Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk Management Space Projects”

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

Learning Lessons from the X-37 Project

The X-37 was planned as an automated vehicle capable of flight-testing new aerospace technologies in combined environments that are beyond the capability of existing ground or flight platforms. Flight demonstration with the X-37 architecture and configuration in relevant environments was planned to reduce the risk of developing launch vehicle technologies for sustainable, affordable exploration and other aerospace applications. Current plans are for the X-37 Approach and Landing Test Vehicle (ALTV) to be atmospheric tested in 2005 from Scaled Composite's White Knight carrier aircraft at up to 40,000 feet over California's Mojave Spaceport, with and turnaround maintenance performed. The fight Operations Control Center will conduct the mission, using a streamlined operations concept. Taxi-tow and captive-carry tests will be conducted prior to the atmospheric-test series. Sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) with NASA participation, technical objectives are to: (1) mature Computed Air Data System/Remote Pressure Sensor technology, (2) manage energy during Terminal Area Energy Management/Heading Alignment Cone maneuvers, and (3) validate the aerodatabase. The X-37 Project began in 1999 under a cooperative agreement as an element of NASA's Future X Program and transitioned to a NASA Research Announcement under the Space Launch Initiative. In mid-2004, NASA transferred ownership to DARPA, with its heritage of performing high-risk, high-payoff research and development. NASA contributes technical expertise, including risk analysis and system integration. The Boeing Company is the prime contractor, with nationwide suppliers. This recent partnership exemplifies the synergy attainable when NASA Centers, other Government agencies, and industry work together toward a common goal - contributing to the knowledge base for U.S. exploration and other aerospace endeavors. The X-37 team represents a range of space transportation disciplines - from engineering to management. Some members have been with the project since its inception. All have gained priceless experience during the design, manufacturing, and testing of the ALTV, as well as through developing advanced orbital flight technologies, such as state-of-the-art Thermal Protection Systems and hot structures. Throughout this process, the X-37 Project team captures lessons that are directly applicable to other such efforts. The upcoming ALTV flights offer another dimension of data and first-hand experience that will prove invaluable to those designing new generations of reusable spacecraft. And ongoing technology developments will expand the aerospace knowledge base. Delivering prototype hardware is always a risky proposition. During the course of the X-37 effort, the team has experienced many challenging opportunities, delivering significant accomplishments and learning numerous lessons in the process. The ability to manage the risk landscape is key to overcoming obstacles, especially technical hurdles that are encountered in progressing hardware from design to flight. The approach to managing risk under this partnership is evolving but, in general, the team allocates resources to reduce the likelihood of severe-consequence risks, thus maximizing mission success and ensuring that the X-37 Project delivers value to its stakeholders. As the team sharpens its focus on operations, it continues to contribute knowledge to those who would undertake high-risk, high-payoff research and development and provides valuable experience to implement the exploration vision.

Turner, Susan↗

Human Factors in Training

Future space missions will be significantly longer than current shuttle missions and new systems will be more complex than current systems. Increasing communication delays between crews and Earth-based support means that astronauts need to be prepared to handle the unexpected on their own. As crews become more autonomous, their potential span of control and required expertise must grow to match their autonomy. It is not possible to train for every eventuality ahead of time on the ground, or to maintain trained skills across long intervals of disuse. To adequately prepare NASA personnel for these challenges, new training approaches, methodologies, and tools are required. This research project aims at developing these training capabilities. By researching established training principles, examining future needs, and by using current practices in space flight training as test beds, both in Flight Controller and Crew Medical domains, this research project is mitigating program risks and generating templates and requirements to meet future training needs. Training efforts in Fiscal Year 08 (FY08) strongly focused on crew medical training, but also began exploring how Space Flight Resource Management training for Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Flight Controllers could be integrated with systems training for optimal Mission Control Center (MCC) operations. The Training Task addresses Program risks that lie at the intersection of the following three risks identified by the Project: (1) Risk associated with poor task design (2) Risk of error due to inadequate information (3) Risk associated with reduced safety and efficiency due to poor human factors design

