Results for “Risk Informed Decision Making” — Page 8

NASA NTRS2006

NASA's M and S Accreditation Process Plan and Specification for Space Exploration

NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) is implementing a management approach for modeling and simulation (M&S) that will provide decision-makers information on the model's fidelity, credibility, and quality. This information will allow the decision-maker to understand the risks involved in using a model's results in the decision-making process. This presentation will discuss NASA's overall approach to achieving formal accreditation of its models or simulations supporting space exploration. The development of a formal Accreditation Plan is a key component in the preliminary activities for modeling and simulation (M&S) assessment. This presentation will describe NASA's process for identifying risks associated with M&S use and the associated M&S assessments that will dictate the level of data certification and M&S verification and validation (V&V) activities required to support the decision-making process. The M&S Accreditation Plan and Report templates for ESMD will also be illustrated.

O'Neil, David↗

NASA NTRS2016

Surface Water and Flood Extent Mapping, Monitoring, and Modeling Products and Services for the SERVIR Regions

SERVIR is a joint NASA - US Agency for International Development (USAID) project to improve environmental decision-making using Earth observations and geospatial technologies. A common need identified among SERVIR regions has been improved information for disaster risk reduction and in specific surface water and flood extent mapping, monitoring and forecasting. Of the 70 SERVIR products (active, complete, and in development), 4 are related to surface water and flood extent mapping, monitoring or forecasting. Visit http://www.servircatalog.net for more product details.

environment↗

NASA NTRS1999

The Human Space Life Sciences Critical Path Roadmap Project: A Strategy for Human Space Flight through Exploration-Class Missions

The product of the critical path roadmap project is an integrated strategy for mitigating the risks associated with human exploration class missions. It is an evolving process that will assure the ability to communicate the integrated critical path roadmap. Unlike previous reports, this one will not sit on a shelf - it has the full support of the JSC Space and Life Sciences Directorate (SA) and is already being used as a decision making tool (e.g., budget and investigation planning for Shuttle and Space Station mission). Utility of this product depends on many efforts, namely: providing the required information (completed risk data sheets, critical question information, technology data). It is essential to communicate the results of the critical path roadmap to the scientific community - this meeting is a good opportunity to do so. The web site envisioned for the critical path roadmap will provide the capability to communicate to a broader community and to track and update the system routinely.

Sawin, Charles F.↗

NASA NTRS2002

A quantitative risk model for early lifecycle decision making

Decisions made in the earliest phases of system development have the most leverage to influence the success of the entire development effort, and yet must be made when information is incomplete and uncertain. We have developed a scalable cost-benefit model to support this critical phase of early-lifecycle decision-making.

requirements optimization summarization tradeoffs↗

NASA NTRS1995

Training for Aviation Decision Making: The Naturalistic Decision Making Perspective

This paper describes the implications of a naturalistic decision making (NDM) perspective for training air crews to make flight-related decisions. The implications are based on two types of analyses: (a) identification of distinctive features that serve as a basis for classifying a diverse set of decision events actually encountered by flight crews, and (b) performance strategies that distinguished more from less effective crews flying full-mission simulators, as well as performance analyses from NTSB accident investigations. Six training recommendations are offered: (1) Because of the diversity of decision situations, crews need to be aware that different strategies may be appropriate for different problems; (2) Given that situation assessment is essential to making a good decision, it is important to train specific content knowledge needed to recognize critical conditions, to assess risks and available time, and to develop strategies to verify or diagnose the problem; (3) Tendencies to oversimplify problems may be overcome by training to evaluate options in terms of goals, constraints, consequences, and prevailing conditions; (4) In order to provide the time to gather information and consider options, it is essential to manage the situation, which includes managing crew workload, prioritizing tasks, contingency planning, buying time (e.g., requesting holding or vectors), and using low workload periods to prepare for high workload; (5) Evaluating resource requirements ("What do I need?") and capabilities ("'What do I have?" ) are essential to making good decisions. Using resources to meet requirements may involve the cabin crew, ATC, dispatchers, and maintenance personnel; (6) Given that decisions must often be made under high risk, time pressure, and workload, train under realistic flight conditions to promote the development of robust decision skills.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS2021

Carolina Coastal Plain Ecological Forecasting: Utilizing NASA Earth Observations to Map Suitable Venus Flytrap Habitat in an Effort to Inform Conservation, Seed Banking, and Reintroduction in the Carolina Coastal Plain and Sandhills Regions

