Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk-Informed Approach”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Planetary Protection↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2016

Promoting a Culture of Tailoring for Systems Engineering Policy Expectations

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has developed an integrated systems engineering approach to promote a culture of tailoring for program and project policy requirements. MSFC's culture encourages and supports tailoring, with an emphasis on risk-based decision making, for enhanced affordability and efficiency. MSFC's policy structure integrates the various Agency requirements into a single, streamlined implementation approach which serves as a "one-stop-shop" for our programs and projects to follow. The engineers gain an enhanced understanding of policy and technical expectations, as well as lesson's learned from MSFC's history of spaceflight and science missions, to enable them to make appropriate, risk-based tailoring recommendations. The tailoring approach utilizes a standard methodology to classify projects into predefined levels using selected mission and programmatic scaling factors related to risk tolerance. Policy requirements are then selectively applied and tailored, with appropriate rationale, and approved by the governing authorities, to support risk-informed decisions to achieve the desired cost and schedule efficiencies. The policy is further augmented by implementation tools and lifecycle planning aids which help promote and support the cultural shift toward more tailoring. The MSFC Customization Tool is an integrated spreadsheet that ties together everything that projects need to understand, navigate, and tailor the policy. It helps them classify their project, understand the intent of the requirements, determine their tailoring approach, and document the necessary governance approvals. It also helps them plan for and conduct technical reviews throughout the lifecycle. Policy tailoring is thus established as a normal part of project execution, with the tools provided to facilitate and enable the tailoring process. MSFC's approach to changing the culture emphasizes risk-based tailoring of policy to achieve increased flexibility, efficiency, and effectiveness in project execution, while maintaining appropriate rigor to ensure mission success.

Blankenship, Van A.↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportuni-ties for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamina-tion, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR com-munity will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2023

Robotic and Crewed Mars Missions Increasing the Demand for Planetary Protection Technology Needs

Planetary protection (PP) policy seeks to avoid harmful contamination by limiting biological and relevant organic contamination from spacecraft as well as preventing adverse changes to Earth’s biosphere when extraterrestial samples are brought back to Earth. The PP policy at NASA was updated in 2021 (NPR 8715.24) and 2022 (NASA-STD-8719.27) to enable missions by expanding the decades old prescriptive requirements to allow for an option of adopting performance-based requirements that are objectivesdriven, risk-informed and case-assured. In parallel, the final PP knowledge gap workshop was completed representing the international consensus on the key areas to be considered in developing crew PP policy. These knowledge gaps focused on key technology development areas in 1) microbial and human health monitoring, 2) technical and operations needed for contamination control and 3) natural transport of contamination on Mars. As robotic missions start to implement performance-based approaches and research and technology efforts commence to inform crew policy the demand for data quality driven verification and validation in relevant space environments. Examples of the types of testing that is envisioned includes test as you fly validation and verification of decontamination systems in a relevant on-orbit and Mars environment, developing lethality curves of terrestrial organisms to further our understanding of the biocidal impacts of Mars and the space environment, and particle transport model validation and verification. Thus, the PP discipline has identified the need for groundbased space environments to perform preliminary testing as validation and verification of flight systems and to advance the technology readiness level prior to further testing on-orbit or lunar environments to prepare for Mars.

J. Nick Benardini↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Robotic and Crewed Mars Missions Increasing the Demand for Planetary Protection Technology Needs

Planetary protection (PP) policy seeks to avoid harmful contamination by limiting biological and relevant organic contamination from spacecraft as well as preventing adverse changes to Earth’s biosphere when extraterrestrial samples are brought back to Earth. The PP policy at NASA was updated in 2021 (NPR 8715.24) and 2022 (NASA-STD-8719.27) to enable missions by expanding the decades old prescriptive requirements to allow for an option of adopting performance-based requirements that are objectives-driven, risk-informed and case-assured. In parallel, the final PP knowledge gap workshop was completed representing the international consensus on the key areas to be considered in developing crew PP policy. These knowledge gaps focused on key technology development areas in 1) microbial and human health monitoring, 2) technical and operations needed for contamination control and 3) natural transport of contamination on Mars. As robotic missions start to implement performance-based approaches and research and technology efforts commence to inform crew policy the demand for data quality driven verification and validation in relevant space environments. Examples of the types of testing that is envisioned includes test as you fly validation and verification of decontamination systems in a relevant on-orbit and Mars environment, developing lethality curves of terrestrial organisms to further our understanding of the biocidal impacts of Mars and the space environment, and particle transport model validation and verification. Thus, the PP discipline has identified the need for ground-based space environments to perform preliminary testing as validation and verification of flight systems and to advance the technology readiness level prior to further testing on-orbit or lunar environments to prepare for Mars.

J Nick Benardini↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evolution of NASA’s Nuclear Flight Safety Program to Meet Changing Needs

Over the past 4 years, the United States (U.S.) Government has issued several new National policies that fundamentally change the approach to nuclear flight safety for aerospace applications, including the complete revision of the Federal policy for handling launch of spacecraft containing space nuclear systems. In response, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is updating its nuclear flight safety program while still maintaining consistency with other Federal policies, international conventions, and NASA’s own policies. To achieve this evolution, NASA is factoring in an objectives-driven and assurance case mindset to develop a risk-informed and performance-based program. NASA and others have successfully applied this mindset in other disciplines and contexts and it is being pursued here via broad cooperation within NASA and with external stakeholders. This paper will briefly describe how the NASA nuclear flight safety program is evolving to meet these changing needs.

NASA↗
NASA NTRS2020

Enabling Space Exploration Medical System Development Using a Tool Ecosystem

The NASA Human Research Program’s (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is utilizing a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to enhance the development of systems engineering products that will be used to advance medical system designs for exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit. In support of future missions, the team is capturing content such as system behaviors, functional decompositions, architecture, system requirements and interfaces, and recommendations for clinical capabilities and resources in Systems Modeling Language (SysML) models. As these products mature, SysML models provide a way for ExMC to capture relationships among the various products, which includes supporting more integrated and multi-faceted views of future medical systems. In addition to using SysML models, HRP and ExMC are developing supplementary tools to support two key functions: 1) prioritizing current and future research activities for exploration missions in an objective manner; and 2) enabling risk-informed and evidence-based trade space analysis for future space vehicles, missions, and systems. This paper will discuss the long-term HRP and ExMC vision for the larger ecosystem of tools, which include dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) capabilities, additional SysML models, a database of system component options, and data visualizations. It also includes a review of an initial Pilot Project focused on enabling medical system trade studies utilizing data that is coordinated across tools for consistent outputs (e.g., mission risk metrics that are associated with medical system mass values and medical conditions addressed). This first Pilot Project demonstrated successful operating procedures and integration across tools. Finally, the paper will also cover a second Pilot Project that utilizes tool enhancements such as medical system optimization capabilities, post-processing, and visualization of generated data for subject matter expert review, and increased integration amongst the tools themselves.

Amador, Jennifer R.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Enabling Space Exploration Medical System Development Using a Tool Ecosystem

The NASA Human Research Program's (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is utilizing a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to enhance the development of systems engineering products that will be used to advance medical system designs for exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit. In support of future missions, the team is capturing content such as system behaviors, functional decompositions, architecture, system requirements and interfaces, and recommendations for clinical capabilities and resources in Systems Modeling Language (SysML) models. As these products mature, SysML models provide a way for ExMC to capture relationships among the various products, which includes supporting more integrated and multi-faceted views of future medical systems. In addition to using SysML models, HRP and ExMC are developing supplementary tools to support two key functions: 1) prioritizing current and future research activities for exploration missions in an objective manner; and 2) enabling risk-informed and evidence-based trade space analysis for future space vehicles, missions, and systems. This paper will discuss the long-term HRP and ExMC vision for the larger ecosystem of tools, which include dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) capabilities, additional SysML models, a database of system component options, and data visualizations. It also includes a review of an initial Pilot Project focused on enabling medical system trade studies utilizing data that is coordinated across tools for consistent outputs (e.g., mission risk metrics that are associated with medical system mass values and medical conditions addressed). This first Pilot Project demonstrated successful operating procedures and integration across tools. Finally, the paper will also cover a second Pilot Project that utilizes tool enhancements such as medical system optimization capabilities, post-processing, and visualization of generated data for subject matter expert review, and increased integration amongst the tools themselves.

Amador, Jennifer R.↗
NASA NTRS2006

An Integrated Approach to Life Cycle Analysis

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is the evaluation of the impacts that design decisions have on a system and provides a framework for identifying and evaluating design benefits and burdens associated with the life cycles of space transportation systems from a "cradle-to-grave" approach. Sometimes called life cycle assessment, life cycle approach, or "cradle to grave analysis", it represents a rapidly emerging family of tools and techniques designed to be a decision support methodology and aid in the development of sustainable systems. The implementation of a Life Cycle Analysis can vary and may take many forms; from global system-level uncertainty-centered analysis to the assessment of individualized discriminatory metrics. This paper will focus on a proven LCA methodology developed by the Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate (SACD) at NASA Langley Research Center to quantify and assess key LCA discriminatory metrics, in particular affordability, reliability, maintainability, and operability. This paper will address issues inherent in Life Cycle Analysis including direct impacts, such as system development cost and crew safety, as well as indirect impacts, which often take the form of coupled metrics (i.e., the cost of system unreliability). Since LCA deals with the analysis of space vehicle system conceptual designs, it is imperative to stress that the goal of LCA is not to arrive at the answer but, rather, to provide important inputs to a broader strategic planning process, allowing the managers to make risk-informed decisions, and increase the likelihood of meeting mission success criteria.

