Results for “CERTIFICATION” — Page 39

NASA NTRS2022

Making or Breaking a Rover- Systems Engineering Parameters On-Board the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

On February 18, 2021, Perseverance, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s) Mars 2020 Rover, successfully landed on Mars with all systems nominal, despite the risk surrounding the over 200,000 internal flight parameters that had to be properly configured. The Perseverance team defines these parameters as software variables that are configurable, commandable and retrievable from Earth. In 2015, the Mars 2020 project leaders focused on improving systems engineering of parameters based on their experiences from parameter management on previous Mars rovers (Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, and Pathfinder) and parameter failures of past missions, such as the mission-ending parameter of the Mars Climate Orbiter. The new rigorous development process allowed for efficient certification and effective implementation of the parameters, allowing the rover to approach and land on the red planet (the most challenging phase of the mission) with zero parameter issues. Although successful, the Perseverance team learned many lessons for how to better manage parameters for the continued surface operations of the Mars 2020 mission and future missions. This paper will discuss eight parameter-management topics for the Perseverance Mission. The first is parameter definition: how we define parameters on our mission, where they are physically located on the vehicle, and why we have so many of them. The second topic is the updated parameter flight software module from Curiosity, including details on the 99% reduction in parameter commands, new bulk configuration capabilities, and improved parameter traceability. The third topic is parameter selection for different mission phases; this includes improving and tweaking our preferred parameter settings until they become certification candidates and managing parameter configurations based on test venue throughout the mission life cycle. The fourth topic is our flight certification process; this includes certification of flight values for four different epochs in the mission: Launch, Entry Decent and Landing (EDL) - 6days, Landing + 5 Sols (Martian Days, still on Cruise Flight Software), and once are on Surface Flight Software (FSW). The fifth topic covers in-flight command implementation, along with details on testing, validation, and verification of those commands. In the sixth section, we will explain our use of open-source management tools, including how we used GitHub for version control and management approvals. The seventh topic will describe the ground tools used in operations, including capabilities of the in-house built tool called Parasol. The eighth and final topic will dig into lessons learned for improving parameter management in the future of this mission and others.

Roth, Brian↗

DOE OSTI2012

NMOG Emissions Characterization and Estimation for Vehicles Using Ethanol-Blended Fuels

Ethanol is a biofuel commonly used in gasoline blends to displace petroleum consumption; its utilization is on the rise in the United States, spurred by the biofuel utilization mandates put in place by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory responsibility to implement the EISA mandates through the promulgation of the Renewable Fuel Standard. EPA has historically mandated an emissions certification fuel specification that calls for ethanol-free fuel, except for the certification of flex-fuel vehicles. However, since the U.S. gasoline marketplace is now virtually saturated with E10, some organizations have suggested that inclusion of ethanol in emissions certification fuels would be appropriate. The test methodologies and calculations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations for gasoline-fueled vehicles have been developed with the presumption that the certification fuel does not contain ethanol; thus, a number of technical issues would require resolution before such a change could be accomplished. This report makes use of the considerable data gathered during the mid-level blends testing program to investigate one such issue: estimation of non-methane organic gas (NMOG) emissions. The data reported in this paper were gathered from over 600 cold-start Federal Test Procedure (FTP) tests conducted on 68 vehicles representing 21 models from model year 2000 to 2009. Most of the vehicles were certified to the Tier-2 emissions standard, but several older Tier-1 and national low emissions vehicle program (NLEV) vehicles were also included in the study. Exhaust speciation shows that ethanol, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde dominate the oxygenated species emissions when ethanol is blended into the test fuel. A set of correlations were developed that are derived from the measured non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions and the ethanol blend level in the fuel. These correlations were applied to the measured NMHC emissions from the mid-level ethanol blends testing program and the results compared against the measured NMOG emissions. The results show that the composite FTP NMOG emissions estimate has an error of 0.0015 g/mile {+-}0.0074 for 95% of the test results. Estimates for the individual phases of the FTP are also presented with similar error levels. A limited number of tests conducted using the LA92, US06, and highway fuel economy test cycles show that the FTP correlation also holds reasonably well for these cycles, though the error level relative to the measured NMOG value increases for NMOG emissions less than 0.010 g/mile.