Although the carnivorous plant Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) is recognized globally, its native range is restricted to a small portion of the North and South Carolina Coastal Plain and Sandhills. Within this limited range, Venus flytrap populations are threatened by habitat loss, fire suppression, and poaching. NASA DEVELOP partnered with the North Carolina Botanical Garden (NCBG), the University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) to support Venus flytrap conservation. The team developed models based on species presence data and environmental variables using the Software for Assisted Habitat Modeling (SAHM) to create a 2021 habitat suitability map for Venus flytrap. These models incorporated Earth observations collected by Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS), Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), Advanced Land Observation Satellite (ALOS) Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR), and Sentinel-2 Multispectral Instrument (MSI). To predict areas at high risk of development, the team produced a 2050 land-use change map using TerrSet Land Change Modeler. The team found potential areas of conflict between predicted habitat and forecasted future development. Many areas of suitable habitat were concentrated along the coast where development was likely to occur, placing populations there at risk of extirpation. Overlaying suitable habitat with forecasted land change also identified suitable habitats with minimal risk of development, which may serve as lasting Venus flytrap habitat. These results can inform the NCBG and NCNHP’s conservation decision-making, including targeted seed banking, reintroduction, and prioritization of enduring habitats for protection and management.

Monika Rock↗

NASA NTRS2022

Carolina Coastal Plain Ecological Forecasting

Although the carnivorous plant Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) is recognized globally, its native range is restricted to a small portion of the North and South Carolina Coastal Plain and Sandhills. Within this limited range, Venus flytrap populations are threatened by habitat loss, fire suppression, and poaching. NASA DEVELOP partnered with the North Carolina Botanical Garden (NCBG), the University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) to support Venus flytrap conservation. The team developed models based on species presence data and environmental variables using the Software for Assisted Habitat Modeling (SAHM) to create a 2021 habitat suitability map for Venus flytrap. These models incorporated Earth observations collected by Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS), Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), Advanced Land Observation Satellite (ALOS) Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR), and Sentinel-2 Multispectral Instrument (MSI). To predict areas at high risk of development, the team produced a 2050 land-use change map using TerrSet Land Change Modeler. The team found potential areas of conflict between predicted habitat and forecasted future development. Many areas of suitable habitat were concentrated along the coast where development was likely to occur, placing populations there at risk of extirpation. Overlaying suitable habitat with forecasted land change also identified suitable habitats with minimal risk of development, which may serve as lasting Venus flytrap habitat. These results can inform the NCBG and NCNHP’s conservation decision-making, including targeted seed banking, reintroduction, and prioritization of enduring habitats for protection and management.

Monika Rock↗

NASA NTRS2019

New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report Chapter 8: Indicators and Monitoring

The Indicators and Monitoring chapter of the first New York City Panel on Climate Change Report began with the paradigm: What cannot be measured cannot be managed (Rosenzweig et al., 2010). This statement is as valid today as it was then.The NPCC1 (2010) Indicators and Monitoring chapter addressed the need for assembling a suite of indicators to monitor climate change and adaptation in order to inform climate change decision making. It outlined criteria for selection of indicators (policy relevance, analytic soundness, measurability), defined categories of indicators (physical climate change; risk exposure, vulnerability, and impacts; adaptation; new research), and provided examples of specific indicators. Table 8.1 is a summary table of indicator development contribution from the NPCC1 I&M chapter (Jacob et al., 2011). The chapter explored the institutional requirements for indicator data availability, continuity, archiving, and public accessibility.

