Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Development assurance”

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 523 records · Page 29
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

Certification Testing Approach for Propulsion System Design

The Certification of Propulsion Systems is costly and complex, involving development and qualification testing. The desire of the certification process is to assure all requirements can be demonstrated to be compliant. The purpose of this paper is to address the technical design concerns of certifying a propulsion system for flight. Presented are Pressurization, Tankage, Feed System and Combustion Instability concerns. Propulsion System Engineers are challenged with the dilemma for testing new systems to specific levels to reduce risk yet maintain budgetary targets. A methodical approach is presented to define the types of test suitable to address the technical issues for qualifying systems for retiring the risk levels. Experience of the lessons learned from supporting the Shuttle Program for Main Propulsion and On Orbit Propulsions Systems as well as previous collaborations on design concerns for certifying propulsion systems are utilized to address design concerns and verification approaches.

Rodriguez, Henry↗
NASA NTRS2010

Understanding the Space Shuttle Main Engine Hydraulic Actuation System and Reviewing Its Evolution

The complex engine start and thrust control requirements of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) require unique valve, actuator and control system hardware. The Hydraulic Actuation System (HAS) was designed, developed, and now operates to meet tight engine control requirement limits to assure safe, reliable and correct engine thrust at all times. The actuator is designed to be fail safe and fail operate in the areas where redundancy is important. The HAS has an additional pneumatic operating capability that insures a safe sequential closure of all actuators and propellant valves in the event of the loss of hydraulic system pressure or loss of electrical closed loop control of the actuator. The objective of this paper is to provide a complete description of the actuator s internal operating system, along with its interaction with all SSME system interfaces. Additionally the paper addresses the challenges, problems identified, and corrected, and lessons learned, during the course of the almost 35 years of engine operation.

McWade, Robert J.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Application Agreement and Integration Services

Application agreement and integration services are required by distributed, fault-tolerant, safety critical systems to assure required performance. An analysis of distributed and hierarchical agreement strategies are developed against the backdrop of observed agreement failures in fielded systems. The documented work was performed under NASA Task Order NNL10AB32T, Validation And Verification of Safety-Critical Integrated Distributed Systems Area 2. This document is intended to satisfy the requirements for deliverable 5.2.11 under Task 4.2.2.3. This report discusses the challenges of maintaining application agreement and integration services. A literature search is presented that documents previous work in the area of replica determinism. Sources of non-deterministic behavior are identified and examples are presented where system level agreement failed to be achieved. We then explore how TTEthernet services can be extended to supply some interesting application agreement frameworks. This document assumes that the reader is familiar with the TTEthernet protocol. The reader is advised to read the TTEthernet protocol standard [1] before reading this document. This document does not re-iterate the content of the standard.

Driscoll, Kevin R.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Effects of the 8 psia / 32% O2 Atmosphere on the Human in the Spaceflight Environment

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is at the core of a manned space exploration program. There are elements of exploration that may be safely and effectively performed by robots, but there are critical elements of exploration that will require the trained, assertive, and reasoning mind of a human crewmember. To effectively use these skills, NASA needs a safe, effective, and efficient EVA component integrated into the human exploration program. The EVA preparation time should be minimized and the suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or suit-related trauma. Commissioned in 2005, the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) had the primary goal of recommending to NASA an internal environment that allowed efficient and repetitive EVAs for missions that were to be enabled by the former Constellation Program. At the conclusion of the EAWG meeting, the 8.0 psia and 32% oxygen (O2) environment were recommended for EVA intensive phases of missions. As a result of selecting this internal environment, NASA gains the capability for efficient EVA with low risk of decompression sickness (DCS), but not without incurring additional negative stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia to the already physiologically challenging spaceflight environment. This paper provides a literature review of the human health and performance risks associated with the 8 psia/32% O2 environment. Of most concern are the potential effects on the central nervous system including increased intracranial pressure, visual impairment, sensorimotor dysfunction, and oxidative damage. Other areas of focus include validation of the DCS mitigation strategy, incidence and treatment of acute mountain sickness (AMS), development of new exercise countermeasures protocols, effective food preparation at 8 psia, assurance of quality sleep, and prevention of suit-induced injury. As a first effort, the trade space originally considered in the EAWG was re-evaluated looking for ways to decrease the hypoxic dose by further enriching the O2% or increasing the pressure. After discussion with the NASA engineering and materials community, it was determined that the O2 could be enriched from 32% to 34% and the pressure increased from 8.0 to 8.2 psia without significant penalty. These two small changes increase alveolar O2 pressure by 11 mmHg, which is expected to significantly benefit crewmembers. The 8.2/34 environment (inspired O2 pressure = 128 mmHg) is also physiologically equivalent to the staged decompression atmosphere of 10.2 psia / 26.5% O2 (inspired O2 pressure = 127 mmHg) used on 34 different shuttle missions for approximately a week each flight. Once decided, the proposed internal environment, if different than current experience, should be evaluated through appropriately simulated research studies. In many cases, the human physiologic concerns can be investigated effectively through integrated multi-discipline ground-based studies. Although missions proposing to use an 8.2/34 environment are still years away, it is recommended that these studies begin early enough to ensure that the correct decisions pertaining to vehicle design, mission operational concepts, and human health countermeasures are appropriately informed.