Barshi, Immanuel↗

Human Factors in Training

Future space missions will be significantly longer than current shuttle missions and new systems will be more complex than current systems. Increasing communication delays between crews and Earth-based support means that astronauts need to be prepared to handle the unexpected on their own. As crews become more autonomous, their potential span of control and required expertise must grow to match their autonomy. It is not possible to train for every eventuality ahead of time on the ground, or to maintain trained skills across long intervals of disuse. To adequately prepare NASA personnel for these challenges, new training approaches, methodologies, and tools are required. This research project aims at developing these training capabilities. By researching established training principles, examining future needs, and by using current practices in space flight training as test beds, both in Flight Controller and Crew Medical domains, this research project is mitigating program risks and generating templates and requirements to meet future training needs. Training efforts in Fiscal Year 09 (FY09) strongly focused on crew medical training, but also began exploring how Space Flight Resource Management training for Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Flight Controllers could be integrated with systems training for optimal Mission Control Center (MCC) operations. The Training Task addresses Program risks that lie at the intersection of the following three risks identified by the Project: 1) Risk associated with poor task design; 2) Risk of error due to inadequate information; and 3) Risk associated with reduced safety and efficiency due to poor human factors design.

Barshi, Immanuel↗

Life Sciences Centrifuge Facility assessment

This report provides an assessment of the status of the Centrifuge Facility being developed by ARC for flight on the International Space Station Alpha. The assessment includes technical status, schedules, budgets, project management, performance of facility relative to science requirements, and identifies risks and issues that need to be considered in future development activities.

Benson, Robert H.↗

Management of Service Projects in Support of Space Flight Research

Goal:To provide human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration . [HRP-47051] Specific Objectives: 1) Develop capabilities, necessary countermeasures, and technologies in support of human space exploration, focusing on mitigating the highest risks to human health and performance. 2) Define and improve human spaceflight medical, environmental, and human factors standards. 3) Develop technologies that serve to reduce medical and environmental risks, to reduce human systems resource requirements (mass, volume, power, data, etc.) and to ensure effective human-system integration across exploration systems. 4) Ensure maintenance of Agency core competencies necessary to enable risk reduction in the following areas: A. Space medicine B. Physiological and behavioral effects of long duration spaceflight on the human body C. Space environmental effects, including radiation, on human health and performance D. Space "human factors" [HRP-47051]. Service projects can form integral parts of research-based project-focused programs to provide specialized functions. Traditional/classic project management methodologies and agile approaches are not mutually exclusive paradigms. Agile strategies can be combined with traditional methods and applied in the management of service projects functioning in changing environments. Creative collaborations afford a mechanism for mitigation of constrained resource limitations.

Love, J.↗

Heritage Systems Engineering Lessons from NASA Deep Space Missions

In the design and development of complex spacecraft missions, project teams frequently assume the use of advanced technology systems or heritage systems to enable a mission or reduce the overall mission risk and cost. As projects proceed through the development life cycle, increasingly detailed knowledge of the advanced and heritage systems within the spacecraft and mission environment identifies unanticipated technical issues. Resolving these issues often results in cost overruns and schedule impacts. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery & New Frontiers (D&NF) Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays for 5 missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that optimistic hardware/software inheritance and technology readiness assumptions caused cost and schedule growth for all five missions studied. The cost and schedule growth was not found to be the result of technical hurdles requiring significant technology development. The projects institutional inheritance and technology readiness processes appear to adequately assess technology viability and prevent technical issues from impacting the final mission success. However, the processes do not appear to identify critical issues early enough in the design cycle to ensure project schedules and estimated costs address the inherent risks. In general, the overruns were traceable to: an inadequate understanding of the heritage system s behavior within the proposed spacecraft design and mission environment; an insufficient level of development experience with the heritage system; or an inadequate scoping of the systemwide impacts necessary to implement an advanced technology for space flight applications. The paper summarizes the study s lessons learned in more detail and offers suggestions for improving the project s ability to identify and manage the technology and heritage risks inherent in the design solution.

Barley, Bryan↗

Heritage and Advanced Technology Systems Engineering Lessons Learned from NASA Deep Space Missions

In the design and development of complex spacecraft missions, project teams frequently assume the use of advanced technology systems or heritage systems to enable a mission or reduce the overall mission risk and cost. As projects proceed through the development life cycle, increasingly detailed knowledge of the advanced and heritage systems within the spacecraft and mission environment identifies unanticipated technical issues. Resolving these issues often results in cost overruns and schedule impacts. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery & New Frontiers (D&NF) Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays for 5 missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that optimistic hardware/software inheritance and technology readiness assumptions caused cost and schedule growth for four of the five missions studied. The cost and schedule growth was not found to result from technical hurdles requiring significant technology development. The projects institutional inheritance and technology readiness processes appear to adequately assess technology viability and prevent technical issues from impacting the final mission success. However, the processes do not appear to identify critical issues early enough in the design cycle to ensure project schedules and estimated costs address the inherent risks. In general, the overruns were traceable to: an inadequate understanding of the heritage system s behavior within the proposed spacecraft design and mission environment; an insufficient level of development experience with the heritage system; or an inadequate scoping of the system-wide impacts necessary to implement an advanced technology for space flight applications. The paper summarizes the study's lessons learned in more detail and offers suggestions for improving the project's ability to identify and manage the technology and heritage risks inherent in the design solution.

