Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “risk informed design”

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 NTRS2025

Functional Task Tests in Partial Gravity During Parabolic Flight

BACKGROUND Understanding how critical mission tasks are performed in partial gravity such as on the moon or Mars is necessary to define effective and comprehensive countermeasure strategies for preserving crew performance during exploration missions. We studied the performance of tasks such as standing, balancing, walking, and jumping during the partial gravity phases of parabolic flight. We hypothesized that the acute effects of partial gravity on vestibular, proprioceptive, and sensorimotor functions would negatively impact performance. METHODS Twelve subjects (6F, 6M; 40.2 ± 8.5 years) were tested over three flights of 30 parabolas each, including 10 parabolas at 0.25g, 10 parabolas at 0.5g, and 10 parabolas at 0.75g. Subjects also performed tests in 1g between parabolas. During the seat egress and walk task, subjects rose from a seated position and walked as quickly as possible straight ahead towards a cone (4 m distance), stepped over a 30 cm high obstacle, walked around the cone making a 180° left turn, returned to the chair, and sat down in the chair. Other tasks included a tandem stance on rails, jump down from a 30cm platform, recovery from fall (prone to stand), and limits of stability tasks. Data were collected using inertial measurement units (Opal V2, APDM, Portland, OR) worn on the head and trunk, heart rate monitors (Polar, Finland), and a force plate (Bertec, Columbus, OH). During the jump down and limits of stability tasks, falls were recorded if subjects took extra steps, lifted their heels/toes, or used their arms to recover balance. RESULTS Gravity level had a significant effect on performance, with the greatest changes from 1g tending to be at the 0.25g level (Table 1). Lower gravity levels were associated with increased times to complete the seat egress and walk task and the recovery from fall task, increased head-trunk coordination, decreased tandem stance rail balance times, decreased change in heart rate during the recovery from fall task, and increased cone of stability distance in the anterior-posterior direction. In addition, there were significantly more falls recorded at the lower gravity levels: 31 falls at 0.25g, 14 falls at 0.5g, 6 falls at 0.75g, and 6 falls at 1g. DISCUSSION These data suggest that there is a dose-response relationship between gravity level and functional task performance. The largest changes in performance were expected at the lowest gravity level (0.25g) because subjects would no longer be able to use the gravitational reference for the perception of upright. Understanding the extent of performance deficits informs the risks and design of countermeasures for exploration spaceflight missions.

T R Macaulay↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving Quantification of Medical Evacuation Risk for Human Spaceflight in the IMPACT Model

Traditionally, mission planners have used a heuristic and qualitative approach to design medical systems based on prior experience however this approach may result in high variability and implicit bias to design and could put missions and crewmembers at risk. The Informing Mission Planning through Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) tool is a probabilistic risk assessment tool designed by NASA to model medical risk in long duration missions outside of low earth orbit (LEO). This tool can quantify risk metrics such as risk of crewmember death, loss of crew task time, and the need for medical evacuation to better inform and augment the more traditional approach to medical system design. The risk metric of Return to Definitive Care (RTDC) represents the likelihood of requiring medical evacuation and has been difficult to quantify in a reliable and standardized manner. Initial development of the RTDC metric was constrained due to the complexity of a medical evacuation decision and the lack of prior spaceflight data and this presentation will discuss the review and improvement process used to increase model accuracy and fidelity.

