Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk Management Space Projects”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Applications and Lessons Learned in Reliability Engineering

Since the Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, communities across NASA have been developing and extensively using quantitative reliability and risk assessment methods in their decision making process. This paper discusses several reliability engineering applications that NASA has used over the year to support the design, development, and operation of critical space flight hardware. Specifically, the paper discusses several reliability engineering applications used by NASA in areas such as risk management, inspection policies, components upgrades, reliability growth, integrated failure analysis, and physics based probabilistic engineering analysis. In each of these areas, the paper provides a brief discussion of a case study to demonstrate the value added and the criticality of reliability engineering in supporting NASA project and program decisions to fly safely. Examples of these case studies discussed are reliability based life limit extension of Shuttle Space Main Engine (SSME) hardware, Reliability based inspection policies for Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) turbine disc, probabilistic structural engineering analysis for reliability prediction of the SSME alternate turbo-pump development, impact of ET foam reliability on the Space Shuttle System risk, and reliability based Space Shuttle upgrade for safety. Special attention is given in this paper to the physics based probabilistic engineering analysis applications and their critical role in evaluating the reliability of NASA development hardware including their potential use in a research and technology development environment.

Safie, Fayssal M.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Maximizing Knowledge to Improve Space Transportation System Development

A viewgraph presentation outlines the Boeing X-37 Project. The following are discussed: the project content, status, lessons learned, the integrated system schedule, external interface definition, risk management, full-time customer support at factory site, and lessons learned.

Turner, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2016

Purpose, Principles, and Challenges of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center

NASA formed the NASA Engineering and Safety Center in 2003 following the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. It is an Agency level, program-independent engineering resource supporting NASA's missions, programs, and projects. It functions to identify, resolve, and communicate engineering issues, risks, and, particularly, alternative technical opinions, to NASA senior management. The goal is to help ensure fully informed, risk-based programmatic and operational decision-making processes. To date, the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) has conducted or is actively working over 600 technical studies and projects, spread across all NASA Mission Directorates, and for various other U.S. Government and non-governmental agencies and organizations. Since inception, NESC human spaceflight related activities, in particular, have transitioned from Shuttle Return-to-Flight and completion of the International Space Station (ISS) to ISS operations and Orion Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), Space Launch System (SLS), and Commercial Crew Program (CCP) vehicle design, integration, test, and certification. This transition has changed the character of NESC studies. For these development programs, the NESC must operate in a broader, system-level design and certification context as compared to the reactive, time-critical, hardware specific nature of flight operations support.

Gilbert, Michael G.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment, SAGE III on ISS, An Earth Science Mission on the International Space Station, Schedule Risk Analysis, A Project Perspective

The presentation provides insight into the schedule risk analysis process used by the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III on the International Space Station Project. The presentation focuses on the schedule risk analysis process highlighting the methods for identification of risk inputs, the inclusion of generic risks identified outside the traditional continuous risk management process, and the development of tailored analysis products used to improve risk informed decision making.

Bonine, Lauren↗
NASA NTRS2008

Assessment of Medical Risks and Optimization of their Management using Integrated Medical Model

The Integrated Medical Model (IMM) Project is a software-based technique that will identify and quantify the medical needs and health risks of exploration crew members during space flight and evaluate the effectiveness of potential mitigation strategies. The IMM Project employs an evidence-based approach that will quantify probability and consequences of defined in-flight medical risks, mitigation strategies, and tactics to optimize crew member health. Using stochastic techniques, the IMM will ultimately inform decision makers at both programmatic and institutional levels and will enable objective assessment of crew health and optimization of mission success using data from relevant cohort populations and from the astronaut population. The objectives of the project include: 1) identification and documentation of conditions that may occur during exploration missions (Baseline Medical Conditions List [BMCL), 2) assessment of the likelihood of conditions in the BMCL occurring during exploration missions (incidence rate), 3) determination of the risk associated with these conditions and quantify in terms of end states (Loss of Crew, Loss of Mission, Evacuation), 4) optimization of in-flight hardware mass, volume, power, bandwidth and cost for a given level of risk or uncertainty, and .. validation of the methodologies used.

