Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “software assurance risk mitigation”

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.

20 records · Page 2

Practical Application of PRA as an Integrated Design Tool for Space Systems

This paper presents the application of the first comprehensive Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) during the design phase of a joint NASA/NOAA weather satellite program, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Series R (GOES-R). GOES-R is the next generation weather satellite primarily to help understand the weather and help save human lives. PRA has been used at NASA for Human Space Flight for many years. PRA was initially adopted and implemented in the operational phase of manned space flight programs and more recently for the next generation human space systems. Since its first use at NASA, PRA has become recognized throughout the Agency as a method of assessing complex mission risks as part of an overall approach to assuring safety and mission success throughout project lifecycles. PRA is now included as a requirement during the design phase of both NASA next generation manned space vehicles as well as for high priority robotic missions. The influence of PRA on GOES-R design and operation concepts are discussed in detail. The GOES-R PRA is unique at NASA for its early implementation. It also represents a pioneering effort to integrate risks from both Spacecraft (SC) and Ground Segment (GS) to fully assess the probability of achieving mission objectives. PRA analysts were actively involved in system engineering and design engineering to ensure that a comprehensive set of technical risks were correctly identified and properly understood from a design and operations perspective. The analysis included an assessment of SC hardware and software, SC fault management system, GS hardware and software, common cause failures, human error, natural hazards, solar weather and infrastructure (such as network and telecommunications failures, fire). PRA findings directly resulted in design changes to reduce SC risk from micro-meteoroids. PRA results also led to design changes in several SC subsystems, e.g. propulsion, guidance, navigation and control (GNC), communications, mechanisms, and command and data handling (C&DH). The fault tree approach assisted in the development of the fault management system design. Human error analysis, which examined human response to failure, indicated areas where automation could reduce the overall probability of gaps in operation by half. In addition, the PRA brought to light many potential root causes of system disruptions, including earthquakes, inclement weather, solar storms, blackouts and other extreme conditions not considered in the typical reliability and availability analyses. Ultimately the PRA served to identify potential failures that, when mitigated, resulted in a more robust design, as well as to influence the program's concept of operations. The early and active integration of PRA with system and design engineering provided a well-managed approach for risk assessment that increased reliability and availability, optimized lifecyc1e costs, and unified the SC and GS developments.

Kalia, Prince↗

Clinical Outcome Metrics for Optimization of Robust Training

Introduction: The emphasis of this research is on the Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability's (ExMC) "Risk of Unacceptable Health and Mission Outcomes Due to Limitations of In-Flight Medical Capabilities." Specifically, this project aims to contribute to the closure of gap ExMC 2.02: We do not know how the inclusion of a physician crew medical officer quantitatively impacts clinical outcomes during exploration missions. The experiments are specifically designed to address clinical outcome differences between physician and non-physician cohorts in both near-term and longer-term (mission impacting) outcomes. Methods: Medical simulations will systematically compare success of individual diagnostic and therapeutic procedure simulations performed by physician and non-physician crew medical officer (CMO) analogs using clearly defined short-term (individual procedure) outcome metrics. In the subsequent step of the project, the procedure simulation outcomes will be used as input to a modified version of the NASA Integrated Medical Model (IMM) to analyze the effect of the outcome (degree of success) of individual procedures (including successful, imperfectly performed, and failed procedures) on overall long-term clinical outcomes and the consequent mission impacts. The procedures to be simulated are endotracheal intubation, fundoscopic examination, kidney/urinary ultrasound, ultrasound-guided intravenous catheter insertion, and a differential diagnosis exercise. Multiple assessment techniques will be used, centered on medical procedure simulation studies occurring at 3, 6, and 12 months after initial training (as depicted in the following flow diagram of the experiment design). Discussion: Analysis of procedure outcomes in the physician and non-physician groups and their subsets (tested at different elapsed times post training) will allow the team to 1) define differences between physician and non-physician CMOs in terms of both procedure performance (pre-IMM analysis) and overall mitigation of the mission medical impact (IMM analysis); 2) refine the procedure outcome and clinical outcome metrics themselves; 3) refine or develop innovative medical training products and solutions to maximize CMO performance; and 4) validate the methods and products of this experiment for operational use in the planning, execution, and quality assurance of the CMO training process The team has finalized training protocols and developed a software training/testing tool in collaboration with Butler Graphics (Detroit, MI). In addition to the "hands on" medical procedure modules, the software includes a differential diagnosis exercise (limited clinical decision support tool) to evaluate the diagnostic skills of participants. Human subject testing will occur over the next year.

Ebert, D.↗