SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “risk informed design”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 145 records · