To mitigate these risks and capitalize on opportunities, organizations must work to deeply understand these potential future scenarios and uncover any underlying drivers. Organizations will be more equipped and informed when making strategic investment decisions by better understanding these threats, opportunities, and drivers . The future scenarios and their threats and opportunities described in this paper were identified through a series of extensive brainstorming workshops, collectively titled MADNESS (Mapping for Aviation Driven by Needs Emergence and Satiating Society). These workshops engaged NASA civil servants and contractors with diverse backgrounds through a facilitated process of future scenario development and critique. The participants were led through exercises focused on a time horizon spanning from 2022 to 2072 and on problems that aviation might solve and or create during this period. From the broad results, two patterns of critical uncertainty emerged: “availability” (scarcity versus abundance) and “transparency” (openness versus security and privacy). The successful iteration and ideation across the MADNESS workshops also suggests a repeatable mechanism for strategic risk exploration across a variety of NASA and industry stakeholders.

Mapping↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Risk-Informed Performance-Based Methodology to Manage Fire Protection Systems in Nuclear Facilities

Fire protection systems (FPSs) and features are installed in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities to protect property (maximum possible fire loss thresholds), life, and nuclear safety (i.e., structures, systems, and components). These FPSs and features are designed and maintained in accordance with the prescriptive guidance provided in applicable building codes and National Fire Protection Association codes and standards. Management, operations, and maintenance activities of FPSs involve significant effort. A DOE facility’s documented safety analysis or other safety basis document could also rely on FPSs to provide either a safety significant or safety class function to mitigate fire hazards and minimize radiological consequences. In some cases, the designation of safety significant or safety class may be determined to provide a layer of defense-in-depth to minimize nuclear safety risks independent of the fire risk. DOE standards allow the use of performance-based design alternatives developed by the fire industry but do not consider the defense-in-depth layers of protection provided in DOE facilities to prevent or mitigate the risks associated with unintended release of radioactive materials into the environment. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory developed a decision-making methodology tailored for DOE non-reactor nuclear facilities to manage FPSs and features by integrating nuclear safety risk insights into a performance-based analysis. This risk-informed, performance-based (RIPB) methodology can be used to provide the technical basis for classifying an FPS as safety class and safety significant, tailoring administrative controls (e.g., technical safety requirements), and ranking the importance of FPSs to prioritize maintenance, upgrades, and replacement activities. The RIPB methodology is a graded approach to inform DOE facility owners and Fire Protection Program managers of the most risk-significant FPSs and equipment, and those systems would be cost-beneficial to relax rigor if there is a need to re-design the FPS coverage or deviate from DOE and National Fire Protection Association standards for those systems that would be less significant. This paper describes the framework used to develop the RIPB methodology and the outcome of implementing this methodology in a use-case nuclear facility. This paper also discusses the impact to DOE policies and standards and the safety margins and defense-in-depth measures credited in nuclear safety assessments in a facility’s documented safety analysis and the benefits of implementing an RIPB methodology in lieu of a prescriptive method to comply with fire protection requirements.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Method and apparatus for constructing informative outcomes to guide multi-policy decision making

In Multi-Policy Decision-Making (MPDM), many computationally-expensive forward simulations are performed in order to predict the performance of a set of candidate policies. In risk-aware formulations of MPDM, only the worst outcomes affect the decision making process, and efficiently finding these influential outcomes becomes the core challenge. Recently, stochastic gradient optimization algorithms, using a heuristic function, were shown to be significantly superior to random sampling. In this disclosure, it was shown that accurate gradients can be computed-even through a complex forward simulation—using approaches similar to those in dep networks. The proposed approach finds influential outcomes more reliably, and is faster than earlier methods, allowing one to evaluate more policies while simultaneously eliminating the need to design an easily-differentiable heuristic function.

Olson, Edwin↗
DOE OSTI2025

Bridging Equipment Reliability Data and Risk Informed Decisions in a Plant Operation Context

Industry equipment reliability and asset management programs are essential elements that help ensure the safe and economical operation of nuclear power plants. The effectiveness of these programs is addressed in several industry-developed and regulatory programs. The Risk-Informed Asset Management (RIAM) project is tasked to develop tools in support of the equipment reliability and asset management programs at nuclear power plants. These tools are designed to create a direct bridge between component health/lifecycle data and decision making (e.g., maintenance scheduling and project prioritization). The goal of this article is to provide a guide for specific use cases that the RIAM project is targeting. We have grouped uses cases into three main areas. The first area focuses on the analysis of equipment reliability data with a particular emphasis on condition-based data, such as test/surveillance reports and component monitoring data. The second area focuses on the integration of equipment reliability into system/plant reliability models to determine system/plant health and identify the components that are critical to maintain an operational system. Lastly, the third area manages plant resources, such as maintenance activities and replacement scheduling using optimization methods. Here the primary focus is on supporting typical system engineer decisions regarding maintenance activity scheduling and component aging management. This is performed in a risk-informed context where the term “risk” is broadly constructed to include both plant reliability and economics. This framework combines data analytics tools to analyze equipment reliability data with risk-informed methods designed to support system engineer decisions (e.g., maintenance and replacement schedules, optimal maintenance posture) in a customizable workflow.

97 - MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS2005

Simulation of Range Safety for the NASA Space Shuttle

This paper describes a simulation environment that seamlessly combines a number of safety and environmental models for the launch phase of a NASA Space Shuttle mission. The components of this simulation environment represent the different systems that must interact in order to determine the Expectation of casualties (E(sub c)) resulting from the toxic effects of the gas dispersion that occurs after a disaster affecting a Space Shuttle within 120 seconds of lift-off. The utilization of the Space Shuttle reliability models, trajectory models, weather dissemination systems, population models, amount and type of toxicants, gas dispersion models, human response functions to toxicants, and a geographical information system are all integrated to create this environment. This simulation environment can help safety managers estimate the population at risk in order to plan evacuation, make sheltering decisions, determine the resources required to provide aid and comfort, and mitigate damages in case of a disaster. This simulation environment may also be modified and used for the landing phase of a space vehicle but will not be discussed in this paper.

Rabelo, Luis↗
NASA NTRS1993

Risk management for the Space Exploration Initiative

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a quantitative engineering process that provides the analytic structure and decision-making framework for total programmatic risk management. Ideally, it is initiated in the conceptual design phase and used throughout the program life cycle. Although PRA was developed for assessment of safety, reliability, and availability risk, it has far greater application. Throughout the design phase, PRA can guide trade-off studies among system performance, safety, reliability, cost, and schedule. These studies are based on the assessment of the risk of meeting each parameter goal, with full consideration of the uncertainties. Quantitative trade-off studies are essential, but without full identification, propagation, and display of uncertainties, poor decisions may result. PRA also can focus attention on risk drivers in situations where risk is too high. For example, if safety risk is unacceptable, the PRA prioritizes the risk contributors to guide the use of resources for risk mitigation. PRA is used in the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) Program. To meet the stringent requirements of the SEI mission, within strict budgetary constraints, the PRA structure supports informed and traceable decision-making. This paper briefly describes the SEI PRA process.

Buchbinder, Ben↗
DOE OSTI2024

MSD CoP Webinar: Accounting for distributive justice in model-based decision support

Context: This webinar was hosted by the MultiSector Dynamics Community of Practice (MSD CoP; https://multisectordynamics.org). Abstract: Model-based analyses play an ever-increasing role in informing policy and decision-making. However, many large-scale societal challenges unavoidably involve questions about the fair distribution of positive and negative consequences. How are the costs of the energy transition distributed over households and businesses? How are flood risks redistributed under different flood risk management plans? How are the impacts of climate change and climate mitigation distributed over different parts of the world?These kinds of questions play an important role when deliberating public policy, and the lack, in many cases, of clear answers becomes an obstacle to decision-making. At recent COPs, for example, wicked questions about loss and damages and the phase-out versus phase-down of coal became obstacles to global climate action, illustrating the misalignment of the direction of scientific research and decision-makers' information needs. In this talk, I'll explore advances that are being made that enable analysts to start providing grounded model-based answers to questions of distributive justice, as well as argue that analysts should embrace and explicate the normative nature of their work instead of hiding behind the purported neutrality of science. Presenters: Dr. Jan Kwakkel (Delft University of Technology) Moderator(s): Rebecca Saari (MSD CoP Working Group Co-Chair; Univ. of Waterloo), Matt Sparks (Univ. of Waterloo); Sarah Fletcher (MSD CoP Working Group Co-Chair; Stanford University), Juan Moreno-Cruz (Univ. of Waterloo), Patrick Reed (MSD CoP Facilitation Team Member, Moderator and Organizer) This webinar was held on: November 13, 2024 from 1 PM - 2:15 PM ET

