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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Application of Risk Informed Decision Making to a Highly Reliable Three-Dimensionally Woven Thermal Protection System for Mars Sample Return

The NASA Risk Informed Decision Making process is used to assess a trade space of three dimensionally woven thermal protection systems for application to the Mars Sample Return Earth Entry Vehicle. Candidate architectures are assessed based on mission assurance, technical development, cost, and schedule risk. Assessment methodology differed between the architectures, utilizing a four-point quantitative scale for mission assurance and technical development and highly tailored PERT techniques for cost and schedule. Risk results are presented, in addition to a review of RIDM effectiveness for this application.

Needels, J.↗
NASA NTRS1966

New developments in NASA quality assurance

The purpose of this talk is to examine and discuss NASA's basic quality concept, the policy and procedures which define and implement this concept and subsequently explore the NASA-Industry quality relationships which are essential to the success of NASA's quality assurance concept. It is important to emphasize that NASA's Quality Assurance program is predicated on the concept of an individually tailored quality program for each significant NASA procurement - particularly, large space systems. As a result, NASA's Quality Assurance program - to be effective - must be responsive to various technologies, hardware systems, and space missions. In addition, the program must be responsive to changing policies and practices in research, engineering and procurement. Key issues in the NASA-Contractor quality relationships in the framework of an over all NASA-Industry partnership include: (1) the necessity for NASA to effectively discharge its responsibility for providing clear and complete definition of quality requirements at all phases of the procurement cycle; (2) the right of the contractor to expect an explicit definition of NASA quality requirements in each RFP and contract and to request same if it is not provided; (3) the necessity for the contractor to have a dynamic and responsive quality program which is directed towards assuring that the hardware meets all technical requirements and to accomplish this in an effective and efficient manner; and (4) the critical need for investigation and study of the economic aspects of quality and an evaluation of our policies and practices based upon the results of such a study.

Condon, John E.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Agile Approach to Assuring the Safety-Critical Embedded Software for NASA's Orion Spacecraft

Human-rated missions like NASA's Exploration Mission - 1 (EM-1) and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle are becoming exceedingly complex in terms of software's contribution to achieving mission objectives. The increasing complexity and inherent safety critical nature of the embedded flight software imposes a unique resource challenge to assurance providers responsible for affirming that the mission is going to fly safely. Another challenge NASA and other Government agencies are facing is that more and more software is being developed using an agile development methodology, which is divergent from the typical waterfall, iterative, and incremental development methodologies assurance providers generally observe in the development of safety-critical embedded software. Orion Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) has addressed these challenges by providing focused assurance results of critical mission capabilities prioritized by a dynamic assessment of risk level. Prior to this approach, Orion IV&V evaluated areas of risk in much broader, and more static, terms. Due to the agile software development life cycle that Orion follows, IV&V findings were often reported months out of phase with the developer thereby imposing increased rework costs. As a result of evolving the approach to adding assurance on Orion, IV&V is able to incrementally deliver high-priority assurance conclusions and more impactful issues more in phase with the developer activities, thereby increasing the value of the findings to the project. The agile IV&V approach employed by the Orion IV&V team strives to achieve a cadence of delivery that matches the pace of development. This agile approach provides increased flexibility for the assurance provider to become more efficient in reporting assurance conclusions and issues. This paper and presentation will discuss the principles which drive the design of our approach, results to date, and stimulate thinking for groups looking to add assurance to software being developed using an agile methodology.

Justin Smith↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance Integration - the Future of Safe Deep Space Human Exploration