Fitts, Mary A.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Managing the Risk of Command File Errors

Command File Error (CFE), as defined by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) is, regardless of the consequence on the spacecraft, either: an error in a command file sent to the spacecraft, an error in the process for developing and delivering a command file to the spacecraft, or the omission of a command file that should have been sent to the spacecraft. The risk consequence of a CFE can be mission ending and thus a concern to space exploration projects during their mission operations. A CFE during space mission operations is often the symptom of some kind of imbalance or inadequacy within the system that comprises the hardware & software used for command generation and the human experts involved in this endeavour. As we move into an era of enhanced collaboration with other NASA centers and commercial partners, these systems become more and more complex and hence it is all the more important to formally model and analyze CFEs in order to manage the risk of CFEs. Here we will provide a summary of the ongoing efforts at JPL in this area and also explain some more recent developments in the area of developing quantitative models for the purpose of managing CFE's.

Bayesian Belief Networks↗
NASA NTRS2009

Recent Electric Propulsion Development Activities for NASA Science Missions

(The primary source of electric propulsion development throughout NASA is managed by the In-Space Propulsion Technology Project at the NASA Glenn Research Center for the Science Mission Directorate. The objective of the Electric Propulsion project area is to develop near-term electric propulsion technology to enhance or enable science missions while minimizing risk and cost to the end user. Major hardware tasks include developing NASA s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT), developing a long-life High Voltage Hall Accelerator (HIVHAC), developing an advanced feed system, and developing cross-platform components. The objective of the NEXT task is to advance next generation ion propulsion technology readiness. The baseline NEXT system consists of a high-performance, 7-kW ion thruster; a high-efficiency, 7-kW power processor unit (PPU); a highly flexible advanced xenon propellant management system (PMS); a lightweight engine gimbal; and key elements of a digital control interface unit (DCIU) including software algorithms. This design approach was selected to provide future NASA science missions with the greatest value in mission performance benefit at a low total development cost. The objective of the HIVHAC task is to advance the Hall thruster technology readiness for science mission applications. The task seeks to increase specific impulse, throttle-ability and lifetime to make Hall propulsion systems applicable to deep space science missions. The primary application focus for the resulting Hall propulsion system would be cost-capped missions, such as competitively selected, Discovery-class missions. The objective of the advanced xenon feed system task is to demonstrate novel manufacturing techniques that will significantly reduce mass, volume, and footprint size of xenon feed systems over conventional feed systems. This task has focused on the development of a flow control module, which consists of a three-channel flow system based on a piezo-electrically actuated valve concept, as well as a pressure control module, which will regulate pressure from the propellant tank. Cross-platform component standardization and simplification are being investigated through the Standard Architecture task to reduce first user costs for implementing electric propulsion systems. Progress on current hardware development, recent test activities and future plans are discussed.

Pencil, Eric J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Shuttle Propulsion System Major Events and the Final 22 Flights

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

Owen, James W.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Anomaly Detection for Next-Generation Space Launch Ground Operations

NASA is developing new capabilities that will enable future human exploration missions while reducing mission risk and cost. The Fault Detection, Isolation, and Recovery (FDIR) project aims to demonstrate the utility of integrated vehicle health management (IVHM) tools in the domain of ground support equipment (GSE) to be used for the next generation launch vehicles. In addition to demonstrating the utility of IVHM tools for GSE, FDIR aims to mature promising tools for use on future missions and document the level of effort - and hence cost - required to implement an application with each selected tool. One of the FDIR capabilities is anomaly detection, i.e., detecting off-nominal behavior. The tool we selected for this task uses a data-driven approach. Unlike rule-based and model-based systems that require manual extraction of system knowledge, data-driven systems take a radically different approach to reasoning. At the basic level, they start with data that represent nominal functioning of the system and automatically learn expected system behavior. The behavior is encoded in a knowledge base that represents "in-family" system operations. During real-time system monitoring or during post-flight analysis, incoming data is compared to that nominal system operating behavior knowledge base; a distance representing deviation from nominal is computed, providing a measure of how far "out of family" current behavior is. We describe the selected tool for FDIR anomaly detection - Inductive Monitoring System (IMS), how it fits into the FDIR architecture, the operations concept for the GSE anomaly monitoring, and some preliminary results of applying IMS to a Space Shuttle GSE anomaly.