Environmental control↗
NASA NTRS2015

Evidence Report: Risk of Hypobaric Hypoxia from the Exploration Atmosphere

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is at the core of a manned space exploration program. Some elements of exploration may be safely and effectively performed by robots, but certain critical elements will require the trained, assertive, and reasoning mind of a human crewmember. To effectively use these skills, NASA needs a safe, effective, and efficient EVA component integrated into the human exploration program. The EVA preparation time should be minimized and the suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without causing undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or suit-related trauma. Commissioned in 2005, the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) had the primary goal of recommending to NASA an internal environment that allowed efficient and repetitive EVAs for missions that were to be enabled by the former Constellation Program. At the conclusion of the EAWG meeting, the 8.0 psia and 32% oxygen (O2) environment were recommended for EVA-intensive phases of missions. After re-evaluation in 2012, the 8/32 environment was altered to 8.2 psia and 34% O2 to reduce the hypoxic stress to a crewmember. These two small changes increase alveolar O2 pressure by 11 mmHg, which is expected to significantly benefit crewmembers. The 8.2/34 environment (inspired O2 pressure = 128 mmHg) is also physiologically equivalent to the staged decompression atmosphere of 10.2 psia / 26.5% O2 (inspired O2 pressure = 127 mmHg) used on 34 different shuttle missions for approximately a week each flight. As a result of selecting this internal environment, NASA gains the capability for efficient EVA with low risk of decompression sickness (DCS), but not without incurring the additional negative stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia to the already physiologically challenging spaceflight environment. This report provides a review of the human health and performance risks associated with the use of the 8.2 psia / 34% O2 environment during spaceflight. Of most concern are the potential effects on the central nervous system (CNS), including increased intracranial pressure, visual impairment, sensorimotor dysfunction, and oxidative damage. Other areas of focus include validation of the DCS mitigation strategy, incidence and treatment of transient acute mountain sickness (AMS), development of new exercise countermeasure protocols, effective food preparation at 8.2 psia, assurance of quality sleep, and prevention of suit-induced injury. Although missions proposing to use an 8.2/34 environment are still years away, it is recommended that these studies begin early enough to ensure that the correct decisions pertaining to vehicle design, mission operational concepts, and human health countermeasures are appropriately informed.

Norcross, Jason R.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Risk-based SMA for Cubesats

This presentation conveys an approach for risk-based safety and mission assurance applied to cubesats. This presentation accompanies a NASA Goddard standard in development that provides guidance for building a mission success plan for cubesats based on the risk tolerance and resources available.

Small Satellites↗
NASA NTRS2019

Mars 2020 sample caching system contamination: how to clean hardware and keep it clean

The Mars 2020 Rover will have the capability to collect and cache samples for potential Mars sample return. Specifically, the sample caching system (SCS) is designed for coring Mars samples and acquiring regolith samples as well as handling, sealing and caching on Mars. As the potential first Martian samples that could be returned to Earth, assuring low levels of terrestrial contamination is of the utmost concern. In developing the SCS, the project prioritizes limiting sample contamination in organic, inorganic and biological areas. The focus of this paper is on the strategies being implemented to clean the assemble the sampling hardware to meet and maintain stringent contamination requirements.

Rainen, Richard↗
NASA NTRS2019

Organic and inorganic contamination control approaches for return sample investigation on Mars 2020

The Mars 2020 Rover mission will have the capability to collect and cache samples for potential Mars sample return. Specifically, the sample caching system (SCS) is designed for coring Mars samples and acquiring regolith samples as well as handling, sealing and caching on Mars. As the potential first Martian samples that could be returned to Earth, assuring low levels of terrestrial contamination is of the utmost concern. In developing the SCS, the project prioritizes limiting sample contamination in organic, inorganic and biological areas. The focus of this paper is on the strategies being implemented to limit terrestrial organic and inorganic contamination in the samples.