Barley, Bryan↗

Implementing an Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Approach to Safety and Mission Success at NASA

NASA is developing a “Standard for Assurance of Space Flight Safety and Mission Success” that implements an objectives-driven, risk-informed, and case-assured approach to safety and mission success (S&MS) for NASA space flight programs and projects. The standard aligns with the philosophy of risk leadership that has recently been established in NASA policy to assure acceptable levels of flight crew safety and mission success risk. It is consistent with existing NASA risk management requirements and is compatible with NASA program management and systems engineering requirements. The methodology described in the standard is presented in terms of an S&MS assurance framework that is designed to allow substantial flexibility in the specific means by which programs and projects achieve acceptable mission S&MS risk. Such flexibility is necessary to accommodate the increasingly broad range of acquisition strategies employed by NASA, including commercial transportation services, as well as to accommodate the increasingly rapid evolution of space flight-related technologies and practices. A key feature of the S&MS assurance framework is the specification of S&MS success criteria for each life-cycle review (LCR). The S&MS assurance case is structured around these criteria, the satisfaction of which indicates that the program/project is adhering to the S&MS risk posture. This enables the evolving S&MS assurance case to be used as a fundamental program/project submittal at each LCR, where its inherent structure of argument, supported by evidence, directly supports the evaluation of the program/project with respect to the S&MS success criteria, and by extension, the S&MS risk posture. As such, the S&MS assurance case is integral to program/project systems engineering, risk management, and S&MS oversight activities, and provides the principal basis for S&MS risk acceptance by the Decision Authority throughout the program/project life cycle.

Risk Posture↗

An Integrated Platform for Mission Performance: Goddard Space Flight Center's Meta Information System

Successful management of NASA Goddard Space Flight Centers portfolio of mission projects (i.e. spacecraft, spacecraft instruments / subsystems, and ground systems) depends upon numerous processes, data and information resources coming together throughout the life-cycle of the projects to enable sound decision-making, risk reduction, conformance with requirements and continual improvement. In the summer of 2012, GSFC SMA management recognized that the set of legacy data systems used to support the SMA mission and responsibilities at GSFC were not effective, integrated nor on par with best practices. Accordingly, GSFC SMA management launched a project to transform the GSFC electronic management system to create and deploy an integrated, state-of-the-market information system for process performance, data management and analytics that is currently operating in support of GSFC overall mission performance. The information system, known as Meta, provides controlled, process-based applications, integrated data management, and analytics for a robust set of integrated applications. Since the inception of the project, a lean, award-winning SMA project team has thus far designed, configured and managed the system to serve as an integrated platform for 18 applications that support key processes for GSFC and the Science Mission Directorate at NASA headquarters, such as internal Management System assessments, Supplier Assessments, Supplier Research & Analysis, Problem Reporting for in-house mission projects, On-orbit Anomaly Reporting for GSFC-operated spacecraft, GSFC Project Life-Cycle Reviews, Risk Management and Reporting, and SMA Project Team Reporting. The system has experienced steady growth in utilization with 1,917 users (NASA employees and support contractor personnel) and 44 gigabytes of data and related files managed by the system as of the end of April 2018. Overall, Meta has achieved increasing levels of process management and real-time data / information integration to enable improved process performance, richer analytics and informed decision-making. This paper will present and examine the need, goals, approach and design driving the management and operation of the Meta information system and its ongoing growth as an integrated platform for advancing NASA mission performance.

