Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk acceptability”

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

Space Station crew safety alternatives study. Volume 5: Space Station safety plan

The Space Station Safety Plan has been prepared as an adjunct to the subject contract final report, suggesting the tasks and implementation procedures to ensure that threats are addressed and resolution strategy options identified and incorporated into the space station program. The safety program's approach is to realize minimum risk exposure without levying undue design and operational constraints. Safety objectives and risk acceptances are discussed.

Mead, G. H.↗

Planning the Voyager spacecraft's mission to Uranus

The application of the systems engineering process to the planning of the Voyager spacecraft mission is described. The Mission Planning Office prepared guidelines that controlled the use of the project and multimission resources and spacecraft consumables in order to obtain valuable scientific data at an acceptable risk level. Examples of mission planning which are concerned with the design of the Deep Space Network antenna, the uplink window for transmitting computer command subsystem loads, and the contingency and risk assessment functions are presented.

Plagemann, Stephen H.↗

An expert system for reliability modeling

A method is presented for computing the probability of failure of a unit during the next usage or mission based on sound statistical techniques. With the use of logit regression embedded in Lotus 1-2-3 macros, this package computes the probability of unit failure based upon a historical data base. Using this computed probability of failure, the package then makes a replacement recommendation based upon the experts acceptable risk parameters.

Goss, Ernst↗

Implications of the new radiation exposure limits on Space Station Freedom crews

Levels of acceptable risk of radiation exposure for SSF crews have been studied. Since the cancer risk per dose equivalent has increased over the last decade, new dose-equivalent limits have been recommended. An astronaut may not receive more than a depth-dose equivalent of 50 rem/year. It is found that a 180-day stay aboard Freedom could result in a worst case depth-dose of 30 rem, and a 180-day mission in a nominally shielded spacecraft in a constant atmospheric density orbit with a varying altitude could result in a depth-dose equivalent of 10 rem. This is twice the annual allowable dose-equivalent for terrestrial radiation workers. It is noted that the present understanding of the biological effectiveness of high-LET radiation is not adequate for accurate health risk assessments and that further research is necessary.

Stanford, M.↗

Operations concepts for Mars missions with multiple mobile spacecraft

Missions are being proposed which involve landing a varying number (anywhere from one to 24) of small mobile spacecraft on Mars. Mission proposals include sample returns, in situ geochemistry and geology, and instrument deployment functions. This paper discusses changes needed in traditional space operations methods for support of rover operations. Relevant differences include more frequent commanding, higher risk acceptance, streamlined procedures, and reliance on additional spacecraft autonomy, advanced fault protection, and prenegotiated decisions. New methods are especially important for missions with several Mars rovers operating concurrently against time limits. This paper also discusses likely mission design limits imposed by operations constraints .

Dias, William C.↗

SPARTNIK: Engineering catalyst for government and industry

Industrial demands for highly motivated and competent technical personnel to carry forward with the technological goals of the US has posed a significant challenge to graduating engineers. While curricula has improved and diversified over time to meet these industry demands, relevant industry experience is not always available to undergraduates. The microsatellite development program at San Jose State University (SJSU) has allowed an entire undergraduate senior class to utilize a broad range of training and education to refine their engineering skills, bringing them closer to becoming engineering professionals. Close interaction with industry mentors and manufacturers on a real world project provides a significant advantage to educators and students alike. With support from companies and government agencies, the students have designed and manufactured a microsatellite, designed to be launched into a low Earth orbit. This satellite will gather telemetry for characterizing the state of the spacecraft. This will enable the students to have a physical check on their predicted value of spacecraft subsystem performance. Additional experiments will also be undertaken during the two year lifetime, including micro-meteorite impact sensing and capturing digital color images of the Earth. This paper will detail the process whereby students designed, prototype and manufactured a small satellite in a large team environment, along with the experiments that will be performed on board. With the project's limited funds, it needed the support of many industry companies to help with technical issues and hardware acquisition. Among the many supporting companies, NASA's space shuttle small payloads program could be used for an affordable launch vehicle for the student project. The paper address these collaborations between the student project and industry support, as well as explaining the benefits to both. The paper draws conclusion on how these types of student projects can be used by industry as a feasible resource for developing small platforms for space based experiments, as well as increasing the practical experience and engineering knowledge of graduating students. These benefits to industry and universities, can lead to a close working relationship between the two. These types of projects can facilitate the development of low-cost space rated parts to be used by the industry and university projects. It can also help with the understanding and use of acceptable risk non-space rated parts reducing the cost of the spacecraft. This will lead to the development of low cost platforms for space based experiments, providing research companies an inexpensive, long duration platform to conduct their in-space experiments, while better preparing engineering undergraduates for their transition into the work force.

