Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk quantification”

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 NTRS2011

Analogs and the BHP Risk Reduction Strategy for Future Spaceflight Missions

In preparation for future exploration missions to distant destinations (e.g., Moon, Near Earth Objects (NEO), and Mars), the NASA Human Research Program s (HRP) Behavioral Health and Performance Element (BHP) conducts and supports research to address four human health risks: Risk of Behavioral Conditions; Risk of Psychiatric Conditions; Risk of Performance Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team; and Risk of Performance Errors due to Sleep Loss, Fatigue, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload (HRP Science Management Plan, 2008). BHP Research, in collaboration with internal and external research investigators, as well as subject matter experts within NASA operations including flight surgeons, astronauts, and mission planners and others within the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD), identifies knowledge and technology gaps within each Risk. BHP Research subsequently manages and conducts research tasks to address and close the gaps, either through risk assessment and quantification, or the development of countermeasures and monitoring technologies. The resulting deliverables, in many instances, also support current Medical Operations and/or Mission Operations for the International Space Station (ISS).

Whitmire, Sandra↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Standard measures in Analogs of Spaceflight

Standard measures are defined as research measures (physiological, performance, or otherwise) that quantify the subject’s health and performance before, during, and after a spaceflight or a spaceflight analog mission. The Standard Measures Cross-Cutting Project (SMCCP) collects and analyzes standard measures that support assessment and quantification of health risks and efficacy of countermeasures and technologies required to prevent or mitigate adverse outcomes from exposure to the spaceflight environment. SMCCP uses the following spaceflight analogs: - Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) in Houston, TX: 4-person isolation/confinement; nominal mission duration of 45 days; run by the Human Research Program (HRP). SMCCP uses weekly questionnaires to gather data on the crewmembers’ emotional and mental state and collects blood samples biweekly to measure crewmembers’ serum cortisol levels at the start, middle, and end of the mission. - Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP) Ground-Based Experimental Complex, called NEK, in Moscow, Russia: 6-person isolation/confinement; duration of 8 months; run by IBMP. Standard measures data collected during NEK are the same as for HERA above. - :envihab in Cologne, Germany: 12-person bed rest facility; closed environment; 30 to 60-day campaigns; run by the German Aerospace Center (DLR). For bedrest studies, SMCCP uses the international standard measures as documented in the International Academy of Astronautics publication titled Guidelines for Standardization of Bed Rest Studies in the Spaceflight Context (June 2014). These international standard measures evaluate potential changes in bone, muscle, cardiovascular, and visual systems, as well as changes in psychology and nutrition. The international standard measures complement those collected during studies by individual investigators and allow comparison of responses across different bed rest and countermeasures durations. In this presentation, we will review available SMCCP data collected during the recent isolation studies in HERA (C6) and NEK (SIRIUS-21), and during the SANS (SM1, SM2) bed rest studies in :envihab. These standard measures datasets are made available to concurrent investigators in the given mission or campaign via data sharing agreements and/or data sharing plans and to other investigators that have been granted retrospective access to the data (researchers with IRB approved protocols, risk custodians) to advance understanding of physiological and behavioral risks associated with these spaceflight analogs.

Standard Measures↗
NASA NTRS2019

The Missing Economic Risks in Assessments of Climate Change Impacts

Economic assessments of the potential future risks of climate change have been omitting or grossly underestimating many of the most serious consequences for lives and livelihoods because these risks are difficult to quantify precisely and lie outside of human experience. Political and business leaders need to understand the scale of these ‘missing risks’ because they could have drastic and potentially catastrophic impacts on citizens, communities and companies. Scientists are growing in confidence about the evidence for the largest potential impacts of climate change and the rising probability that major thresholds in the Earth’s climate system will be breached as global mean surface temperature rises, particularly if warming exceeds 2°C above the pre-industrial level. These impacts include: (1) Destabilisation of ice sheets and glaciers and consequent sea level rise. (2) Stronger tropical cyclones. (3) Extreme heat impacts. (4) More frequent and intense floods and droughts. (5) Disruptions to oceanic and atmospheric circulation. (6) Destruction of biodiversity and collapse of ecosystems. Many of these impacts will grow and occur concurrently across the world as global temperature climbs. Some of these impacts involve thresholds in the climate system beyond which major impacts accelerate, or become irreversible and unstoppable. When a threshold is breached, it might cause one or more other thresholds to be exceeded as well, leading to a cascade of impacts. Many of these impacts could exceed the capacity of human populations to adapt, and would significantly affect and disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people worldwide. These impacts would also undermine economic growth and development, exacerbate poverty and destabilise communities. Economic assessments fail to take account of the potential for large concurrent impacts across the world that would cause mass migration, displacement and conflict, with huge loss of life. Economic assessments that are expressed solely in terms of effects on output (e.g. gross domestic product), or that only extrapolate from past experience, or that use inappropriate discounting, do not provide a clear indication of the potential risks to lives and livelihoods. It is likely that there are additional risks that we are not yet anticipating simply because scientists have not yet detected their possibility, as we have entered a period of climate change that is unprecedented in human history. Some advances are being made in improving economic assessments of climate change impacts but much more progress is required if assessments are to offer reliable guidance for political and business leaders on the biggest risks. The lack of firm quantifications is not a reason to ignore these risks, and when the missing risks are taken into account, the case for strong and urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions becomes even more compelling.