Steltzner, Adam↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Certification Concepts for AI/ML Systems

This presentation goes over some of the tools developed at NASA Ames in the Robust Software Engineering group for the assurance and certification of autonomous systems. The research themes presented include improving safety and risk assessment as early as possible in the lifecycle, elicitation and formalization of requirements to facilitate traceability throughout the lifecycle, especially when formal methods are used, algorithms, tools and techniques for the V&V of ML-enabled systems, advanced testing, use of runtime monitoring to ease use of untrusted components, and contribution to draft regulatory standards and assistance in producing and presenting certification evidences.

Autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2003

Technology Transfer Challenges for High-Assurance Software Engineering Tools

In this paper, we describe our experience with the challenges thar we are currently facing in our effort to develop advanced software verification and validation tools. We categorize these challenges into several areas: cost benefits modeling, tool usability, customer application domain, and organizational issues. We provide examples of challenges in each area and identrfj, open research issues in areas which limit our ability to transfer high-assurance software engineering tools into practice.

John Penix↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Mission Assurance (AMA) – A Conceptual Guide for NASA Missions

NASA is well acquainted with and skilled in conducting Risk Class A Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA). Class A missions are characterized as having highly specific performance with an ultra-low risk tolerance for risk and mission failure. But space is rapidly changing, and the space enterprise is challenged to pursue faster more agile mission developments with fewer resources and directed schedules. To meet this demand mission development teams face accepting more risk and trading performance within strict cost and schedule constraints. In responding to this challenge, The Aerospace Corporation has evolved the Adaptive Mission Assurance (AMA) approach. The benefit of an “adaptive” approach is most realized for smaller Research and Development (R&D), or Science and Technology (S&T) demonstration missions constrained by significantly smaller budgets and directed schedules. The challenge for these “risk tolerant, constraints-driven” missions is how to identify the most valuable mission assurance tasks that will fit within strict budgetary and schedule constraints for “gracefully” accepting risk that still achieves an agreeable expectation of mission success. AMA can respond to this challenge with little to no impact to team staffing or existing workload. This conceptual guide introduces AMA as a potential implementation for NASA Risk Class D and Sub-Class D missions.

Douglas A. Harris↗
NASA NTRS2007

Space Flight Requirements for Fiber Optic Components; Qualification Testing and Lessons Learned

"Qualification" of fiber optic components holds a very different meaning than it did ten years ago. In the past, qualification meant extensive prolonged testing and screening that led to a programmatic method of reliability assurance. For space flight programs today, the combination of using higher performance commercial technology, with shorter development schedules and tighter mission budgets makes long term testing and reliability characterization unfeasible. In many cases space flight missions will be using technology within years of its development and an example of this is fiber laser technology. Although the technology itself is not a new product the components that comprise a fiber laser system change frequently as processes and packaging changes occur. Once a process or the materials for manufacturing a component change, even the data that existed on its predecessor can no longer provide assurance on the newer version. In order to assure reliability during a space flight mission, the component engineer must understand the requirements of the space flight environment as well as the physics of failure of the components themselves. This can be incorporated into an efficient and effective testing plan that "qualifies" a component to specific criteria defined by the program given the mission requirements and the component limitations. This requires interaction at the very initial stages of design between the system design engineer, mechanical engineer, subsystem engineer and the component hardware engineer. Although this is the desired interaction what typically occurs is that the subsystem engineer asks the components or development engineers to meet difficult requirements without knowledge of the current industry situation or the lack of qualification data. This is then passed on to the vendor who can provide little help with such a harsh set of requirements due to high cost of testing for space flight environments. This presentation is designed to guide the engineers of design, development and components, and vendors of commercial components with how to make an efficient and effective qualification test plan with some basic generic information about many space flight requirements. Issues related to the ~ physics of failure, acceptance criteria and lessons learned will also be discussed to assist with understanding how to approach a space flight mission in an ever changing commercial photonics industry.