Prass, James D.↗

Reinventing The Design Process: Teams and Models

The future of space mission designing will be dramatically different from the past. Formerly, performance-driven paradigms emphasized data return with cost and schedule being secondary issues. Now and in the future, costs are capped and schedules fixed-these two variables must be treated as independent in the design process. Accordingly, JPL has redesigned its design process. At the conceptual level, design times have been reduced by properly defining the required design depth, improving the linkages between tools, and managing team dynamics. In implementation-phase design, system requirements will be held in crosscutting models, linked to subsystem design tools through a central database that captures the design and supplies needed configuration management and control. Mission goals will then be captured in timelining software that drives the models, testing their capability to execute the goals. Metrics are used to measure and control both processes and to ensure that design parameters converge through the design process within schedule constraints. This methodology manages margins controlled by acceptable risk levels. Thus, teams can evolve risk tolerance (and cost) as they would any engineering parameter. This new approach allows more design freedom for a longer time, which tends to encourage revolutionary and unexpected improvements in design.

Wall, Stephen D.↗

Trade Space Assessment for Human Exploration Mission Design

Many human space exploration mission architecture assessments have been performed over the years by diverse organizations and individuals. Direct comparison of metrics among these studies is extremely difficult due to widely varying assumptions involving projected technology readiness, mission goals, acceptable risk criteria, and socio-political environments. However, constant over the years have been the physical laws of celestial dynamics and rocket propulsion systems. A finite diverse yet finite architecture trade space should exist which captures methods of human exploration - particularly of the Moon and Mars - by delineating technical trades and cataloging the physically realizable options of each. A particular architectural approach should then have a traceable path through this "trade tree". It should be pointed out that not every permutation of paths will result in a physically realizable mission approach, but cataloging options that have been examined by past studies should help guide future analysis. This effort was undertaken in two phases by multi-center NASA working groups in the spring and summer of 2004 using more than thirty years of past studies to "flesh out" the Moon-Mars human exploration trade space. The results are presented, not as a "trade tree", which would be unwieldy, but as a "menu" of potential technical options as a function of mission phases. This is envisioned as a tool to aid future mission designers by offering guidance to relevant past analyses.

Joosten, B. Kent↗

Systems Integration Processes for NASA's Crew Launch Vehicle

NASA's Exploration Initiative will require development of many new elements to constitute a robust system of systems. New launch vehicles are needed to place cargo and crew in stable low earth orbit. This paper examines the systems integration processes NASA is utilizing to ensure integration and control of propulsion and non-propulsion elements within NASA's Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV). The objective of the CLV is to provide the transportation capabilities to meet the Constellation Program requirements for delivering a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) or other payload to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in support of the lunar and Mars missions. The CLV must successfully provide the capability within cost and schedule with an acceptable risk approach. This paper will describe in detail the systems engineering management processes that will be applied to assure CLV Project success through complete and efficient technical integration. Discussion of specific processes for requirements development and verification, integrated design and analysis, integrated simulation and testing and the integration of reliability, maintainability and supportability (RMS) into the design will also be included. The CLV Project is broken logically into elements by the major hardware groupings, and associated management, system engineering, and integration functions. The processes to be described herein are designed to integrate within these CLV elements and among the other Constellation projects. Launch vehicle stack integration (CLV to CEV, and Ground and Flight Operations integration) throughout the life cycle, including integrated vehicle performance through orbital insertion, recovery of the first stage, and reentry of the upper stage will also be discussed. The processes for decomposing requirements to the Elements and ensuring that requirements have been correctly validated, decomposed, allocated, and that the verification requirements are properly defined to ensure that the system design meets requirements will be discussed.

Reuter, James L.↗

Systems Integration Processes for NASA Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

NASA's Exploration Initiative will require development of many new elements to constitute a robust system of systems. New launch vehicles are needed to place cargo and crew in stable Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This paper examines the systems integration processes NASA is utilizing to ensure integration and control of propulsion and nonpropulsion elements within NASA's Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), now known as the Ares I. The objective of the Ares I is to provide the transportation capabilities to meet the Constellation Program requirements for delivering a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) or other payload to LEO in support of the lunar and Mars missions. The Ares I must successfully provide this capability within cost and schedule, and with an acceptable risk approach. This paper will describe the systems engineering management processes that will be applied to assure Ares I Project success through complete and efficient technical integration. Discussion of technical review and management processes for requirements development and verification, integrated design and analysis, integrated simulation and testing, and the integration of reliability, maintainability and supportability (RMS) into the design will also be included. The Ares I Project is logically divided into elements by the major hardware groupings, and associated management, system engineering, and integration functions. The processes to be described herein are designed to integrate within these Ares I elements and among the other Constellation projects. Also discussed is launch vehicle stack integration (Ares I to CEV, and Ground and Flight Operations integration) throughout the life cycle, including integrated vehicle performance through orbital insertion, recovery of the first stage, and reentry of the upper stage. The processes for decomposing requirements to the elements and ensuring that requirements have been correctly validated, decomposed, and allocated, and that the verification requirements are properly defined to ensure that the system design meets requirements, will be discussed.