DeFries, Ruth↗
DOE OSTI2025

An Approach to Automate tools for the Risk Assessment of Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems

Reliable digital instrumentation and control systems (DI&C) are integral for sustaining the continued operation of nuclear power plants. These systems ensure that nuclear reactors operate safely, efficiently, and within regulatory requirements. Yet, the cost of designing and licensing new nuclear DI&C can be prohibitively expensive. Under the U.S. Department of Energy Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program, Idaho National Laboratory has developed a framework for supporting the risk-informed design of DI&C systems by offering methods to support the identification, quantification, and evaluation of risks for various DI&C design architectures. The framework indicates potential software failure modes and provides pathways for quantifying the potential for these software failures, including common cause failures. Using the framework’s systematic approach, challenges for assessing risks within new and existing nuclear DI&C systems can be reduced. Nevertheless, the current framework can be further improved using the convenience of automation. This paper introduces the development of Software for the Hazard Identification and Evaluation of Digital Systems (SHIELDS). SHIELDS is an engineering software package that enables the identification, elimination, and mitigation of potential risks and reduces the burden of deploying reliable DI&C systems. This work introduces plans and techniques to digitize and improve the manual risk assessment modules of the framework. These improvements will save time and increase the repeatability and usability of the framework, making it more accessible to a wider range of users. Ultimately, this introduces SHIELDS and how its modules support efficient development of safe and reliable DI&C systems.

46 - INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Advances in Modeling Capabilities for Critical Mineral Separation Technologies: A PrOMMiS Overview

This is an oral presentation at the TechConnect conference on the work developed by PrOMMiS. PrOMMiS builds on and extends capabilities developed within the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Institute for the Design of Advanced Energy Systems (IDAES), Integrated Platform, and Water Treatment Technoeconomic Assessment Platform (WaterTAP), which have been successfully leveraged by other Department of Energy research areas. The open-source toolkit facilitates validation, reproducibility, and accountability, allowing for easy extension of the framework to other systems. This talk presents an overview of the PrOMMiS capabilities, including unit model library, advances in thermophysical properties models, and capital cost libraries for simulation and optimization of mineral processing technologies. The PrOMMiS applications include (1) conceptual design and superstructure optimization for screening different process configurations and identifying promising technologies; (2) dynamic modeling and optimization to enable the creation of digital twins; (3) surrogate modeling tools to leverage data when predictive thermodynamic models are not currently available; (4) technical risk reduction via uncertainty quantification and robust optimization to identify process designs that are robust to process variability and uncertainties; and (5) deployment of uncertainty quantification tools to maximize knowledge gained from experimental campaigns, while reducing the number of experiments required

critical minerals and materials↗
NASA NTRS2011

Understanding Pre-Quantitative Risk in Projects

Standard approaches to risk management in projects depend on the ability of teams to identify risks and quantify the probabilities and consequences of these risks (e.g., the 5 x 5 risk matrix). However, long before quantification does - or even can - occur, and long after, teams make decisions based on their pre-quantitative understanding of risk. These decisions can have long-lasting impacts on the project. While significant research has looked at the process of how to quantify risk, our understanding of how teams conceive of and manage pre-quantitative risk is lacking. This paper introduces the concept of pre-quantitative risk and discusses the implications of addressing pre-quantitative risk in projects.