Blake, Reginald↗

NASA NTRS2019

Predictive Modeling for Differential Diagnosis and Mortality Risk Assessment

The prevalence of electronic health record (EHR) systems has brought prodigious biomedical informatics opportunity. Automated machine learning methods can effectively utilize such data and have become common tools for healthcare predictive modeling. Researches in medical informatics have explored the potential of deep learning and classical models in emergent care scenarios. In particular, predicting differential diagnoses for admissions have proven useful in decreasing unnecessary lab tests and improving inpatient triage decision-making. Moreover, identification of high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality is vitally important to maximize allocation of medical resources.The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) database, containing de-identified critical care inpatient was used in our study. This data set captures hospital patient laboratory measurements, pharmacologic prescriptions, diagnostic data and procedure event recordings. When considering adult patients and discounting admissions with ICU length of stay less than 24 hours, there were 37,787 unique admissions and 30,414 total patients. We examined the top 25 most prevalent ICD-9 group-level disease specificities in MIMIC-III using a multi-label classification model. In-hospital mortality was modeled as binary classification with 4,155 (13%) adult patients that expired, of which 3,138 (75.5%) were in the ICU setting. The metrics AUC, F1 score, sensitivity and specificity values calculated for each disease label measured prediction performance.The usage of ICD-9 group codes reduced feature dimension from 14,567 to 942 and greatly improved distribution of patient diagnostic categories. Disease temporal patterns were captured by considering the most frequently sampled 6 vital signs and 13 laboratory values. Missing data were imputed at each time-stamp. Time-series raw hourly average values were converted into 5 summary features (mean, standard deviation, number of observations, min & max values). Patient demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status and ethnicity were also factored into the modeling. Choi et al showed that contextual embedding of medical data, diagnostic and procedural codes alone can predict future diagnoses with sensitivity as high as 0.79. We utilized an embedding technique called word2vec which allowed sparse representations of medical history to be transformed into dense word vectors. The mappings captured contextual information by treating each admission as a sentence and learning the most likely neighboring words in a sliding window fashion. Binary and multi-label classification was achieved via collapse models, which do not consider temporal information, as well as recurrent neural networks with regularization, Softmax output layer activation together with categorical cross-entropy as the loss function.

US Army collaboration↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Artemis 2 and Artemis 5 Model Outcomes Using the Impact Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND The Artemis campaign is a Moon exploration program with a series of six planned missions, five of which will be crewed. These five crewed missions will contain a single mission segment (space flight), or multiple mission segments involving space flight (Orion), lunar landing (LTV) and/or space habitat (Gateway). Each crewed segment faces the risk of unique medical conditions, necessitating medical sets/kits tailored to those specificities. To support and enable a data-driven and evidence-based decision-making process through out a mission’s life cycle, a software tool called IMPACT was developed. Using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodologies, IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a novel tool built for analyzing the possibility of encountering complex medical risks during space flight, and for identifying the medical resources and capabilities needed to treat those potential at-risk medical conditions. This presentation will seek to compare IMPACT’s computational results upon potential complex space medical conditions (e.g., sprain/strain back or sleep disturbance) using IMPACT’s risk metrics and the associated optimized medical sets/kits between two Artemis missions: single segment Artemis 2 and multi-segmented Artemis 5. OVERVIEW By identifying potential medical conditions in space using input criteria such as crew quantity and composition, certain crew physical characteristics, mission duration and mission activities, IMPACT can produce analyses on the type of medical resources and capabilities needed to produce an optimized medical set/kit to address those medical conditions. IMPACT achieves this by performing hundreds of thousands of Monte Carlo simulations of missions to build aggregate pictures of medical risk. IMPACT’s risk metrics include loss of crew life (LOCL) – a measure of crew mortality due to medical conditions in space, return to definitive care (RTDC) – the need to perform crew evacuation, and task time lost (TTL) – a measure of the inability to perform activities due to crew disability. These risk metrics are applied to every medical condition identified by IMPACT’s computation analyses for every segment of the mission. Medical sets/kits are optimized to address these medical conditions but must fit within the stated Artemis Design Reference Mission (DRM) request for mass and volume physical size constraints. ANTICIPATED ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Using two Artemis missions, Artemis 2 and Artemis 5, IMPACT will provide the analyses for comparison of medical set/kit contents based upon mass and/or volume requirements and identify the at-risk medical conditions within both missions. This paper serves as an initial exploration of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) medical risk calculations between two crewed Artemis missions and is not intended to be deemed the official medical response for the Artemis campaign.