Taylor, James L.↗

Human Research Program Requirements Document (Revision C)

The purpose of this document is to define, document, and allocate the Human Research Program (HRP) requirements to the HRP Program Elements. It establishes the flow-down of requirements from Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) and Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) to the various Program Elements of the HRP to ensure that human research and technology countermeasure investments are made to insure the delivery of countermeasures and technologies that satisfy ESMD's and OCHMO's exploration mission requirements. Requirements driving the HRP work and deliverables are derived from the exploration architecture, as well as Agency standards regarding the maintenance of human health and performance. Agency human health and performance standards will define acceptable risk for each type and duration of exploration mission. It is critical to have the best available scientific and clinical evidence in setting and validating these standards. In addition, it is imperative that the best available evidence on preventing and mitigating human health and performance risks is incorporated into exploration mission and vehicle designs. These elements form the basis of the HRP research and technology development requirements and highlight the importance of HRP investments in enabling NASA's exploration missions. This PRD defines the requirements of the HRP which is comprised of the following major Program Elements: Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP), Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC), Human Health Countermeasures (HHC), ISS Medical Project (ISSMP), Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH), and Space Radiation (SR).

Vargas, Paul R.↗

Safety and Mission Assurance Performance Metric

The safety and mission assurance (S&MA) performance metric is a method that provides a process through which the managers of a large, complex program can readily understand and assess the accepted risk, the problems, and the associated reliability of the program. Conceived for original use in helping to assure the safety and success of the International Space Station (ISS) program, the S&MA performance metric also can be applied to other large and complex programs and projects. The S&MA-performance-metric data products comprise one or more tables (possibly also one or more graphs) that succinctly display all of the information relevant (and no information that is irrelevant) to management decisions that must be made to assure the safety and success of a program or project, thereby facilitating such decisions.

Holsomback, Jerry↗

Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission Four (HST SM4) EVA Challenges for Safe Execution of STS-125

In May of 2009, the world-renowned Hubble Space Telescope (HST) received a suite of new instruments and a refurbished bus to enable science for many years to come. The restoration was conducted on-orbit by four space-walkers on five carefully scripted Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) days. Assuring the safety of the space-walkers and their crew-mates required careful attention to tool development, detailed procedures for every activity and many rehearsals with engineers and crew to ensure that everything worked together. Additionally, evolution of EVA requirements since the last servicing mission in 2002, and the broad scope of the mission demanded a much higher degree of safety participation in hardware design and risk acceptance than for previous servicing missions.

Dedalis, Robert P.↗

Shooting the Moon

This story is about an unlikely NASA mission to the Moon. It was unlikely because it was started with far too little time and too-little money to complete. It was unlikely because it was able to take chances to accept risk of failure. It was unlikely because it was searching for the unthinkable: water-ice on the moon... Figure 1-1: LCROSS Mission. The mission of the Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) was to investigate the possibility of water ice in craters on the Moon s poles. This is certainly an interesting scientific topic in itself, but I intend to focus on the compelling experience of managing the LCROSS Project in the context of this storied Agency. Perhaps most interesting are the implications this story has for managing any development effort, lunar or not, and working a balance to achieve success. NASA is by design a risk-taking agency within the US Government. It could be argued that NASA s purpose in the aerospace community is to take on the really big challenges that either the corporate world can t afford, are not yet profitable endeavors, or are just too risky for private corporations to entertain. However, expectations of the Agency have evolved. A combination of grim human tragedies and some very public cost and schedule overruns have challenged the public s and Congress s tolerance for risk-taking within the Agency. NASA, which is supposed to be in the business of taking risks to do bold, difficult things, has become less and less able to do so within its cost framework. Yet effectively replacing prudent risk management with attempts to "risk-eliminate" is completely unaffordable. So where does risk-taking fit within the Agency, or within private/corporate organizations for that matter? Where astronauts play there is clearly concern about risk. When an organization puts humans in harm s way, it is understandably going to take extra effort to assure nobody gets hurt. Doing so, of course, costs money - a lot of money to pay for labor and hardware which is attempting to assure nothing will go wrong. Sophisticated designs, with doubly- or triply-redundant systems, extensive testing to verify those systems, and numerous engineering test units built to learn and evolve a hardware design, all drive the cost and time required to implement. Human spaceflight is an expensive business because of the exceptional system complexity and levels of assurance required for human space travel. What about missions that do not involve human spaceflight? What about missions whose potential failure will not take a human life, whose costs are small and whose urgency and importance are limited by design? A portfolio consisting of this type of mission can be designed to be risk tolerant, not requiring large expenditures to guarantee against failure. With the money saved, the number of missions that can be executed within the portfolio grows, or the total cost of the portfolio can be reduced. The NASA LCROSS mission is a pathfinder example of a low-cost, quick turn-around mission which struck a balance on mission risk, while accomplishing big objectives, like defining how we understand the Moon.