risk levels.↗
NASA NTRS2017

A Probabilistic Asteroid Impact Risk Model

Asteroid threat assessment requires the quantification of both the impact likelihood and resulting consequence across the range of possible events. This paper presents a probabilistic asteroid impact risk (PAIR) assessment model developed for this purpose. The model incorporates published impact frequency rates with state-of-the-art consequence assessment tools, applied within a Monte Carlo framework that generates sets of impact scenarios from uncertain parameter distributions. Explicit treatment of atmospheric entry is included to produce energy deposition rates that account for the effects of thermal ablation and object fragmentation. These energy deposition rates are used to model the resulting ground damage, and affected populations are computed for the sampled impact locations. The results for each scenario are aggregated into a distribution of potential outcomes that reflect the range of uncertain impact parameters, population densities, and strike probabilities. As an illustration of the utility of the PAIR model, the results are used to address the question of what minimum size asteroid constitutes a threat to the population. To answer this question, complete distributions of results are combined with a hypothetical risk tolerance posture to provide the minimum size, given sets of initial assumptions. Model outputs demonstrate how such questions can be answered and provide a means for interpreting the effect that input assumptions and uncertainty can have on final risk-based decisions. Model results can be used to prioritize investments to gain knowledge in critical areas or, conversely, to identify areas where additional data has little effect on the metrics of interest.

Asteroid↗
NASA NTRS2016

Towards a Methodology and Tooling for Model-Based Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

A Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) aims to identify and assess potential risks to system technical performance requirements for the purpose of furnishing risk insights into project decisions. PRAs have traditionally been conducted manually using software with an isolated data model. As system complexity rises it becomes difficult to ensure consistency between a PRA, the evolving system design, and other engineering analyses; the techniques for conducting PRAs must evolve to meet this challenge. This work presents progress towards a methodology and tooling for conducting a PRA by leveraging data in the system model, embedded for other purposes and analyses, to conduct a PRA. An approach for identifying the appropriate probabilistic equation for each risk scenario from a standard library is presented, which is a significant step towards the quantification of the likelihood of a risk scenario occurrence. The final calculation of the likelihood of occurrence is left as an item of future work. We also present the development of preliminary tooling to carry out the methodology on a well-formed system model. The information needed to conduct the PRA is embedded in a consistent manner in a system model, so the model-based PRA can be regularly executed as the system model changes. The ability to modify the PRA in concert with lifecycle evolution affords a project the opportunity to track the extent to which system modification impacts compliance with requirements. These aspects of this model-based PRA methodology make it capable of managing risk in increasingly complex technical systems.

Schreiner, Samuel S.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek A Whitman↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek Whitman↗
NASA NTRS1985

Space Station Power System Advanced Development

The objectives of the Space Station Advanced Development Program are related to the development of a set of design options and/or new capabilities to support Space Station development and operation, taking into account also a quantification of the performance and risk of key state-of-the-art technologies, and a reduction of the cost and schedule risk in Space Station development. Attention is given to the photovoltaic power system, a solar dynamic system, and aspects of power management and distribution. A major issue will be the selection of the power generation system. In view of the advantages of the solar dynamic system, it is attempted to resolve issues associated with this system.

Forestieri, A. F.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Advanced Supersonic Parachute Inflation Research Experiment Preflight Trajectory Modeling and Postflight Reconstruction

The Advanced Supersonic Parachute Inflation Research and Experiments (ASPIRE) was a series of sounding rocket flights aimed at understanding the dynamics of supersonic parachutes that are used for Mars robotic applications. The 2012 Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) had a successful deployment of a supersonic parachute, but based on post-flight analysis of parachute margins, the ASPIRE project was created as a risk-reduction program to improve quantification of these margins and qualify a supersonic parachute for Mars 2020, the follow-on mission to MSL. The first sounding rocket (SR01) flight of ASPIRE occurred near Wallops Island, Virginia on Oct. 4, 2017 and demonstrated the successful deployment and inflation of a MSL build-to-print parachute in flight conditions similar to the 2012 MSL mission. The ASPIRE SR02 and SR03 were successful follow-on flights on Mar. 31, 2018 and Sep. 7, 2018 that demonstrated the new, strengthened supersonic parachute designed for the Mars 2020 project. The SR02 and SR03 parachuteswere targeted to 100% and 140% of the expected flight limit load for Mars 2020 to confirm new margins expected from the strengthened parachute. Prior to all flights, a multi-body flight dynamics simulation was developed to predict the parachute dynamics and was used, in conjunction with other tools, to target Mars-relevant flight conditions. After each flight, the on-board data were used to reconstruct the flight trajectory and to validate the pre-flight dynamics simulation. Post-flight analysis showed that all three tests achieved their targeted conditions and pre-flight modeling bounded the key performance metrics for the parachute. This paper describes the flight mechanics simulation, post-flight reconstruction, and the reconciliation process used to validate the flight models.