Integration↗

Project Interface Requirements Process Including Shuttle Lessons Learned

Most failures occur at interfaces between organizations and hardware. Processing interface requirements at the start of a project life cycle will reduce the likelihood of costly interface changes/failures later. This can be done by adding Interface Control Documents (ICDs) to the Project top level drawing tree, providing technical direction to the Projects for interface requirements, and by funding the interface requirements function directly from the Project Manager's office. The interface requirements function within the Project Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) Office would work in-line with the project element design engineers early in the life cycle to enhance communications and negotiate technical issues between the elements. This function would work as the technical arm of the Project Manager to help ensure that the Project cost, schedule, and risk objectives can be met during the Life Cycle. Some ICD Lessons Learned during the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) Life Cycle will include the use of hardware interface photos in the ICD, progressive life cycle design certification by analysis, test, & operations experience, assigning interface design engineers to Element Interface (EI) and Project technical panels, and linking interface design drawings with project build drawings

Bauch, Garland T.↗

Space Radiation Cancer Risks

Space radiation presents major challenges to astronauts on the International Space Station and for future missions to the Earth s moon or Mars. Methods used to project risks on Earth need to be modified because of the large uncertainties in projecting cancer risks from space radiation, and thus impact safety factors. We describe NASA s unique approach to radiation safety that applies uncertainty based criteria within the occupational health program for astronauts: The two terrestrial criteria of a point estimate of maximum acceptable level of risk and application of the principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) are supplemented by a third requirement that protects against risk projection uncertainties using the upper 95% confidence level (CL) in the radiation cancer projection model. NASA s acceptable level of risk for ISS and their new lunar program have been set at the point-estimate of a 3-percent risk of exposure induced death (REID). Tissue-averaged organ dose-equivalents are combined with age at exposure and gender-dependent risk coefficients to project the cumulative occupational radiation risks incurred by astronauts. The 95% CL criteria in practice is a stronger criterion than ALARA, but not an absolute cut-off as is applied to a point projection of a 3% REID. We describe the most recent astronaut dose limits, and present a historical review of astronaut organ doses estimates from the Mercury through the current ISS program, and future projections for lunar and Mars missions. NASA s 95% CL criteria is linked to a vibrant ground based radiobiology program investigating the radiobiology of high-energy protons and heavy ions. The near-term goal of research is new knowledge leading to the reduction of uncertainties in projection models. Risk projections involve a product of many biological and physical factors, each of which has a differential range of uncertainty due to lack of data and knowledge. The current model for projecting space radiation cancer risk relies on the three assumptions of linearity, additivity, and scaling along with the use of population averages. We describe uncertainty estimates for this model, and new experimental data that sheds light on the accuracy of the underlying assumptions. These methods make it possible to express risk management objectives in terms of quantitative metrics, i.e., the number of days in space without exceeding a given risk level within well defined confidence limits. The resulting methodology is applied to several human space exploration mission scenarios including lunar station, deep space outpost, and a Mars mission. Factors that dominate risk projection uncertainties and application of this approach to assess candidate mitigation approaches are described.

Cucinotta, Francis A.↗

The New Millenium Program: Serving Earth and Space Sciences

NASA has exciting plans for space science and Earth observations during the next decade. A broad range of advanced spacecraft and measurement technologies will be needed to support these plans within the existing budget and schedule constraints. Many of these technology needs are common to both NASA's Office of Earth Science (OES) and Office of Space Sciences (OSS). Even though some breakthrough technologies have been identified to address these needs, project managers have traditionally been reluctant to incorporate them into flight programs because their inherent development risk. To accelerate the infusion of new technologies into its OES and OSS missions, NASA established the New Millennium Program (NMP). This program analyzes the capability needs of these enterprises, identifies candidate technologies to address these needs, incorporates advanced technology suites into validation flights, validates them in the relevant space environment, and then proactively infuses the validated technologies into future missions to enhance their capabilities while reducing their life cycle cost. The NMP employs a cross-enterprise Science Working Group, the NASA Enterprise science and technology roadmaps to define the capabilities needed by future Earth and Space science missions. Additional input from the science community is gathered through open workshops and peer-reviewed NASA Research Announcement (NRAs) for advanced measurement concepts. Technology development inputs from the technology organizations within NASA, other government agencies, federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC's), U.S. industry, and academia are sought to identify breakthrough technologies that might address these needs. This approach significantly extends NASA's technology infrastructure. To complement other flight test programs that develop or validate of individual components, the NMP places its highest priority on system-level validations of technology suites in the relevant space environment. This approach is not needed for all technologies, but it is usually essential to validate advanced system architectures or new measurement concepts. The NMP has recently revised its processes for defining candidate validation flights, and selecting technologies for these flights. The NMP now employs integrated project formulation teams, 'Which include scientists, technologists, and mission planners, to incorporate technology suites into candidate validation flights. These teams develop competing concepts, which can be rigorously evaluated prior to selection for flight. The technology providers for each concept are selected through an open, competitive, process during the project formulation phase. If their concept is selected for flight, they are incorporated into the Project Implementation Team, which develops, integrates, tests, launches, and operates the technology validation flight. Throughout the project implementation phase, the Implementation Team will document and disseminate their validation results to facilitate the infusion of their validated technologies into future OSS and OES science missions. The NMP has successfully launched its first two Deep Space flights for the OSS, and is currently implementing its first two Earth Orbiting flights for the OES. The next OSS and OES flights are currently being defined. Even though these flights are focused on specific Space Science and Earth Science themes, they are designed to validate a range of technologies that could benefit both enterprises, including advanced propulsion, communications, autonomous operations and navigation, multifunctional structures, microelectronics, and advanced instruments. Specific examples of these technologies will be provided in our presentation. The processes developed by the NMP also provide benefits across the Space and Earth Science enterprises. In particular, the extensive, nation-wide technology infrastructure developed by the NMP enhances the access to breakthrough technologies for both enterprises.