Andrews, Daniel R.↗

The Evolution of System Safety at NASA

The NASA system safety framework is in the process of change, motivated by the desire to promote an objectives-driven approach to system safety that explicitly focuses system safety efforts on system-level safety performance, and serves to unify, in a purposeful manner, safety-related activities that otherwise might be done in a way that results in gaps, redundancies, or unnecessary work. An objectives-driven approach to system safety affords more flexibility to determine, on a system-specific basis, the means by which adequate safety is achieved and verified. Such flexibility and efficiency is becoming increasingly important in the face of evolving engineering modalities and acquisition models, where, for example, NASA will increasingly rely on commercial providers for transportation services to low-earth orbit. A key element of this objectives-driven approach is the use of the risk-informed safety case (RISC): a structured argument, supported by a body of evidence, that provides a compelling, comprehensible and valid case that a system is or will be adequately safe for a given application in a given environment. The RISC addresses each of the objectives defined for the system, providing a rational basis for making informed risk acceptance decisions at relevant decision points in the system life cycle.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗

Conjunction Assessment Past, Present, and Future

Since 1957, humankind's reliance on the space domain for military, humanitarian, and commercial applications has continued to increase. 1960 first successful use of a meteorological satellite,1963 first use of a geosynchronous communications satellite, 1985 Block I of GPS fielded, 1998 first module of ISS, 2001 first satellite radio broadcast over North America. What you take into space, stays in space: launch vehicle, rocket-bodies, mission-related debris. Debris can also be generated on-orbit: fuel/battery explosions, collisions. Only naturally-occurring retarding effect is orbital decay due to atmospheric drag: some remediation measures available, active debris removal not yet viable option. Because of our reliance on space and the fact that space really isn't limitless, the Big Sky theory is no longer an acceptable risk posture. There have been eight (8) on-orbit collisions reported to date, half of which occurred in the last 10 years.

Assessment↗

NASA System Safety Handbook. Volume 2: System Safety Concepts, Guidelines, and Implementation Examples

This is the second of two volumes that collectively comprise the NASA System Safety Handbook. Volume 1 (NASASP-210-580) was prepared for the purpose of presenting the overall framework for System Safety and for providing the general concepts needed to implement the framework. Volume 2 provides guidance for implementing these concepts as an integral part of systems engineering and risk management. This guidance addresses the following functional areas: 1.The development of objectives that collectively define adequate safety for a system, and the safety requirements derived from these objectives that are levied on the system. 2.The conduct of system safety activities, performed to meet the safety requirements, with specific emphasis on the conduct of integrated safety analysis (ISA) as a fundamental means by which systems engineering and risk management decisions are risk-informed. 3.The development of a risk-informed safety case (RISC) at major milestone reviews to argue that the systems safety objectives are satisfied (and therefore that the system is adequately safe). 4.The evaluation of the RISC (including supporting evidence) using a defined set of evaluation criteria, to assess the veracity of the claims made therein in order to support risk acceptance decisions.

Safety Case↗

NASA Affordable Vehicle Avionics (AVA): Common Modular Avionics System for Nano-Launchers Offering Affordable Access to Space

Small satellites are becoming ever more capable of performing valuable missions for both government and commercial customers. However, currently these satellites can only be launched affordably as secondary payloads. This makes it difficult for the small satellite mission to launch when needed, to the desired orbit, and with acceptable risk. NASA Ames Research Center has developed and tested a prototype low-cost avionics package for space launch vehicles that provides complete GNC functionality in a package smaller than a tissue box with a mass less than 0.84 kg. AVA takes advantage of commercially available, low-cost, mass-produced, miniaturized sensors, filtering their more noisy inertial data with realtime GPS data. The goal of the Advanced Vehicle Avionics project is to produce and flight-verify a common suite of avionics and software that deliver affordable, capable GNC and telemetry avionics with application to multiple nano-launch vehicles at 1 the cost of current state-of-the-art avionics.

Guidance Navigation and Control↗