Soumyo Dutta↗
NASA NTRS2012

Technical Evaluation of the NASA Model for Cancer Risk to Astronauts Due to Space Radiation

At the request of NASA, the National Research Council's (NRC's) Committee for Evaluation of Space Radiation Cancer Risk Model1 reviewed a number of changes that NASA proposes to make to its model for estimating the risk of radiation-induced cancer in astronauts. The NASA model in current use was last updated in 2005, and the proposed model would incorporate recent research directed at improving the quantification and understanding of the health risks posed by the space radiation environment. NASA's proposed model is defined by the 2011 NASA report Space Radiation Cancer Risk Projections and Uncertainties--2010 . The committee's evaluation is based primarily on this source, which is referred to hereafter as the 2011 NASA report, with mention of specific sections or tables. The overall process for estimating cancer risks due to low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation exposure has been fully described in reports by a number of organizations. The approaches described in the reports from all of these expert groups are quite similar. NASA's proposed space radiation cancer risk assessment model calculates, as its main output, age- and gender-specific risk of exposure-induced death (REID) for use in the estimation of mission and astronaut-specific cancer risk. The model also calculates the associated uncertainties in REID. The general approach for estimating risk and uncertainty in the proposed model is broadly similar to that used for the current (2005) NASA model and is based on recommendations by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. However, NASA's proposed model has significant changes with respect to the following: the integration of new findings and methods into its components by taking into account newer epidemiological data and analyses, new radiobiological data indicating that quality factors differ for leukemia and solid cancers, an improved method for specifying quality factors in terms of radiation track structure concepts as opposed to the previous approach based on linear energy transfer, the development of a new solar particle event (SPE) model, and the updates to galactic cosmic ray (GCR) and shielding transport models. The newer epidemiological information includes updates to the cancer incidence rates from the life span study (LSS) of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, transferred to the U.S. population and converted to cancer mortality rates from U.S. population statistics. In addition, the proposed model provides an alternative analysis applicable to lifetime never-smokers (NSs). Details of the uncertainty analysis in the model have also been updated and revised. NASA's proposed model and associated uncertainties are complex in their formulation and as such require a very clear and precise set of descriptions. The committee found the 2011 NASA report challenging to review largely because of the lack of clarity in the model descriptions and derivation of the various parameters used. The committee requested some clarifications from NASA throughout its review and was able to resolve many, but not all, of the ambiguities in the written description.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2012

Technical Evaluation of the NASA Model for Cancer Risk to Astronauts Due to Space Radiation

At the request of NASA, the National Research Council's (NRC's) Committee for Evaluation of Space Radiation Cancer Risk Model reviewed a number of changes that NASA proposes to make to its model for estimating the risk of radiation-induced cancer in astronauts. The NASA model in current use was last updated in 2005, and the proposed model would incorporate recent research directed at improving the quantification and understanding of the health risks posed by the space radiation environment. NASA's proposed model is defined by the 2011 NASA report Space Radiation Cancer Risk Projections and Uncertainties 2010 (Cucinotta et al., 2011). The committee's evaluation is based primarily on this source, which is referred to hereafter as the 2011 NASA report, with mention of specific sections or tables cited more formally as Cucinotta et al. (2011). The overall process for estimating cancer risks due to low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation exposure has been fully described in reports by a number of organizations. They include, more recently: (1) The "BEIR VII Phase 2" report from the NRC's Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) (NRC, 2006); (2) Studies of Radiation and Cancer from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR, 2006), (3) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), ICRP Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007); and (4) The Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA s) report EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population (EPA, 2011). The approaches described in the reports from all of these expert groups are quite similar. NASA's proposed space radiation cancer risk assessment model calculates, as its main output, age- and gender-specific risk of exposure-induced death (REID) for use in the estimation of mission and astronaut-specific cancer risk. The model also calculates the associated uncertainties in REID. The general approach for estimating risk and uncertainty in the proposed model is broadly similar to that used for the current (2005) NASA model and is based on recommendations by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP, 2000, 2006). However, NASA's proposed model has significant changes with respect to the following: the integration of new findings and methods into its components by taking into account newer epidemiological data and analyses, new radiobiological data indicating that quality factors differ for leukemia and solid cancers, an improved method for specifying quality factors in terms of radiation track structure concepts as opposed to the previous approach based on linear energy transfer, the development of a new solar particle event (SPE) model, and the updates to galactic cosmic ray (GCR) and shielding transport models. The newer epidemiological information includes updates to the cancer incidence rates from the life span study (LSS) of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors (Preston et al., 2007), transferred to the U.S. population and converted to cancer mortality rates from U.S. population statistics. In addition, the proposed model provides an alternative analysis applicable to lifetime never-smokers (NSs). Details of the uncertainty analysis in the model have also been updated and revised. NASA's proposed model and associated uncertainties are complex in their formulation and as such require a very clear and precise set of descriptions. The committee found the 2011 NASA report challenging to review largely because of the lack of clarity in the model descriptions and derivation of the various parameters used. The committee requested some clarifications from NASA throughout its review and was able to resolve many, but not all, of the ambiguities in the written description.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