Li, Fuk K.↗

Airborne Spacing for Terminal Arrival Routes (ASTAR) Proof-of-Concept Flight Test

The Airborne Spacing for Terminal Arrival Routes (ASTAR) Flight Test was conducted by the NASA Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration – 1 (ATD- 1) project to demonstrate the use of NASA’s ASTAR algorithm beyond a simulated environment and assess the operational risks of performing a multi-aircraft flight test of Flight-deck Interval Management (FIM). Utilizing contemporary tools of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) such as ADS-B, the ASTAR algorithm calculated speeds that the flight crew flew to achieve a precise spacing interval behind another aircraft at the final approach fix. Airspeed commands issued by the algorithm were flown by the flight crew of the FIM-equipped aircraft to achieve or maintain an assigned spacing goal from a target vehicle. The ASTAR algorithm was integrated with the Boeing supplied B-787 ecoDemonstrator aircraft, and five flight trials were conducted as a joint effort between NASA and Boeing on December 12, 2014. Initial results indicated arrival times within several seconds of accuracy of the planned termination point between two aircraft performing FIM in a real world environment. This flight test opened the way for the much more expansive ATD-1 Avionics Phase II flight test which occurred in early 2017. The flight trials under Phase II preceded further testing by the community in preparation for inclusion of the Interval Management concept as a part of the NextGen environment.

Roper, Roy D.↗

Business Intelligence Modeling in Launch Operations

This technology project is to advance an integrated Planning and Management Simulation Model for evaluation of risks, costs, and reliability of launch systems from Earth to Orbit for Space Exploration. The approach builds on research done in the NASA ARC/KSC developed Virtual Test Bed (VTB) to integrate architectural, operations process, and mission simulations for the purpose of evaluating enterprise level strategies to reduce cost, improve systems operability, and reduce mission risks. The objectives are to understand the interdependency of architecture and process on recurring launch cost of operations, provide management a tool for assessing systems safety and dependability versus cost, and leverage lessons learned and empirical models from Shuttle and International Space Station to validate models applied to Exploration. The systems-of-systems concept is built to balance the conflicting objectives of safety, reliability, and process strategy in order to achieve long term sustainability. A planning and analysis test bed is needed for evaluation of enterprise level options and strategies for transit and launch systems as well as surface and orbital systems. This environment can also support agency simulation .based acquisition process objectives. The technology development approach is based on the collaborative effort set forth in the VTB's integrating operations. process models, systems and environment models, and cost models as a comprehensive disciplined enterprise analysis environment. Significant emphasis is being placed on adapting root cause from existing Shuttle operations to exploration. Technical challenges include cost model validation, integration of parametric models with discrete event process and systems simulations. and large-scale simulation integration. The enterprise architecture is required for coherent integration of systems models. It will also require a plan for evolution over the life of the program. The proposed technology will produce long-term benefits in support of the NASA objectives for simulation based acquisition, will improve the ability to assess architectural options verses safety/risk for future exploration systems, and will facilitate incorporation of operability as a systems design consideration, reducing overall life cycle cost for future systems. The future of business intelligence of space exploration will focus on the intelligent system-of-systems real-time enterprise. In present business intelligence, a number of technologies that are most relevant to space exploration are experiencing the greatest change. Emerging patterns of set of processes rather than organizational units leading to end-to-end automation is becoming a major objective of enterprise information technology. The cost element is a leading factor of future exploration systems.