Kwakkel, Jan H.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Range Systems Simulation for the NASA Shuttle: Emphasis on Disaster and Prevention Management During Lift-Off

This article describes a decision-making system composed of a number of safety and environmental models for the launch phase of a NASA Space Shuttle mission. The components of this distributed simulation environment represent the different systems that must collaborate to establish the Expectation of Casualties (E(sub c)) caused by a failed Space Shuttle launch and subsequent explosion (accidental or instructed) of the spacecraft shortly after liftoff. This decision-making tool employs Space Shuttle reliability models, trajectory models, a blast model, weather dissemination systems, population models, amount and type of toxicants, gas dispersion models, human response functions to toxicants, and a geographical information system. Since one of the important features of this proposed simulation environment is to measure blast, toxic, and debris effects, the clear benefits is that it can help safety managers not only estimate the population at risk, but also to help plan evacuations, make sheltering decisions, establish the resources required to provide aid and comfort, and mitigate damages in case of a disaster.

Rabelo, Lisa↗
NASA NTRS2016

Characterization of Evidence for Human System Risk Assessment

Understanding the kinds of evidence available and using the best evidence to answer a question is critical to evidenced-based decision-making, and it requires synthesis of evidence from a variety of sources. Categorization of human system risks in spaceflight, in particular, focuses on how well the integration and interpretation of all available evidence informs the risk statement that describes the relationship between spaceflight hazards and an outcome of interest. A mature understanding and categorization of these risks requires: 1) sufficient characterization of risk, 2) sufficient knowledge to determine an acceptable level of risk (i.e., a standard), 3) development of mitigations to meet the acceptable level of risk, and 4) identification of factors affecting generalizability of the evidence to different design reference missions. In the medical research community, evidence is often ranked by increasing confidence in findings gleaned from observational and experimental research (e.g., "levels of evidence"). However, an approach based solely on aspects of experimental design is problematic in assessing human system risks for spaceflight. For spaceflight, the unique challenges and opportunities include: (1) The independent variables in most evidence are the hazards of spaceflight, such as space radiation or low gravity, which cannot be entirely duplicated in terrestrial (Earth-based) analogs, (2) Evidence is drawn from multiple sources including medical and mission operations, Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH), spaceflight research (LSDA), and relevant environmental & terrestrial databases, (3) Risk metrics based primarily on LSAH data are typically derived from available prevalence or incidence data, which may limit rigorous interpretation, (4) The timeframe for obtaining adequate spaceflight sample size (n) is very long, given the small population, (5) Randomized controlled trials are unattainable in spaceflight, (6) Collection of personal and environmental data on the astronaut population may create opportunities for advanced analytics and human-environment modeling that goes beyond that achieved in isolated experimental designs; and (7) Translation of relevant research to operations is a complex, transdisciplinary enterprise in which the approach must apply across the physical, biological, behavioral, and social sciences. The approach to synthesizing evidence must address both source and fidelity of data, and reflect the most general attributes of quality of evidence in science and engineering: reliability and validity. The authors are developing a two-factor approach which includes the various kinds of evidence required to understand risks and for the integrated interpretation of all evidence that is essential to develop standards and countermeasures. A unified framework for aggregating and assessing different kinds of evidence provides a consistent, traceable, evidence-based decision-making process to translate research to operations in an environment where engineers, scientists, physicians, and managers all engage in analyzing the trade space of vehicle design, standards, requirements and solutions for spaceflight.