Spirkovska, Lilly↗
NASA NTRS2011

Risk Balance: A Key Tool for Mission Operations Assurance

The Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) discipline actively participates as a project member to achieve their common objective of full mission success while also providing an independent risk assessment to the Project Manager and Office of Safety and Mission Success staff. The cornerstone element of MOA is the independent assessment of the risks the project faces in executing its mission. Especially as the project approaches critical mission events, it becomes imperative to clearly identify and assess the risks the project faces. Quite often there are competing options for the project to select from in deciding how to execute the event. An example includes choices between proven but aging hardware components and unused but unproven components. Timing of the event with respect to visual or telecommunications visibility can be a consideration in the case of Earth reentry or hazardous maneuver events. It is in such situations that MOA is called upon for a risk balance assessment or risk trade study to support their recommendation to the Project Manager for a specific option to select. In the following paragraphs we consider two such assessments, one for the Stardust capsule Earth return and the other for the choice of telecommunications system configuration for the EPOXI flyby of the comet Hartley 2. We discuss the development of the trade space for each project's scenario and characterize the risks of each possible option. The risk characterization we consider includes a determination of the severity or consequence of each risk if realized and the likelihood of its occurrence. We then examine the assessment process to arrive at a MOA recommendation. Finally we review each flight project's decision process and the outcome of their decisions.

operations↗
NASA NTRS2004

Improving Project Management with Simulation and Completion Distribution Functions

Despite the critical importance of project completion timeliness, management practices in place today remain inadequate for addressing the persistent problem of project completion tardiness. A major culprit in late projects is uncertainty, which most, if not all, projects are inherently subject to. This uncertainty resides in the estimates for activity durations, the occurrence of unplanned and unforeseen events, and the availability of critical resources. In response to this problem, this research developed a comprehensive simulation based methodology for conducting quantitative project completion time risk analysis. It is called the Project Assessment by Simulation Technique (PAST). This new tool enables project stakeholders to visualize uncertainty or risk, i.e. the likelihood of their project completing late and the magnitude of the lateness, by providing them with a completion time distribution function of their projects. Discrete event simulation is used within PAST to determine the completion distribution function for the project of interest. The simulation is populated with both deterministic and stochastic elements. The deterministic inputs include planned project activities, precedence requirements, and resource requirements. The stochastic inputs include activity duration growth distributions, probabilities for events that can impact the project, and other dynamic constraints that may be placed upon project activities and milestones. These stochastic inputs are based upon past data from similar projects. The time for an entity to complete the simulation network, subject to both the deterministic and stochastic factors, represents the time to complete the project. Repeating the simulation hundreds or thousands of times allows one to create the project completion distribution function. The Project Assessment by Simulation Technique was demonstrated to be effective for the on-going NASA project to assemble the International Space Station. Approximately $500 million per month is being spent on this project, which is scheduled to complete by 2010. NASA project stakeholders participated in determining and managing completion distribution functions produced from PAST. The first result was that project stakeholders improved project completion risk awareness. Secondly, using PAST, mitigation options were analyzed to improve project completion performance and reduce total project cost.

Cates, Grant R.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Reducing software security risk through an integrated approach research initiative model based verification of the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) Protocol

This document discusses the verification of the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) communication protocol as a demonstration of the Model Based Verification (MBV) portion of the verification instrument set being developed under the Reducing Software Security Risk (RSSR) Trough an Integrated Approach research initiative. Code Q of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) funds this project. The NASA Goddard Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) facility manages this research program at the NASA agency level and the Assurance Technology Program Office (ATPO) manages the research locally at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (California institute of Technology) where the research is being carried out.

software security↗
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 NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of the NASA Earth Action Strategies Wildland Fire Initiative