Prashant Parmar↗
NASA NTRS2013

PRA and Conceptual Design

Once a project obtains approval, decision makers have to consider a variety of alternative paths for completing the project and meeting the project objectives. How decisions are made involves a variety of elements including: cost, experience, current technology, ideologies, politics, future needs and desires, capabilities, manpower, timing, available information, and for many ventures management needs to assess the elements of risk versus reward. The use of high level Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Models during conceptual design phases provides management with additional information during the decision making process regarding the risk potential for proposed operations and design prototypes. The methodology can be used as a tool to: 1) allow trade studies to compare alternatives based on risk, 2) determine which elements (equipment, process or operational parameters) drives the risk, and 3) provide information to mitigate or eliminate risks early in the conceptual design to lower costs. Creating system models using conceptual design proposals and generic key systems based on what is known today can provide an understanding of the magnitudes of proposed systems and operational risks and facilitates trade study comparisons early in the decision making process. Identifying the "best" way to achieve the desired results is difficult, and generally occurs based on limited information. PRA provides a tool for decision makers to explore how some decisions will affect risk before the project is committed to that path, which can ultimately save time and money.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2013

PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessments) Participation versus Validation

Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs) are performed for projects or programs where the consequences of failure are highly undesirable. PRAs primarily address the level of risk those projects or programs posed during operations. PRAs are often developed after the design has been completed. Design and operational details used to develop models include approved and accepted design information regarding equipment, components, systems and failure data. This methodology basically validates the risk parameters of the project or system design. For high risk or high dollar projects, using PRA methodologies during the design process provides new opportunities to influence the design early in the project life cycle to identify, eliminate or mitigate potential risks. Identifying risk drivers before the design has been set allows the design engineers to understand the inherent risk of their current design and consider potential risk mitigation changes. This can become an iterative process where the PRA model can be used to determine if the mitigation technique is effective in reducing risk. This can result in more efficient and cost effective design changes. PRA methodology can be used to assess the risk of design alternatives and can demonstrate how major design changes or program modifications impact the overall program or project risk. PRA has been used for the last two decades to validate risk predictions and acceptability. Providing risk information which can positively influence final system and equipment design the PRA tool can also participate in design development, providing a safe and cost effective product.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2009

Human Research Program Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (SRP)

The Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (SRP) evaluated 22 gaps and 39 tasks in the three risk areas assigned to the SHFE Project. The area where tasks were best designed to close the gaps and the fewest gaps were left out was the Risk of Reduced Safety and Efficiency dire to Inadequate Design of Vehicle, Environment, Tools or Equipment. The areas where there were more issues with gaps and tasks, including poor or inadequate fit of tasks to gaps and missing gaps, were Risk of Errors due to Poor Task Design and Risk of Error due to Inadequate Information. One risk, the Risk of Errors due to Inappropriate Levels of Trust in Automation, should be added. If astronauts trust automation too much in areas where it should not be trusted, but rather tempered with human judgment and decision making, they will incur errors. Conversely, if they do not trust automation when it should be trusted, as in cases where it can sense aspects of the environment such as radiation levels or distances in space, they will also incur errors. This will be a larger risk when astronauts are less able to rely on human mission control experts and are out of touch, far away, and on their own. The SRP also identified 11 new gaps and five new tasks. Although the SRP had an extremely large quantity of reading material prior to and during the meeting, we still did not feel we had an overview of the activities and tasks the astronauts would be performing in exploration missions. Without a detailed task analysis and taxonomy of activities the humans would be engaged in, we felt it was impossible to know whether the gaps and tasks were really sufficient to insure human safety, performance, and comfort in the exploration missions. The SRP had difficulty evaluating many of the gaps and tasks that were not as quantitative as those related to concrete physical danger such as excessive noise and vibration. Often the research tasks for cognitive risks that accompany poor task or information design addressed only part, but not all, of the gaps they were programmed to fill. In fact the tasks outlined will not close the gap but only scratch the surface in many cases. In other cases, the gap was written too broadly, and really should be restated in a more constrained way that can be addressed by a well-organized and complementary set of tasks. In many cases, the research results should be turned into guidelines for design. However, it was not clear whether the researchers or another group would construct and deliver these guidelines.