Chytka, T. M.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Achieving a Risk-Informed Decision-Making Environment at NASA: The Emphasis of NASA's Risk Management Policy

This slide presentation reviews the evolution of risk management (RM) at NASA. The aim of the RM approach at NASA is to promote an approach that is heuristic, proactive, and coherent across all of NASA. Risk Informed Decision Making (RIDM) is a decision making process that uses a diverse set of performance measures along with other considerations within a deliberative process to inform decision making. RIDM is invoked for key decisions such as architecture and design decisions, make-buy decisions, and budget reallocation. The RIDM process and how it relates to the continuous Risk Management (CRM) process is reviewed.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRS2010

A Proactive and Top-Down Approach to Managing Risk at NASA

Our ultimate goal is to manage risk in a holistic and coherent fashion across the Agency: a) The RIDM process is intended to risk-inform direction-setting decisions. c) The CRM process is intended to manage risk associated with the implementation of baseline performance requirements. Currently we are working on: a) Enhancements to the CRM process. b) Better integration of the RIDM and CRM processes. c) Better integration of institutional risk considerations into RM framework.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Accident Precursor Analysis Handbook, Version 1.0

Catastrophic accidents are usually preceded by precursory events that, although observable, are not recognized as harbingers of a tragedy until after the fact. In the nuclear industry, the Three Mile Island accident was preceded by at least two events portending the potential for severe consequences from an underappreciated causal mechanism. Anomalies whose failure mechanisms were integral to the losses of Space Transportation Systems (STS) Challenger and Columbia had been occurring within the STS fleet prior to those accidents. Both the Rogers Commission Report and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report found that processes in place at the time did not respond to the prior anomalies in a way that shed light on their true risk implications. This includes the concern that, in the words of the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), "no process addresses the need to update a hazard analysis when anomalies occur" At a broader level, the ASAP noted in 2007 that NASA "could better gauge the likelihood of losses by developing leading indicators, rather than continue to depend on lagging indicators". These observations suggest a need to revalidate prior assumptions and conclusions of existing safety (and reliability) analyses, as well as to consider the potential for previously unrecognized accident scenarios, when unexpected or otherwise undesired behaviors of the system are observed. This need is also discussed in NASA's system safety handbook, which advocates a view of safety assurance as driving a program to take steps that are necessary to establish and maintain a valid and credible argument for the safety of its missions. It is the premise of this handbook that making cases for safety more experience-based allows NASA to be better informed about the safety performance of its systems, and will ultimately help it to manage safety in a more effective manner. The APA process described in this handbook provides a systematic means of analyzing candidate accident precursors by evaluating anomaly occurrences for their system safety implications and, through both analytical and deliberative methods used to project to other circumstances, identifying those that portend more serious consequences to come if effective corrective action is not taken. APA builds upon existing safety analysis processes currently in practice within NASA, leveraging their results to provide an improved understanding of overall system risk. As such, APA represents an important dimension of safety evaluation; as operational experience is acquired, precursor information is generated such that it can be fed back into system safety analyses to risk-inform safety improvements. Importantly, APA utilizes anomaly data to predict risk whereas standard reliability and PRA approaches utilize failure data which often is limited and rare.

Groen, Frank↗
NASA NTRS2013

Sustaining a Mature Risk Management Process: Ensuring the International Space Station for a Vibrant Future

The International Space Station (ISS) risk management methodology is an example of a mature and sustainable process. Risk management is a systematic approach used to proactively identify, analyze, plan, track, control, communicate, and document risks to help management make risk-informed decisions that increase the likelihood of achieving program objectives. The ISS has been operating in space for over 14 years and permanently crewed for over 12 years. It is the longest surviving habitable vehicle in low Earth orbit history. Without a mature and proven risk management plan, it would be increasingly difficult to achieve mission success throughout the life of the ISS Program. A successful risk management process must be able to adapt to a dynamic program. As ISS program-level decision processes have evolved, so too has the ISS risk management process continued to innovate, improve, and adapt. Constant adaptation of risk management tools and an ever-improving process is essential to the continued success of the ISS Program. Above all, sustained support from program management is vital to risk management continued effectiveness. Risk management is valued and stressed as an important process by the ISS Program.