As part of NASA’s new Earth Action strategy, the Wildland Fire initiative was established, which includes both the NASA Wildland Fire Program (WFP) and the FireSense project. NASA has over 50 years of experience generating data and technology to enhance fire science and operational management. The WFP’s mission is threefold: 1) assemble communities of practice through collaborative efforts with government, academia, and the private sector; 2) co-develop knowledge and applications with relevant partners and stakeholders in the wildfire community; and 3) improve wildland fire management through the transitioning of NASA data, technology, tools, and science to stakeholder organizations. The WFP is focusing on supporting proactive fire management, including situational awareness, preparedness, and risk mitigation. This will be accomplished through selected projects that identify management challenges, relevant to partners and end users, and the NASA data that will be utilized to deliver innovative solutions to enhance the management of wildland fires. Examples include: i) investigation of evaporative stress from OpenET to help predict the risk of wildfire occurrence in watersheds; ii) incorporation of space based LiDAR for the generation of 3-dimensional forest fuel metrics, used to improve wildfire risk and behavior models; iii) integration of global, multi-platform geostationary active-fire data in near-real-time into NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS); and iv) identification of post-fire ecohydrological conditions using thermal, multispectral, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and hyperspectral remotely-sensed data to improve flood hazard forecast models. The FireSense project is a US-focused 5-year project that will focus on delivering NASA’s unique Earth science and technological capabilities to operational agencies, striving towards enhancing fire fighting and air quality management. The project will include airborne campaigns and new technology that will likely have global implications. Initial stakeholder engagement led FireSense to focus on four use-cases focused on the characterization and measurement of: (i) pre-fire fuels conditions, (ii) active fire-dynamics; (iii) post-fire impact and threats; and iv) air quality impacts and forecasting, each-developed with identified stakeholders.

Wildland Fire program↗
NASA NTRS2011

Acute Radiation Risk and BRYNTRN Organ Dose Projection Graphical User Interface

The integration of human space applications risk projection models of organ dose and acute radiation risk has been a key problem. NASA has developed an organ dose projection model using the BRYNTRN with SUM DOSE computer codes, and a probabilistic model of Acute Radiation Risk (ARR). The codes BRYNTRN and SUM DOSE are a Baryon transport code and an output data processing code, respectively. The risk projection models of organ doses and ARR take the output from BRYNTRN as an input to their calculations. With a graphical user interface (GUI) to handle input and output for BRYNTRN, the response models can be connected easily and correctly to BRYNTRN. A GUI for the ARR and BRYNTRN Organ Dose (ARRBOD) projection code provides seamless integration of input and output manipulations, which are required for operations of the ARRBOD modules. The ARRBOD GUI is intended for mission planners, radiation shield designers, space operations in the mission operations directorate (MOD), and space biophysics researchers. BRYNTRN code operation requires extensive input preparation. Only a graphical user interface (GUI) can handle input and output for BRYNTRN to the response models easily and correctly. The purpose of the GUI development for ARRBOD is to provide seamless integration of input and output manipulations for the operations of projection modules (BRYNTRN, SLMDOSE, and the ARR probabilistic response model) in assessing the acute risk and the organ doses of significant Solar Particle Events (SPEs). The assessment of astronauts radiation risk from SPE is in support of mission design and operational planning to manage radiation risks in future space missions. The ARRBOD GUI can identify the proper shielding solutions using the gender-specific organ dose assessments in order to avoid ARR symptoms, and to stay within the current NASA short-term dose limits. The quantified evaluation of ARR severities based on any given shielding configuration and a specified EVA or other mission scenario can be made to guide alternative solutions for attaining determined objectives set by mission planners. The ARRBOD GUI estimates the whole-body effective dose, organ doses, and acute radiation sickness symptoms for astronauts, by which operational strategies and capabilities can be made for the protection of astronauts from SPEs in the planning of future lunar surface scenarios, exploration of near-Earth objects, and missions to Mars.

Cucinotta, Francis A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Virtual Project Management Challenge

Technical knowledge is essential to the work done by NASA practitioners. So it may be surprising to learn that the most ingenious and elegant solutions to project challenges often arise not from a specific technical discipline perspective, but from a systems-focused mindset. While technical discipline expertise is a critical component of project success, sometimes the simplest resolution to a problem involves a systems-wide solution. Because of this, encouraging a systems mentality among project team members can be a powerful tool in mitigating risk and eliminating threats. Join us for an exploration of the critical ways in which a systems engineering and integration perspective can enhance project management efforts. Presenter Bo Bejmuk is the former Space Shuttle Orbiter Program Director and manager of Sea Launch Program operations and development for Boeing. He recently served as Chairman of the Standing Review Board for the NASA Constellation Program. Moderator Ramien Pierre is from NASA's Academy for Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL).

Bo Bejmuk↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

Systems Engineering↗