Steinberg, S. L.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Experiences using Visualization Techniques to Present Requirements, Risks to Them, and Options for Risk Mitigation

For several years we have been employing a risk-based decision process to guide development and application of advanced technologies, and for research and technology portfolio planning. The process is supported by custom software, in which visualization plays an important role. During requirements gathering, visualization is used to help scrutinize the status (completeness, extent) of the information. During decision making based on the gathered information, visualization is used to help decisionmakers understand the space of options and their consequences. In this paper we summarize the visualization capabilities that we have employed, indicating when and how they have proven useful.

requirements↗
NASA NTRS2009

Johnson Space Center's Risk and Reliability Analysis Group 2008 Annual Report

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) Directorate s Risk and Reliability Analysis Group provides both mathematical and engineering analysis expertise in the areas of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) analysis, and data collection and analysis. The fundamental goal of this group is to provide National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decisionmakers with the necessary information to make informed decisions when evaluating personnel, flight hardware, and public safety concerns associated with current operating systems as well as with any future systems. The Analysis Group includes a staff of statistical and reliability experts with valuable backgrounds in the statistical, reliability, and engineering fields. This group includes JSC S&MA Analysis Branch personnel as well as S&MA support services contractors, such as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and SoHaR. The Analysis Group s experience base includes nuclear power (both commercial and navy), manufacturing, Department of Defense, chemical, and shipping industries, as well as significant aerospace experience specifically in the Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS), and Constellation Programs. The Analysis Group partners with project and program offices, other NASA centers, NASA contractors, and universities to provide additional resources or information to the group when performing various analysis tasks. The JSC S&MA Analysis Group is recognized as a leader in risk and reliability analysis within the NASA community. Therefore, the Analysis Group is in high demand to help the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) continue to fly safely, assist in designing the next generation spacecraft for the Constellation Program (CxP), and promote advanced analytical techniques. The Analysis Section s tasks include teaching classes and instituting personnel qualification processes to enhance the professional abilities of our analysts as well as performing major probabilistic assessments used to support flight rationale and help establish program requirements. During 2008, the Analysis Group performed more than 70 assessments. Although all these assessments were important, some were instrumental in the decisionmaking processes for the Shuttle and Constellation Programs. Two of the more significant tasks were the Space Transportation System (STS)-122 Low Level Cutoff PRA for the SSP and the Orion Pad Abort One (PA-1) PRA for the CxP. These two activities, along with the numerous other tasks the Analysis Group performed in 2008, are summarized in this report. This report also highlights several ongoing and upcoming efforts to provide crucial statistical and probabilistic assessments, such as the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) PRA for the Hubble Space Telescope service mission and the first fully integrated PRAs for the CxP's Lunar Sortie and ISS missions.

Valentine, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2016

Risk of Performance Decrements and Adverse Health Outcomes Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload

Sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload occur to some extent for ground and flight crews, prior to and during spaceflight missions. Ground evidence indicates that such risk factors may lead to performance decrements and adverse health outcomes, which could potentially compromise mission objectives. Efforts are needed to identify the environmental and mission conditions that interfere with sleep and circadian alignment, as well as individual differences in vulnerability and resiliency to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. Specifically, this report highlights a collection of new evidence to better characterize the risk and reveals new gaps in this risk as follows: Sleep loss is apparent during spaceflight. Astronauts consistently average less sleep during spaceflight relative to on the ground. The causes of this sleep loss remain unknown, however ground-based evidence suggests that the sleep duration of astronauts is likely to lead to performance impairment and short and long-term health consequences. Further research is needed in this area in order to develop screening tools to assess individual astronaut sleep need in order to quantify the magnitude of sleep loss during spaceflight; current and planned efforts in BHP's research portfolio address this need. In addition, it is still unclear whether the conditions of spaceflight environment lead to sleep loss or whether other factors, such as work overload lead to the reduced sleep duration. Future data mining efforts and continued data collection on the ISS will help to further characterize factors contributing to sleep loss. Sleep inertia has not been evaluated during spaceflight. Ground-based studies confirm that it takes two to four hours to achieve optimal performance after waking from a sleep episode. Sleep inertia has been associated with increased accidents and reduced performance in operational environments. Sleep inertia poses considerable risk during spaceflight when emergency situations necessitate that crewmembers wake from sleep and make quick decisions. A recently completed BHP investigation assesses the effects of sleep inertia upon abrupt awakening, with and without hypnotics currently used in spaceflight; results from this investigation will help to inform strategies relative to sleep inertia effects on performance. Circadian desynchrony has been observed during spaceflight. Circadian desynchrony during spaceflight develops due to schedule constraints requiring non-24 operations or 'slam-shifts' and due to insufficient or mis-timed light exposure. In addition, circadian misalignment has been associated with reduced sleep duration and increased medication use. In ground-based studies, circadian desynchrony has been associated with significant performance impairment and increased risk of accidents when operations coincide with the circadian nadir. There is a great deal of information available on how to manage circadian misalignment, however, there are currently no easily collected biomarkers that can be used during spaceflight to determine circadian phase. Current research efforts are addressing this gap. Work overload has been documented during current spaceflight operations. NASA has established work hour guidelines that limit shift duration, however, schedule creep, where duty requirements necessitate working beyond scheduled work hours, has been reported. This observation warrants the documentation of actual work hours in order to improve planning and in order to ensure that astronauts receive adequate down time. In addition to concerns about work overload, ground based evidence suggests that work underload may be a concern during deep space missions, where torpor may develop and physically demanding workload will be exchanged for monitoring of autonomous systems. Given that increased automation is anticipated for exploration vehicles, fatigue effects in the context of such systems needs to be further understood. Performance metrics are needed to evaluate fitness-for-duty during spaceflight. Although ground-based evidence supports the notion that sleep loss, circadian desynchronization and work overload lead to performance impairment, inconsistency in the measures used to evaluate performance during spaceflight make it difficult to evaluate the magnitude of performance impairment during spaceflight. Work is underway to standardize measures of performance evaluation during spaceflight. Once established, such performance indicators need to be correlated with operational performance. Individual differences in sleep need and circadian preference, phase shifting ability and period have been documented in ground-based studies. Individual differences in response to sleep loss and circadian misalignment have also been documented and are presumed to be associated with genetic polymorphisms. No studies have systematically reported individual differences in sleep or circadian-related outcomes during spaceflight. More work is needed in this area in order to identify genetic or phenotypic biomarkers that predict resilience or vulnerability to sleep loss in order to personalize countermeasure strategies and mitigate performance impairment during spaceflight. Two laboratory and field investigations specific to this topic are currently ongoing; additional efforts, including an effort to mine existing biological data from spaceflight relative to sleep and circadian outcomes, are planned. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian period and phase have been reported in ground-based studies. The impact of these sex differences on performance is unclear. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian rhythms have not been systematically studied during spaceflight, presumably due to the small number of women that have flown in space. More research is needed in this area to evaluate whether any of the observed sex differences in physiology lead to altered performance in spaceflight and on the ground.

Flynn-Evans, Erin↗
NASA NTRS2002

Useful Life Prediction for Payload Carrier Hardware

The Space Shuttle has been identified for use through 2020. Payload carrier systems will be needed to support missions through the same time frame. To support the future decision making process with reliable systems, it is necessary to analyze design integrity, identify possible sources of undesirable risk and recognize required upgrades for carrier systems. This project analyzed the information available regarding the carriers and developed the probability of becoming obsolete under different scenarios. In addition, this project resulted in a plan for an improved information system that will improve monitoring and control of the various carriers. The information collected throughout this project is presented in this report as process flow, historical records, and statistical analysis.

Ben-Arieh, David↗
NASA NTRS2004

Towards a systems approach to risk considerations for concurrent design

This paper describes the new process used by the Project Design Center at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the identification, assessment and communication of risk elements throughout the lifecycle of a mission design. This process includes a software tool, 'RAP' that collects and communicates risk information between the various designers and a 'risk expert' who mediates this process. The establishment of this process is an attempt towards the systematic consideration of risk in the design decision making process. Using this process, we are able to better keep track of the risks associated with the design decisions. Furthermore, it helps us develop better risk profiles for the studies under consideration. We aim to refine and expand the current process to enable more thorough risk analysis capabilities in the future.

concurrent design↗
NASA NTRS1993

Mission Operations and Command Assurance: Automating an Operations TQM Task

Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA) is a Total Quality Management (TQM) task on JPL projects to instill quality into mission operations. The mission operations environment is inherently risky because each decision made is potentially mission critical. The flight operations environment generally requires operators to make rapid critical decisions and solve problems based on limited information, while closely following standard procedures. MO&CA's primary goal is to help improve the operational reliability and reduce risk of projects during flight. To achieve this goal, automation of the MO&CA task is required. MO&CA specifically embodies the TQM principle of continuous process improvement (CPI) in which processes are continually examined and analyzed for opportunities for improvement. The second way in which MO&CA implements CPI on JPL projects is on new projects or upgrades to existing projects.

mission↗