02 PETROLEUM↗

DOE OSTI2015

Analysis of Vehicle-Based Security Operations

Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications promises to increase roadway safety by providing each vehicle with 360 degree situational awareness of other vehicles in proximity, and by complementing onboard sensors such as radar or camera in detecting imminent crash scenarios. In the United States, approximately three hundred million automobiles could participate in a fully deployed V2V system if Dedicated Short-Range Communication (DSRC) device use becomes mandatory. The system s reliance on continuous communication, however, provides a potential means for unscrupulous persons to transmit false data in an attempt to cause crashes, create traffic congestion, or simply render the system useless. V2V communications must be highly scalable while retaining robust security and privacy preserving features to meet the intra-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication requirements for a growing vehicle population. Oakridge National Research Laboratory is investigating a Vehicle-Based Security System (VBSS) to provide security and privacy for a fully deployed V2V and V2I system. In the VBSS an On-board Unit (OBU) generates short-term certificates and signs Basic Safety Messages (BSM) to preserve privacy and enhance security. This work outlines a potential VBSS structure and its operational concepts; it examines how a vehicle-based system might feasibly provide security and privacy, highlights remaining challenges, and explores potential mitigations to address those challenges. Certificate management alternatives that attempt to meet V2V security and privacy requirements have been examined previously by the research community including privacy-preserving group certificates, shared certificates, and functional encryption. Due to real-world operational constraints, adopting one of these approaches for VBSS V2V communication is difficult. Timely misbehavior detection and revocation are still open problems for any V2V system. We explore the alternative approaches that may be applicable to a VBSS, and suggest some additional research directions in order to find a practical solution that appropriately addresses security and privacy.

Connected Vehicle↗

DOE OSTI2013

The American Board of Radiology Holman Research Pathway: 10-Year Retrospective Review of the Program and Participant Performance

Introduction: In 1999, the American Board of Radiology (ABR) implemented an innovative training program track in diagnostic radiology (DR) and radiation oncology (RO) designed to stimulate development of a cadre of future academic researchers and educators in the 2 disciplines. The program was designated the Holman Research Pathway (HRP). An in-depth retrospective review of initial certification examination performance, post-training career choices, and academic productivity has not been written. This report represents a 10-year retrospective review of post-training performance of a cohort of trainees who have had sufficient time to complete their training and initial certification process and to enter practice. Methods and Materials: All pertinent proceedings of the ABR and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Residency Review Committees for DR and RO between 1997 and May 2011 were reviewed. Thirty-four HRP candidates who fulfilled the established evaluation criteria were identified, and their ABR data files were analyzed regarding performance on the qualifying and certifying examinations. All candidates were contacted directly to obtain a current curriculum vitae. Results: Twenty candidates in RO and 14 candidates in DR were identifiable for review. All candidates attained initial certification. At the time of analysis, 23 of 33 (66.6%) candidates were employed in full-time academic practice (1 DR candidate remained in a fellowship and was not evaluated regarding employment status). Fifteen of 20 (75%) RO candidates were in faculty positions compared with 7 of 13 (53.8%) DR trainees. Additional academic productivity metrics are reported. Conclusions: A high percentage of HRP trainees remained in academic practice and demonstrated significant academic productivity as measured by manuscript authorship and research support. Additional time and observation will be needed to determine whether these findings will be sustained by past, current, and future HRP trainees.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2014

40 years of progress in NDT - History as a guide to the future

The paper is focussed on the progress which has been made over 40 years in the science, technology and application of NDT/NDE both during manufacture and in-service, from the perspective of the author and his background in the energy industries in the UK. New techniques not dreamt of 40 years ago and new technology such as personal computers, lasers and robotics which are now common-place in everyday life have transformed some aspects of NDT. But other aspects have remained unchanged, including the continued use of the more basic NDT methods and the challenges of recruitment, training, certification and motivation of personnel. There have been major changes in the world scene over 40 years including the globalization of trade, the emergence of new countries as industrial powers, and the ageing of safety critical infrastructure. These have impacted on NDT business and on the activities of the international NDT community (including ICNDT, the International Committee for NDT). The paper concludes by introducing the activities championed by ICNDT to promote the understanding of the importance of NDT, to support the development of NDT Societies around the world, to educate users on the correct use of personnel certification and to pursue the objective of global harmonisation and recognition of third party certification.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-01: Introduction