Wichansky, Anna↗
NASA NTRS2015

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment - How They Play Together

Since the Space Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, NASA has extensively used probabilistic analysis methods to assess, understand, and communicate the risk of space launch vehicles. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), used in the nuclear industry, is one of the probabilistic analysis methods NASA utilizes to assess Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) risk for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability distributions to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: 1) what can go wrong that would lead to loss or degraded performance (i.e., scenarios involving undesired consequences of interest), 2) how likely is it (probabilities), and 3) what is the severity of the degradation (consequences). Since the Challenger accident, PRA has been used in supporting decisions regarding safety upgrades for launch vehicles. Another area that was given a lot of emphasis at NASA after the Challenger accident is reliability engineering. Reliability engineering has been a critical design function at NASA since the early Apollo days. However, after the Challenger accident, quantitative reliability analysis and reliability predictions were given more scrutiny because of their importance in understanding failure mechanism and quantifying the probability of failure, which are key elements in resolving technical issues, performing design trades, and implementing design improvements. Although PRA and reliability are both probabilistic in nature and, in some cases, use the same tools, they are two different activities. Specifically, reliability engineering is a broad design discipline that deals with loss of function and helps understand failure mechanism and improve component and system design. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment process intended to assess the risk scenarios that could lead to a major/top undesirable system event, and to identify those scenarios that are high-risk drivers. PRA output is critical to support risk informed decisions concerning system design. This paper describes the PRA process and the reliability engineering discipline in detail. It discusses their differences and similarities and how they work together as complementary analyses to support the design and risk assessment processes. Lessons learned, applications, and case studies in both areas are also discussed in the paper to demonstrate and explain these differences and similarities.

Safie, Fayssal↗
NASA NTRS1996

Optical System Design for the Next Generation Space Telescope

This report provides considerations and suggested approaches for design of the Optical Telescope Assembly and the segmented primary mirror of a Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST). Based on prior studies and hardware development, we provide data and design information on low-risk materials and hardware configurations most likely to meet low weight, low temperature and long-life requirements of the nominal 8-meter aperture NGST. We also provide preliminary data for cost and performance trades, and recommendations for technology development and demonstration required to support the system design effort.

Solomon, Leonard H.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Margin Process for a Flexible Thermal Protection System

Atmospheric entry vehicle thermal protection systems are margined due to the uncertainties that exist in entry aeroheating environments and the thermal response of the materials and structures. Entry vehicle thermal protections systems are traditionally over-margined for the heat loads that are experienced along the entry trajectory by designing to survive stacked worst-case scenarios. Additionally, the conventional heat shield design and margin process offers very little insight into the risk of over-temperature during flight and the corresponding reliability of the heat shield performance. A probabilistic margin process can be used to appropriately margin the thermal protection system based on rigorously calculated risk of failure. This probabilistic margin process allows engineers to make informed aeroshell design, entry-trajectory design, and risk trades while preventing excessive margin from being applied. This study presents the methods of the probabilistic margin process and how the uncertainty analysis is used to determine the reliability of the entry vehicle thermal protection system and associated risks of failure.

Tobin, Steven A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Predictive Modeling to Assess and Address Challenges and Limitations Associated with Clinical Care and Decision Support in Deep Space

Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is a method for assessing and integrating the risk of failure in a multivariate system. While it is often applied by engineers designing complex machines, it could also be applied to humans to assess the probability of a health “failure” treating diseases as the multiple “variables” and the human as the “complex machine.” The Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) was developed to apply PRA to assess medical risk for exploration spaceflight and inform the design of medical systems for space flight. The NASA engineering community utilizes event-driven and fault tree probabilistic techniques to classify risk in the space flight environment by leveraging the inherent knowledge of complex space flight system design and testing to quantify risk. However, in harmonizing the risk of human space flight, answering the question of “How do we balance astronaut health, performance and resource risks with other engineering risks on exploration space missions?” remains a profoundly challenging and largely qualitative practice. The Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) is one aspect of the Human Research Program’s efforts to represent space fight human health and performance risks quantitatively.