Bardina, Jorge E.↗

Knowledge, People, and Risk

NASA's mandate is to take risks to got into space while applying its best knowledge. NASA's knowledge is the result of scientific insights from research, engineering wisdom from experience, project management skills, safety and team consciousness and institutional support and collaboration. This presentation highlights NASA's organizational knowledge, communication and growth efforts.

Rogers, Edward W.↗

A Holistic Approach for Risk Management During Design

In this paper, an approach for the identification, assessment, mitigation and continuous management of risks during the process of designing a space mission is presented. This approach has been developed by observing the risk patterns that occur at the Project Design Center of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (TeamX) which develops conceptual, concurrent design of Space Missions. TeamX develops an end-to-end conceptual design of a Space Mission in a matter of one or two weeks. As the risk chair in TeamX, the author has had the opportunity to observe the risk patterns that occur during design over the course of many design sessions. This paper introduces an abstraction and generalization of those patterns. Risk is defined as anything that can go wrong, along with its approximate likelihood and consequence. The indicators, and causes, and effects of these risks are cross cutting across the multiple levels of people and processes involved in the design, and the actual design product itself.

reliability analysis↗

Shuttle Propulsion System Major Events and the Final 22 Flights

Numerous lessons have been documented from the Space Shuttle Propulsion elements. Major events include loss of the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB's) on STS-4 and shutdown of a Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) during ascent on STS-51F. On STS-112 only half the pyrotechnics fired during release of the vehicle from the launch pad, a testament for redundancy. STS-91 exhibited freezing of a main combustion chamber pressure measurement and on STS-93 nozzle tube ruptures necessitated a low liquid level oxygen cut off of the main engines. A number of on pad aborts were experienced during the early program resulting in delays. And the two accidents, STS-51L and STS-107, had unique heritage in history from early program decisions and vehicle configuration. Following STS-51L significant resources were invested in developing fundamental physical understanding of solid rocket motor environments and material system behavior. And following STS-107, the risk of ascent debris was better characterized and controlled. Situational awareness during all mission phases improved, and the management team instituted effective risk assessment practices. The last 22 flights of the Space Shuttle, following the Columbia accident, were characterized by remarkable improvement in safety and reliability. Numerous problems were solved in addition to reduction of the ascent debris hazard. The Shuttle system, though not as operable as envisioned in the 1970's, successfully assembled the International Space Station (ISS). By the end of the program, the remarkable Space Shuttle Propulsion system achieved very high performance, was largely reusable, exhibited high reliability, and was a heavy lift earth to orbit propulsion system. During the program a number of project management and engineering processes were implemented and improved. Technical performance, schedule accountability, cost control, and risk management were effectively managed and implemented. Award fee contracting was implemented to provide performance incentives. The Certification of Flight Readiness and Mission Management processes became very effective. A key to the success of the propulsion element projects was related to relationships between the MSFC project office and support organizations with their counterpart contractor organizations. The teams worked diligently to understand and satisfy requirements and achieve mission success.

Owen, James W.↗

Modeling NASA’s Procedural Requirement Processes - Implications for Digital Future

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has an ongoing Digital Transformation effort and to leverage and showcase the power of Digital Transformation, an effort is underway to develop an integrated, datacentric, model representing NASA’s key process requirements. The task was divided into three phases: As Is modeling, Analysis, and To Be Planning. As part of this effort, a team has completed the first Phase I of the modeling task and is nearing completion of the second phase. This effort will capture the key elements as requirements, responsibilities, allocations, roles, products, and associated lifecycle elements. The scope of modeling included NASA’s NPR 7120.5 (Project and Program Management), NPR 7123.1 (Systems Engineering) and NPRs 8705.2 (Risk classification for Robotic Missions) and 8705.4 (Human-Rating Requirements for Space Missions). This paper will summarize the approach, scope, parsing patterns applied, metamodel, and associated workflows for the As-Is modeling. It will also summarize the results and insights gleaned during that phase, including the review process. These insights have informed the analysis and will be discussed. The analysis modeling phase will also be summarized including how the stakeholders were engaged, how the common elements were handled and dispositioned, and will also describe some of the plans for the future of NASA NPDs and NPRs.

Systems Engineering↗