probabilistic risk assessment↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Depth Modeling and Simulation Analysis of Artemis Missions Using the Impact Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND The Artemis campaign is a Moon exploration program with a series of six planned missions, five of which will be crewed. These five crewed missions will contain a single mission segment (space flight), or multiple mission segments involving space flight (Orion), lunar landing (LTV) and/or space habitat (Gateway). Each crewed segment faces the risk of unique medical conditions, necessitating medical sets/kits tailored to those specificities. To support and enable a data-driven and evidence-based decision-making process through out a mission’s life cycle, a software tool called IMPACT was developed. Using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodologies, IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a novel tool built for analyzing the possibility of encountering complex medical risks during space flight, and for identifying the medical resources and capabilities needed to treat those potential at-risk medical conditions. IMPACT achieves this by performing hundreds of thousands of Monte Carlo simulations of missions to build aggregate pictures of medical risk. During an extended simulation modeling phase, IMPACT generated analytical results for medical risks, and the medical resources and capabilities to address those risks, for every segment of every crewed Artemis mission. This presentation will highlight the reliability, consistency and validity of IMPACT’s computational modeling techniques and will showcase the library of analytical outcomes generated for the Artemis missions. OVERVIEW During the early stages of IMPACT’s design, architecture and technical requirements collection, “scenarios” (use cases) - achievement goals required for acceptance testing, were identified by stakeholders. IMPACT successfully completed the scenario testing requirements and undertook an extensive operational run phase utilizing a wide range of input combinations with a goal of delivering a cohesive, trustworthy, reliable, vast, and diverse body of evidence. The intent of these modeling runs was to validate consistency in output, ensure solidity of executable operations and to streamline processes by identifying areas requiring efficiency improvements. Using the many missions of Artemis, IMPACT ran variations of operational runs to assess the output for acceptable, as well as unusual characteristics. This rigorous long-term “shakedown” analysis was implemented to help build a collective body of evidence to aid in securing a high level of confidence, reliability, and validity in the output, whether from the applicational components of IMPACT, or the entirety of the operational process. ANTICIPATED ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION This presentation will discuss the various categories of input criteria; the comparisons in the application of these input criteria to various Artemis missions; the preparation and collection of the body of evidence, and reliability of the computational modeling techniques. This paper serves as an initial analytical overview of IMPACT’s probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) medical risk outputs covering Artemis missions and is not intended to be deemed the official medical response for the Artemis campaign.

Crew Composition↗

NASA NTRS1994

Shared Problem Models and Crew Decision Making

The importance of crew decision making to aviation safety has been well established through NTSB accident analyses: Crew judgment and decision making have been cited as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents in commercial air transport, general aviation, and military aviation. Yet the bulk of research on decision making has not proven helpful in improving the quality of decisions in the cockpit. One reason is that traditional analytic decision models are inappropriate to the dynamic complex nature of cockpit decision making and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions. A new model of dynamic naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove more useful for training or aiding cockpit decision making. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulation and National Transportation Safety Board accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation and reflect the crew's metacognitive skill. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relation between communication that serves to build performance. Implications of these findings for crew training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action: Applying Research to Practice

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment: Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action: Applying Research to Practice

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1994

Decision Making in Action

The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1995

Decision Making in the Airplane

The Importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful In improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking In response to a problem, This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS2023

Aviation 2072: Scenario Planning for Wicked Problems

The world is changing rapidly. And with it, so are the potential futures for humanity. Many of these potential futures pose hidden threats, while others offer new opportunities for aviation and the broader aerospace community. To mitigate these risks and capitalize on opportunities, organizations must work to deeply understand these potential future scenarios and uncover any underlying drivers. Organizations will be more equipped and informed when making strategic investment decisions by better understanding these threats, opportunities, and drivers . The future scenarios and their threats and opportunities described in this paper were identified through a series of extensive brainstorming workshops, collectively titled MADNESS (Mapping for Aviation Driven by Needs Emergence and Satiating Society). These workshops engaged NASA civil servants and contractors with diverse backgrounds through a facilitated process of future scenario development and critique. The participants were led through exercises focused on a time horizon spanning from 2022 to 2072 and on problems that aviation might solve and or create during this period. From the broad results, two patterns of critical uncertainty emerged: “availability” (scarcity versus abundance) and “transparency” (openness versus security and privacy). The successful iteration and ideation across the MADNESS workshops also suggests a repeatable mechanism for strategic risk exploration across a variety of NASA and industry stakeholders.

Mapping↗

NASA NTRS2005

Simulation of Range Safety for the NASA Space Shuttle

This paper describes a simulation environment that seamlessly combines a number of safety and environmental models for the launch phase of a NASA Space Shuttle mission. The components of this simulation environment represent the different systems that must interact in order to determine the Expectation of casualties (E(sub c)) resulting from the toxic effects of the gas dispersion that occurs after a disaster affecting a Space Shuttle within 120 seconds of lift-off. The utilization of the Space Shuttle reliability models, trajectory models, weather dissemination systems, population models, amount and type of toxicants, gas dispersion models, human response functions to toxicants, and a geographical information system are all integrated to create this environment. This simulation environment can help safety managers estimate the population at risk in order to plan evacuation, make sheltering decisions, determine the resources required to provide aid and comfort, and mitigate damages in case of a disaster. This simulation environment may also be modified and used for the landing phase of a space vehicle but will not be discussed in this paper.

Rabelo, Luis↗