Uncertainties in estimates of the risks of late effects from space radiation

Methods used to project risks in low-Earth orbit are of questionable merit for exploration missions because of the limited radiobiology data and knowledge of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) heavy ions, which causes estimates of the risk of late effects to be highly uncertain. 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. Using the linear-additivity model for radiation risks, we use Monte-Carlo sampling from subjective uncertainty distributions in each factor to obtain an estimate of the overall uncertainty in risk projections. The resulting methodology is applied to several human space exploration mission scenarios including a deep space outpost and Mars missions of duration of 360, 660, and 1000 days. The major results are the quantification of the uncertainties in current risk estimates, the identification of factors that dominate risk projection uncertainties, and the development of a method to quantify candidate approaches to reduce uncertainties or mitigate risks. The large uncertainties in GCR risk projections lead to probability distributions of risk that mask any potential risk reduction using the "optimization" of shielding materials or configurations. In contrast, the design of shielding optimization approaches for solar particle events and trapped protons can be made at this time and promising technologies can be shown to have merit using our approach. The methods used also make it possible to express risk management objectives in terms of quantitative metrics, e.g., the number of days in space without exceeding a given risk level within well-defined confidence limits. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of COSPAR.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS2002

Uncertainties in Estimates of the Risks of Late Effects from Space Radiation

The health risks faced by astronauts from space radiation include cancer, cataracts, hereditary effects, and non-cancer morbidity and mortality risks related to the diseases of the old age. Methods used to project risks in low-Earth orbit are of questionable merit for exploration missions because of the limited radiobiology data and knowledge of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) heavy ions, which causes estimates of the risk of late effects to be highly uncertain. 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. Within the linear-additivity model, we use Monte-Carlo sampling from subjective uncertainty distributions in each factor to obtain a Maximum Likelihood estimate of the overall uncertainty in risk projections. The resulting methodology is applied to several human space exploration mission scenarios including ISS, lunar station, deep space outpost, and Mar's missions of duration of 360, 660, and 1000 days. The major results are the quantification of the uncertainties in current risk estimates, the identification of factors that dominate risk projection uncertainties, and the development of a method to quantify candidate approaches to reduce uncertainties or mitigate risks. The large uncertainties in GCR risk projections lead to probability distributions of risk that mask any potential risk reduction using the "optimization" of shielding materials or configurations. In contrast, the design of shielding optimization approaches for solar particle events and trapped protons can be made at this time, and promising technologies can be shown to have merit using our approach. The methods used also make it possible to express risk management objectives in terms of quantitative objective's, i.e., the number of days in space without exceeding a given risk level within well defined confidence limits.

Cucinotta, F. A.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Quantifying Cybersecurity Risk for NASA Missions

An end-to-end cyber risk assessment process is presented that is based on the combination of guidelines from the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), the standard 5x5 risk matrix, and quantitative methods for generating loss exceedance curves. The NIST guidelines provide a framework for cyber risk assessment, and the standard 5x5 matrix is widely used across the industry for the representation of risk across multiple disciplines. Loss exceedance curves are a means of quantitatively assessing the loss that occurs due to a given risk profile. Combining these different techniques enables us to follow the guidelines, adhere to standard 5x5 risk management practices and develop quantitative metrics simultaneously. Our quantification process is based on the consideration of the NASA and JPL Cost Risk assessment modeling techniques as we define the cost associated with the cybersecurity risk profile of a mission as a function of the mission cost.

Miller, Robert L.↗