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-02: Development of CAMPEP Standards

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-03: Evaluation of Graduate Programs

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-04: Evaluation of Residency Programs

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-06: Development of ABR Examination Questions

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-07: Panel Discussion

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

Measuring the efficiency of control rods in the RBMK critical assembly using a model of RKI-1 reactimeter

The efficiency of control rods of the RBMK critical assembly is measured in a series of experiments. The aim of measurements is to determine the characteristics of the model of an RKI-1 reactimeter. The RKI-1 reactimeter is intended for measuring the efficiency of control rods when, according to conditions of operation, the metrological certification of results of an experiment is required. Complications with the metrological certification of reactimeters arise owing to the fact that usually calculated corrections to the results of measurements are required. When the RKI-1 reactimeter is used, there is no need to introduce calculated corrections; the result of measurements is given with the indication of substantiated errors. In connection with this, the metrological certification of the results of measurements using the RKI-1 reactimeter is simplified.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

NASA NTRS2014

Preparing GMAT for Operational Maneuver Planning of the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE)

The General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) is an open-source space mission design, analysis and trajectory optimization tool. GMAT is developed by a team of NASA, private industry, public and private contributors. GMAT is designed to model, optimize and estimate spacecraft trajectories in flight regimes ranging from low Earth orbit to lunar applications, interplanetary trajectories and other deep space missions. GMAT has also been flight qualified to support operational maneuver planning for the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission. ACE was launched in August, 1997 and is orbiting the Sun-Earth L1 libration point. The primary science objective of ACE is to study the composition of both the solar wind and the galactic cosmic rays. Operational orbit determination, maneuver operations and product generation for ACE are conducted by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF). This paper discusses the entire engineering lifecycle and major operational certification milestones that GMAT successfully completed to obtain operational certification for the ACE mission. Operational certification milestones such as gathering of the requirements for ACE operational maneuver planning, gap analysis, test plans and procedures development, system design, pre-shadow operations, training to FDF ACE maneuver planners, shadow operations, Test Readiness Review (TRR) and finally Operational Readiness Review (ORR) are discussed. These efforts have demonstrated that GMAT is flight quality software ready to support ACE mission operations in the FDF.

Trajectory analysis↗

NASA NTRS2019

Preparing General Mission Analysis Tool for Operational Maneuver Planning of the Advanced Composition Explorer Mission

The General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) is an open-source space mission design, analysis and trajectory optimization tool. GMAT is developed by a team of NASA, private industry, public and private contributors. GMAT is designed to model, optimize and estimate spacecraft trajectories in flight regimes ranging from low Earth orbit to lunar applications, interplanetary trajectories and other deep space missions. GMAT has also been flight qualified to support operational maneuver planning for the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission. ACE was launched in August, 1997 and is orbiting the Sun-Earth L1 libration point. The primary science objective of ACE is to study the composition of both the solar wind and the galactic cosmic rays. Operational orbit determination, maneuver operations and product generation for ACE are conducted by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF). This paper discusses the entire engineering lifecycle and major operational certification milestones that GMAT successfully completed to obtain operational certification for the ACE mission. Operational certification milestones such as gathering of the requirements for ACE operational maneuver planning, gap analysis, test plans and procedures development, system design, pre-shadow operations, training to FDF ACE maneuver planners, shadow operations, Test Readiness Review (TRR) and finally Operational Readiness Review (ORR) are discussed. These efforts have demonstrated that GMAT is flight quality software ready to support ACE mission operations in the FDF.