Raftery, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2015

Considering Risk and Resilience in Decision-Making

This paper examines the concepts of decision-making, risk analysis, uncertainty and resilience analysis. The relation between risk, vulnerability, and resilience is analyzed. The paper describes how complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity are the most critical factors in the definition of the approach and criteria for decision-making. Uncertainty in its various forms is what limits our ability to offer definitive answers to questions about the outcomes of alternatives in a decision-making process. It is shown that, although resilience-informed decision-making would seem fundamentally different from risk-informed decision-making, this is not the case as resilience-analysis can be easily incorporated within existing analytic-deliberative decision-making frameworks.

Torres-Pomales, Wilfredo↗
NASA NTRS2014

Comparative Analysis of Static and Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Implementation of risk-informed design allows the design team to thoroughly explore the risks of a system while iterating the operations concept, design, and requirements until the system meets mission objects and is achievable within constraints. To arrive at a space system design that is likely to meet all constraints placed upon mass, cost, performance and risk, the system requirements must be understood and traded against each other as early as the conceptual design phase. Depending on the project phase and the goals of the risk analysis, various PRA methodologies could be used to produce quantitative risk estimates to enable such a process. In order to better understand the applicability, advantages, and limitations of various PRA methodologies, a comparative analysis of three bottom-up, component-based PRA approaches was performed. The three methods examined are a traditional static fault tree, a fault tree hybrid, and a dynamic Monte Carlo simulation. Each approach was used to assess a generic reaction control system (RCS) thruster pod and mission. The methods are assessed in terms of the process of modeling a system, the actionable information produced for the design team, and the overall fidelity of the quantitative risk evaluation generated. The paper also discusses the applicability of each methodology to the different phases of system development.

Probablistic↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Habitability Assessments And Lessons-learned From 3-day And 11-day Enriched Oxygen Hypobaric Chamber Tests At NASA Johnson Space Center

INTRODUCTION: Decompression sickness (DCS) is a risk to the health and performance of astronauts and high-altitude aircrew. Tolerance to flammability, hypoxia, prebreathe duration, and DCS risk varies across different organizations, vehicles, suits, and destinations, necessitating a variety of DCS risk mitigation approaches. Existing models of altitude DCS risk are often insufficient to enable accurate risk-informed decisions during hardware development, mission planning, and flight operations. METHODS: NASA completed outfitting of a dedicated facility at Johnson Space Center to support testing of up to eight human subjects for multiple days in hypobaric and enriched oxygen atmospheres. The primary purpose of the testing capability is validation of DCS risk mitigation protocols for Artemis missions to the Moon; however, it will also support development and validation of a generalizable altitude DCS risk estimation tool. A 3-day and an 11-day prebreathe validation test were completed in 2022, each with 8 human subjects living at 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2, with 5 simulated EVAs performed on masks at 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi), 85% O2, 15% N2. Facility and organizational lessons-learned and process improvements were recorded during and following the tests, and subjective habitability ratings were recorded daily during the 11-day test. Hypoxia and DCS-related physiological and cognitive outcome measures were recorded during both tests and are reported in companion presentations. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: All subjects completed each of the tests. Primary habitability issues related to mask discomfort during simulated EVAs and poor sleep quality due to thin mattresses. Polybenzimidazole (PBI) clothing was worn by all subjects due to the increased fire risk and may be required for Artemis missions; clothing was found to be acceptable overall with the worst ratings being due to poor fit and inelasticity. Chamber O2 and CO2 sensor inconsistency was observed that did not result in test termination but required post-test follow-up. Forward plans include additional hypobaric testing and integration of existing and future physiological outcome data into an open-source Aerospace Estimation Tool for Hypobaric Exposure Risk (AETHER). NASA is also working to make the testing capability available to commercial companies.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploring Digital Transformation for NASA Nuclear Flight Safety

The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA)’s Nuclear Flight Safety discipline is exploring opportunities to combine incremental advancements in many contributing areas in a way that produces a transformative change for how work is performed. More specifically, after providing some general NASA and space nuclear policy background, the authors will describe concepts and efforts that enable: (i) the use of objectives-d riven approaches (in concert with internal and external constraints) to establish a mission risk posture; (ii) the use of that risk posture in the planning process to risk-inform the selection of Safety and Mission Success (S&MS) methods and models; (iii) use of model-based and machine-assisted techniques to manage the complex and ponderous amount of information and interfaces that typify spaceflight efforts; (iv ) the means by which that infrastructure can directly feed an assurance case (including use of systems modelling language, ontological formulation, and semantic web technology) so as to address known weaknesses in our ability to communicate and manage that complexity; and (v) use of that case-assured framework to demonstrate that one did the adequate and sufficient S&MS work and that the S&MS work was done competently.

Donald Helton↗