L Mcintyre↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

PROBABALISTIC RISK ANALYSIS AND THERMAL MARGIN PROCESS FOR AN INFLATABLE AEROSHELL

Atmospheric entry vehicle thermal protection systems (TPS) are margined due to the uncertainties that exist in entry aeroheating environments and the thermal response of the materials and structures. Traditional approaches typically over-margin TPS and offer very little insight into the risk of over-temperature during flight. A probabilistic margin process can be used to apply thermal margin to an aeroshell based on a rigorously calculated risk of failure. This probabilistic margin process allows engineers to make informed aeroshell design, entry-trajectory modifications, and risk trades while preventing excessive margin from being applied. This methodology can also be applied to other TPS applications, hot structures, and other engineering disciplines.

Steven A Tobin↗
NASA NTRS2008

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. Training efforts in FY07 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 operations. Beginning in January 2008, the training research effort will include team training prototypes and tools. 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↗
NASA NTRS2009

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↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sensorimotor Application of Proposed Methods to Combine the Effects of Multiple Countermeasures for PRisM

Risk associated with human systems is challenging to quantify but is critical for the mission planning and decision making required to enable future Lunar and Martian missions. To address this gap, the Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) project is developing an integrated computational model for CHP mission risk. Much like how MEDPRAT is designed to allow medical resource trades informed by medical risk, CHP-PRA will enable analogous trades in human system risks across multiple CHP functions and capabilities. Human performance is one component of the risk intended to be captured by CHP-PRA through the Performance Risk Model (PRisM). The sensorimotor risk area provides a good frame of reference for investigating the structure of a performance model because most tasks that astronauts are expected to perform require input from the sensory system and/or movement/motor control. Additionally, sensorimotor countermeasures are an area of particular concern for NASA’s Human Research Program because of the increased sensorimotor risk associated with surface operations in Lunar and Martian missions. Thus, a tool that can quickly compare risk reductions of potential countermeasures would be beneficial in guiding research and development of effective countermeasures. In this proof of concept, we present a systematic way to combine multiple performance data sets for humans subjected to different countermeasures such that we can predict the countermeasure(s) that optimize astronaut performance on relevant tasks. PRisM assumes that both the tests that are used to measure countermeasure effectiveness (input data) and the tasks we use to represent astronaut performance, can be broken down and represented as a function/vector of the human systems required to perform that test/task. Through mathematical combination, test data are used to predict performance on astronaut tasks that use similar systems. We propose that when combining countermeasures evaluated using the same test, that only one value should be used to represent their combined effectiveness. We start our analysis with the assumption that two countermeasures together will perform better than each countermeasure individually. Our initial implementation of this framework compares various space motion sickness countermeasures and the most up to date analysis will be demonstrated at the IWS.

Caroline R Austin↗
NASA NTRS2010

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↗
NASA NTRS2010

Testing for the J-2X Upper Stage Engine

NASA selected the J-2X Upper Stage Engine in 2006 to power the upper stages of the Ares I crew launch vehicle and the Ares V cargo launch vehicle. Based on the proven Saturn J-2 engine, this new engine will provide 294,000 pounds of thrust and a specific impulse of 448 seconds, making it the most efficient gas generator cycle engine in history. The engine's guiding philosophy emerged from the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) in 2005. Goals established then called for vehicles and components based, where feasible, on proven hardware from the Space Shuttle, commercial, and other programs, to perform the mission and provide an order of magnitude greater safety. Since that time, the team has made unprecedented progress. Ahead of the other elements of the Constellation Program architecture, the team has progressed through System Requirements Review (SRR), System Design Review (SDR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR), and Critical Design Review (CDR). As of February 2010, more than 100,000 development engine parts have been ordered and more than 18,000 delivered. Approximately 1,300 of more than 1,600 engine drawings were released for manufacturing. A major factor in the J-2X development approach to this point is testing operations of heritage J-2 engine hardware and new J-2X components to understand heritage performance, validate computer modeling of development components, mitigate risk early in development, and inform design trades. This testing has been performed both by NASA and its J-2X prime contractor, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR). This body of work increases the likelihood of success as the team prepares for testing the J-2X powerpack and first development engine in calendar 2011. This paper will provide highlights of J-2X testing operations, engine test facilities, development hardware, and plans.