Ott, Melanie N.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Regulatory Compliance in Multi-Tier Supplier Networks

Over the years, avionics systems have increased in complexity to the point where 1st tier suppliers to an aircraft OEM find it financially beneficial to outsource designs of subsystems to 2nd tier and at times to 3rd tier suppliers. Combined with challenging schedule and budgetary pressures, the environment in which safety-critical systems are being developed introduces new hurdles for regulatory agencies and industry. This new environment of both complex systems and tiered development has raised concerns in the ability of the designers to ensure safety considerations are fully addressed throughout the tier levels. This has also raised questions about the sufficiency of current regulatory guidance to ensure: proper flow down of safety awareness, avionics application understanding at the lower tiers, OEM and 1st tier oversight practices, and capabilities of lower tier suppliers. Therefore, NASA established a research project to address Regulatory Compliance in a Multi-tier Supplier Network. This research was divided into three major study efforts: 1. Describe Modern Multi-tier Avionics Development 2. Identify Current Issues in Achieving Safety and Regulatory Compliance 3. Short-term/Long-term Recommendations Toward Higher Assurance Confidence This report presents our findings of the risks, weaknesses, and our recommendations. It also includes a collection of industry-identified risks, an assessment of guideline weaknesses related to multi-tier development of complex avionics systems, and a postulation of potential modifications to guidelines to close the identified risks and weaknesses.

Goossen, Emray R.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Environmental Assurance Program for the Phoenix Mars Mission

The Phoenix Mars mission involves delivering a stationary science lander on to the surface of Mars in the polar region within the latitude band 65 deg N to 72 deg N. Its primary objective is to perform in-situ and remote sensing investigations that will characterize the chemistry of the materials at the local surface, subsurface, and atmosphere. The Phoenix spacecraft was launched on August 4, 2007 and will arrive at Mars in May 2008. The lander includes a suite of seven (7) science instruments. This mission is baselined for up to 90 sols (Martian days) of digging, sampling, and analysis. Operating at the Mars polar region creates a challenging environment for the Phoenix landed subsystems and instruments with Mars surface temperature extremes between -120 deg C to 25 deg C and diurnal thermal cycling in excess of 145 deg C. Some engineering and science hardware inside the lander were qualification tested up to 80 deg C to account for self heating. Furthermore, many of the hardware for this mission were inherited from earlier missions: the lander from the Mars Surveyor Program 2001 (MSP'01) and instruments from the MSP'01 and the Mars Polar Lander. Ensuring all the hardware was properly qualified and flight acceptance tested to meet the environments for this mission required defining and implementing an environmental assurance program that included a detailed heritage review coupled with tailored flight acceptance testing. A heritage review process with defined acceptance success criteria was developed and is presented in this paper together with the lessons learned in its implementation. This paper also provides a detailed description of the environmental assurance program of the Phoenix Mars mission. This program includes assembly/subsystem and system level testing in the areas of dynamics, thermal, and electromagnetic compatibility, as well as venting/pressure, dust, radiation, and meteoroid analyses to meet the challenging environment of this mission.

thermal testing↗
NASA NTRS2010

Facilitating NASA's Use of GEIA-STD-0005-1, Performance Standard for Aerospace and High Performance Electronic Systems Containing Lead-Free Solder

GEIA-STD-0005-1 defines the objectives of, and requirements for, documenting processes that assure customers and regulatory agencies that AHP electronic systems containing lead-free solder, piece parts, and boards will satisfy the applicable requirements for performance, reliability, airworthiness, safety, and certify-ability throughout the specified life of performance. It communicates requirements for a Lead-Free Control Plan (LFCP) to assist suppliers in the development of their own Plans. The Plan documents the Plan Owner's (supplier's) processes, that assure their customer, and all other stakeholders that the Plan owner's products will continue to meet their requirements. The presentation reviews quality assurance requirements traceability and LFCP template instructions.

Plante, Jeannete↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study

To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.

Rarick, Heather L.↗
NASA NTRS2001

The Living with a Star Program: NASA's Role in Assuring Performance in Space and Atmospheric Environments

NASA has initiated the Living with a Star (LWS) Program to develop the scientific understanding to address the aspects of the Connected Sun-Earth system that affect life and society. A goal of the program is to bridge the gap between science, engineering, and user application communities. This will enable future science, operational, and commercial objectives in space and atmospheric environments by improving engineering approaches to the accommodation and/or mitigation of the effects of solar variability on technological systems. A pre-formulation study determined the optimum combination of science missions, modeling, and technology infusion elements to accomplish this goal. The results of the study are described.

Barth, Janet L.↗