As a foundational element of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis Campaign, the Gateway is an incrementally built cislunar spacecraft that will serve as a platform for deep space human exploration, science, and technology demonstration. The Gateway will be a unifying catalyst for international partners around the world to establish sustained deep space scientific investigations, lunar surface access, and missions to Mars. As human exploration moves farther away from Earth, spacecraft designs must prioritize and optimize mass and volume allocations, while minimizing human and spacecraft risk. To accomplish this objective, the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance functions develop, implement, and ensure compliance with requirements, in concert with the accurate characterization and transparent communication of residual hazard risks, for integrated safety, reliability and maintainability and quality assurance. Safety and Mission Assurance was a key contributor during Gateway program pre-formulation and formulation activities where safety and reliability analysis was embedded in the Gateway Systems Engineering and Integration team. During these early program stages, a preliminary Gateway Integrated Hazard Analysis and Preliminary Gateway Probabilistic Risk Assessment assisted in Gateway architectural and operational definition as part of a risk-informed design process. As the deep space architecture has matured, the integrated Safety and Mission Assurance analyses have matured, new safety review processes have been developed, and requirements have been refined to ensure compliance with integrated safety and mission assurance objectives. The Gateway Program is currently concluding the preliminary design review informed milestone, where the primary objectives included: - Ensured completeness and consistency of the preliminary design, including the meeting of all requirements within appropriate margins and acceptable risk posture. - Identification of any major issues moving forward to the Critical Design phase. At this milestone, Safety and Mission Assurance provided numerous products, including Gateway Top Risks and Risk Mitigation Plans, updated integrated hazard analyses, updated probabilistic risk assessment, Crew Survival Analysis Report, and updated Safety and Mission Assurance Requirements and Plans. These products provide a many-faceted perspective on the inherent risk and available mitigations involved in flying the current proposed vehicle design and anticipated stack configurations. In addition, Safety and Mission Assurance identified top technical, process and workforce concerns to be addressed as the program progresses toward the critical design phase. This paper will detail the evolution of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance integration functions, provide its current status and lessons learned for future human spaceflight programs. Throughout this paper the key tenets of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance will be discussed: - Application of a risk-informed approach to identify and mitigate areas of highest risk. - Leverage of valuable processes and lessons learned from earlier spaceflight programs. - Development of Safety and Mission Assurance products to inform design risk trades. - Utilization of common Safety and Mission Assurance practices to identify safety risks for multiple perspectives: top-down, bottom-up, and across lines of integration. - Approval of safety hazards at the appropriate level of authority, keeping most deliberation closest to design expertise and elevating risks of greatest concern for program-level consideration. - Championing of Safety and Mission Assurance processes and forums to foster a pervasive safety culture that is transparent, inclusive, and collaborative between all partners. These tenets have allowed the Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance function to play a key role in optimized vehicle design evolution, and early identification and mitigation of Gateway program and Artemis mission risk.

Helen Vaccaro↗
NASA NTRS1979

Safety considerations in the design and operation of large wind turbines

The engineering and safety techniques used to assure the reliable and safe operation of large wind turbine generators utilizing the Mod 2 Wind Turbine System Program as an example is described. The techniques involve a careful definition of the wind turbine's natural and operating environments, use of proven structural design criteria and analysis techniques, an evaluation of potential failure modes and hazards, and use of a fail safe and redundant component engineering philosophy. The role of an effective quality assurance program, tailored to specific hardware criticality, and the checkout and validation program developed to assure system integrity are described.

Reilly, D. H.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Influence of Design Variations on Systems Performance

High-risk aerospace components have to meet very stringent quality, performance, and safety requirements. Any source of variation is a concern, as it may result in scrap or rework. poor performance, and potentially unsafe flying conditions. The sources of variation during product development, including design, manufacturing, and assembly, and during operation are shown. Sources of static and dynamic variation during development need to be detected accurately in order to prevent failure when the components are placed in operation. The Systems' Health and Safety (SHAS) research at the NASA Ames Research Center addresses the problem of detecting and evaluating the statistical variation in helicopter transmissions. In this work, we focus on the variations caused by design, manufacturing, and assembly of these components, prior to being placed in operation (DMV). In particular, we aim to understand and represent the failure and variation information, and their correlation to performance and safety and feed this information back into the development cycle at an early stage. The feedback of such critical information will assure the development of more reliable components with less rework and scrap. Variations during design and manufacturing are a common source of concern in the development and production of such components. Accounting for these variations, especially those that have the potential to affect performance, is accomplished in a variety ways, including Taguchi methods, FMEA, quality control, statistical process control, and variation risk management. In this work, we start with the assumption that any of these variations can be represented mathematically, and accounted for by using analytical tools incorporating these mathematical representations. In this paper, we concentrate on variations that are introduced during design. Variations introduced during manufacturing are investigated in parallel work.