Buzzell, James C.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Wallops Ship Surveillance System

Approved as a Wallops control center backup system, the Wallops Ship Surveillance Software is a day-of-launch risk analysis tool for spaceport activities. The system calculates impact probabilities and displays ship locations relative to boundary lines. It enables rapid analysis of possible flight paths to preclude the need to cancel launches and allow execution of launches in a timely manner. Its design is based on low-cost, large-customer- base elements including personal computers, the Windows operating system, C/C++ object-oriented software, and network interfaces. In conformance with the NASA software safety standard, the system is designed to ensure that it does not falsely report a safe-for-launch condition. To improve the current ship surveillance method, the system is designed to prevent delay of launch under a safe-for-launch condition. A single workstation is designated the controller of the official ship information and the official risk analysis. Copies of this information are shared with other networked workstations. The program design is divided into five subsystems areas: 1. Communication Link -- threads that control the networking of workstations; 2. Contact List -- a thread that controls a list of protected item (ocean vessel) information; 3. Hazard List -- threads that control a list of hazardous item (debris) information and associated risk calculation information; 4. Display -- threads that control operator inputs and screen display outputs; and 5. Archive -- a thread that controls archive file read and write access. Currently, most of the hazard list thread and parts of other threads are being reused as part of a new ship surveillance system, under the SureTrak project.

Smith, Donna C.↗
NASA NTRS1982

State of the art: Design for noise II

Charts relating to helicopter noise reduction design efforts are given. Information regarding priorities, design guidelines, design margins, risks, noise prediction, derivative trends, design impact, and cost impact is given.

Cox, C. R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Prediction of Calcium Oxalate Stone Risk with Interventions

Introduction Mitigations intended to reduce bone mineral loss in-flight also influence the level of renal stone risk to astronauts. Extending a recent study completed by our group [1], we investigate the likely influence of combined fluid intake and Ca excretion mitigation strategies. Methods A computational biochemistry model representing CaOx crystal precipitation, growth, and agglomeration [2] is combined with a probabilistic analysis to predict the in-flight CaOx renal stone incidence risk ratio (IRR) relative to pre-flight values using 1517 astronaut 24-hour urine chemistries. The output of this simulation is used to assess the combined impact of controlling fluid intake and Ca excretion on maintaining IRR < 1.2 for > 95% of the population, a threshold determined from initial analysis of the model output compared to referent populations [1]. Results and Conclusions Figure 1 illustrates the simulated in-flight astronaut population (n=40000) with CaOx IRR > 1.2. The red lines indicate the known clinical risk boundary of each factor, and the white box is considered the area of high combined clinical risk. The simulation and identified risk threshold conform well to the expected clinical risk boundaries. The results, assuming insensible water losses equal or exceed 0.7 L/day, imply mitigations achieve risks similar to pre-flight levels when either Ca < 150 mg/day or fluid volume intake > 3.2 L/day individually, or combined Ca < 200 and fluid volume intake > 2.5 L/day. We continue to investigate similar compounded effects and look to apprise engineering trades by informing relative risk changes during mission design. References [1] D. A. Goodenow-Messman, S. A. Gokoglu, M. Kassemi, and J. Myers, Jerry G., “Characterization of Astronaut CaOx Renal Stone Incidence Rates to Quantify In-flight and Post-flight Relative Risk,” npj Microgravity, in review, 2021. [2] M. Kassemi and D. Thompson, “Prediction of renal crystalline size distributions in space using a PBE analytic model. 1. Effect of microgravity-induced biochemical alterations,” Am. J. Physiol. Physiol., vol. 311, no. 3, pp. F520–F530, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00401.2015.

Debra A Goodenow↗