mission design↗

NASA NTRS2021

Best Practices Identified Through the Completion of UAS Flight Demonstrations

After several years of research into Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Command and Control (C2) systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) UAS Integration into the National Airspace System project initiated a focused two-year effort along with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and three industry partners to investigate remaining issues in the specification, test, certification and airspace integration to allow UAS operations in non-segregated airspace. The approach taken had the industry partners propose a flight demonstration approximating a commercial operation, while NASA helped, as needed, the partners through design and test phases and NASA observed interactions with the FAA. During this effort NASA collected best practices intended to be of value to similar UAS endeavors. These best practices can be divided into different sets, including practices that describe the relationship between business considerations to UAS design or describe several UAS development challenges. Another set includes best practices focused on navigating the UAS design and type certification processes. A third set includes best practices that relate to the design of the DAA system. Deploying DAA systems in this timeframe posed unique challenges. Commercial off-the-shelf DAA systems do not exist, necessitating custom development and, for two of the partners, the use of low-size, -weight, and -power (SWaP) sensors not completely specified for DAA. A fourth set of best practices relates to lost-link contingency planning. The final set of best practices relates to the design and testing of C2 systems and obtaining spectrum licenses. The UAS demonstrations were piloted remotely, and for all aspects of flight safety, a C2 system was required to communicate DAA and other UAS subsystem data to the remote pilot and to allow the pilot to issue commands to the vehicle. Throughout the course of this effort, the partners integrated prototype DAA and C2 systems into unmanned aircraft, tested those systems, and laid the groundwork for type certification programs that are expected to continue.

NASA↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Role of NDE and In-Situ Process Monitoring in Managing Risk of AM Space Hardware

The recently published NASA-STD-6030 defines the Additive Manufacturing (AM) Requirements for Spaceflight Systems. Key aspects of the certification approach include the development of a qualified material process (QMP) and material characterization determined by part classification. Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of the full surface and volume is required for all part classifications except those with negligible risk. NASA is exploring the use of in-process monitoring data to improve risk posture and supplement post-build inspection for complex parts. Currently, the most challenging obstacle to overcome is linking the indications in the monitoring data to the physics of the process and the final material state of the finished part. NASA is undertaking studies to understand and quantify this relationship for various monitoring methods. The desired goal is to develop a protocol to establish this correlation for any monitoring method. Once this correlation is known, the critical defect size can be linked to a representative indication in the monitoring data, and the capability of the monitoring system can be tested using the 90/95 probability of detection requirement for NDE methods. This would enable the use of in-process monitoring as a defect screening activity for AM part certification. Many high-criticality components built with AM have high complexity and therefore limited inspectability, so using in-process monitoring can help address this certification gap. The use of adaptive, closed-loop monitoring systems that alter the locked process will require a new approach to the QMP.

additive manufacturing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Role of NDE and In-Situ Process Monitoring in Managing Risk of AM Space Hardware

The recently published NASA-STD-6030 defines the Additive Manufacturing (AM) Requirements for Spaceflight Systems. Key aspects of the certification approach include the development of a qualified material process (QMP) and material characterization determined by part classification. Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of the full surface and volume is required for all part classifications except those with negligible risk. NASA is exploring the use of in-process monitoring data to improve risk posture and supplement post-build inspection for complex parts. Currently, the most challenging obstacle to overcome is linking the indications in the monitoring data to the physics of the process and the final material state of the finished part. NASA is undertaking studies to understand and quantify this relationship for various monitoring methods. The desired goal is to develop a protocol to establish this correlation for any monitoring method. Once this correlation is known, the critical defect size can be linked to a representative indication in the monitoring data, and the capability of the monitoring system can be tested using the 90/95 probability of detection requirement for NDE methods. This would enable the use of in-process monitoring as a defect screening activity for AM part certification. Many high-criticality components built with AM have high complexity and therefore limited inspectability, so using in-process monitoring can help address this certification gap. The use of adaptive, closed-loop monitoring systems that alter the locked process will require a new approach to the QMP.

advanced manufacturing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Leveling Arguments: Easier Said Than Done

The aerospace industry’s current desire to rapidly adopt new technologies is inconsistent with the traditional approach to creating new aerospace certification standards. To address this, an FAA-sponsored international Overarching Properties Working Group comprising industry representatives and certifying agencies has introduced the concept of Overarching Properties (OPs). OPs provide a foundation for proposing alternative Means of Compliance (MoC) by demonstrating a product's possession of the Intent, Correctness, and Innocuity properties. Handling criticality levels with the OPs is in its infancy but still required to integrate alternative MoC into the existing aerospace certification infrastructure. This paper examines the impact of criticality levels on the creation and evaluation of OP-related arguments (OPRAs), specifically focusing on the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) system. The study highlights the need for tailored OPRA creation based on assigned criticality levels and proposes self-assessment techniques to strengthen arguments. This research serves as a stepping stone in exploring criticality levels for OPs and bridging the gap in aerospace certification practices.

argument↗