Tumer, Irem Y.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Taking the Risk Out of Risk Assessment

The ability to understand risks and have the right strategies in place when risky events occur is essential in the workplace. More and more organizations are being confronted with concerns over how to measure their risks or what kind of risks they can take when certain events transpire that could have a negative impact. NASA is one organization that faces these challenges on a daily basis, as effective risk management is critical to the success of its missions especially the Space Shuttle missions. On July 29, 1996, former NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin charged NASA s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance with developing a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) tool to support decisions on the funding of Space Shuttle upgrades. When issuing the directive, Goldin said, "Since I came to NASA [in 1992], we've spent billions of dollars on Shuttle upgrades without knowing how much they improve safety. I want a tool to help base upgrade decisions on risk." Work on the PRA tool began immediately. The resulting prototype, the Quantitative Risk Assessment System (QRAS) Version 1.0, was jointly developed by NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center, its Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, and researchers at the University of Maryland. QRAS software automatically expands the reliability logic models of systems to evaluate the probability of highly detrimental outcomes occurring in complex systems that are subject to potential accident scenarios. Even in its earliest forms, QRAS was used to begin PRA modeling of the Space Shuttle. In parallel, the development of QRAS continued, with the goal of making it a world-class tool, one that was especially suited to NASA s unique needs. From the beginning, an important conceptual goal in the development of QRAS was for it to help bridge the gap between the professional risk analyst and the design engineer. In the past, only the professional risk analyst could perform, modify, use, and perhaps even adequately understand PRA. NASA wanted to change this by developing a PRA tool that would be friendlier, more understandable, and more useful to the broader engineering community. This concept ultimately led to the look, feel, and functionality that QRAS has today.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2025

Safety Assurance of Software and Machine Learning Development for Nuclear Instrumentation and Controls

Digital instrumentation and control (DI&C) systems monitor and control parameters in nuclear power plants. Ensuring their safety is a critical part of ensuring overall plant safety. Nuclear power plant licensing generates thousands of safety documents that could be organized more effectively using a safety assurance case (SAC). We conducted a literature survey of SACs and created a SAC framework for DI&C software using Goal Structuring Notation (GSN). This framework focuses on four software development processes: management & assurance, pre-developed software (PDS) qualification, the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), and the Machine Learning Development Life Cycle (MLDLC). We organized our framework using a novel level structure that can be applied to other SACs to improve their clarity. Finally, we demonstrate how our framework can be incorporated as part of a SAC for a larger reactor system.

46 - INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AN↗
NASA NTRS2017

Technology and Tool Development to Support Safety and Mission Assurance

The Assurance Case approach is being adopted in a number of safety-mission-critical application domains in the U.S., e.g., medical devices, defense aviation, automotive systems, and, lately, civil aviation. This paradigm refocuses traditional, process-based approaches to assurance on demonstrating explicitly stated assurance goals, emphasizing the use of structured rationale, and concrete product-based evidence as the means for providing justified confidence that systems and software are fit for purpose in safely achieving mission objectives. NASA has also been embracing assurance cases through the concepts of Risk Informed Safety Cases (RISCs), as documented in the NASA System Safety Handbook, and Objective Hierarchies (OHs) as put forth by the Agency's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA). This talk will give an overview of the work being performed by the SGT team located at NASA Ames Research Center, in developing technologies and tools to engineer and apply assurance cases in customer projects pertaining to aviation safety. We elaborate how our Assurance Case Automation Toolset (AdvoCATE) has not only extended the state-of-the-art in assurance case research, but also demonstrated its practical utility. We have successfully developed safety assurance cases for a number of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operations, which underwent, and passed, scrutiny both by the aviation regulator, i.e., the FAA, as well as the applicable NASA boards for airworthiness and flight safety, flight readiness, and mission readiness. We discuss our efforts in expanding AdvoCATE capabilities to support RISCs and OHs under a project recently funded by OSMA under its Software Assurance Research Program. Finally, we speculate on the applicability of our innovations beyond aviation safety to such endeavors as robotic, and human spaceflight.

Mission Assuranc↗
NASA NTRS1989

Middeck Active Control Experiment (MACE), phase A

A rationale to determine which structural experiments are sufficient to verify the design of structures employing Controlled Structures Technology was derived. A survey of proposed NASA missions was undertaken to identify candidate test articles for use in the Middeck Active Control Experiment (MACE). The survey revealed that potential test articles could be classified into one of three roles: development, demonstration, and qualification, depending on the maturity of the technology and the mission the structure must fulfill. A set of criteria was derived that allowed determination of which role a potential test article must fulfill. A review of the capabilities and limitations of the STS middeck was conducted. A reference design for the MACE test article was presented. Computing requirements for running typical closed-loop controllers was determined, and various computer configurations were studied. The various components required to manufacture the structure were identified. A management plan was established for the remainder of the program experiment development, flight and ground systems development, and integration to the carrier. Procedures for configuration control, fiscal control, and safety, reliabilty, and quality assurance were developed.

Crawley, Edward F.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Implementation of Ferroelectric Memories for Space Applications

Ferroelectric random access semiconductor memories (FeRAMs) are an ideal nonvolatile solution for space applications. These memories have low power performance, high endurance and fast write times. By combining commercial ferroelectric memory technology with radiation hardened CMOS technology, nonvolatile semiconductor memories for space applications can be attained. Of the few radiation hardened semiconductor manufacturers, none have embraced the development of radiation hardened FeRAMs, due a limited commercial space market and funding limitations. Government funding may be necessary to assure the development of radiation hardened ferroelectric memories for space applications.

Philpy, Stephen C.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Systems Engineering and Assurance Modeling (SEAM): A Web-Based Solution for Integrated Mission Assurance

We present an overview of the Systems Engineering and Assurance Modeling (SEAM) platform, a web-browser-based tool which is designed to help engineers evaluate the radiation vulnerabilities and develop an assurance approach for electronic parts in space systems. The SEAM framework consists of three interconnected modeling tools, a SysML compatible system description tool, a Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) visual argument tool, and Bayesian Net and Fault Tree extraction and export tools. The SysML and GSN sections also have a coverage check application that ensures that every radiation fault identified on the SysML side is also addressed in the assurance case in GSN. The SEAM platform works on space systems of any degree of radiation hardness but is especially helpful for assessing radiation performance in systems with commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronic components.

SEAM↗
NASA NTRS2004

Development and Evaluation of an Airborne Separation Assurance System for Autonomous Aircraft Operations

NASA Langley Research Center is developing an Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP) that functions as an Airborne Separation Assurance System for autonomous flight operations. This development effort supports NASA s Distributed Air-Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM) operational concept, designed to significantly increase capacity of the national airspace system, while maintaining safety. Autonomous aircraft pilots use the AOP to maintain traffic separation from other autonomous aircraft and managed aircraft flying under today's Instrument Flight Rules, while maintaining traffic flow management constraints assigned by Air Traffic Service Providers. AOP is designed to facilitate eventual implementation through careful modeling of its operational environment, interfaces with other aircraft systems and data links, and conformance with established flight deck conventions and human factors guidelines. AOP uses currently available or anticipated data exchanged over modeled Arinc 429 data buses and an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast 1090 MHz link. It provides pilots with conflict detection, prevention, and resolution functions and works with the Flight Management System to maintain assigned traffic flow management constraints. The AOP design has been enhanced over the course of several experiments conducted at NASA Langley and is being prepared for an upcoming Joint Air/Ground Simulation with NASA Ames Research Center.

Barhydt, Richard↗
NASA NTRS2021

Modernizing NASA’s Space Flight Safety and Mission Success (S&MS) Assurance Framework In Line With Evolving Acquisition Strategies and Systems Engineering Practices

This paper presents the objectives-driven, case-based safety and mission success (S&MS) assurance framework being developed by the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA), including its motivations and its implementation via a S&MS Assurance Standard that is under development, supplemented by supporting standards including an S&MS Analysis Management Standard that is also under development. A need to evolve NASA’s S&MS assurance framework has emerged in recent years, resulting from the need to accommodate new acquisition models; the need to accommodate evolving systems engineering (SE) practices; the need to stipulate acceptable levels of S&MS risk; the need for improved integration of S&MS into SE; and the need for clearer risk acceptance accountability. The objectives-driven, case-based S&MS assurance framework proposed here is responsive to that need. Its key features include: • The establishment, by NASA Acquirers, of fundamental S&MS performance objectives that define limits of acceptability for the likelihoods that mission technical objectives will be accomplished and that people, assets, and environments put at risk by the mission will not be adversely affected; • The development and approval of Providers’ S&MS plans for meeting Acquirers’ S&MS performance objectives, including commitments to support Acquirer audit, investigation, and reporting needs; • The development, by Providers, of S&MS assurance cases that argue, supported by evidence, that the Provider has met, or is on track to meeting, the fundamental S&MS objectives; • The evaluation, throughout the program/project life cycle, of Provider S&MS assurance cases as the primary S&MS-related technical basis for Acquirer risk acceptance and the granting to the Provider of authority to proceed through the program/project life cycle. This proposed S&MS assurance framework is notable for its lack of prescription of traditional S&MS requirements and strategies such as defined failure tolerances, margins, or analysis requirements. Instead, Providers are given latitude to propose their own strategies for meeting the fundamental S&MS performance objectives, subject to independent review and Acquirer approval. The result is a framework for S&MS assurance that is at once both rigorous and flexible.

Assurance Case↗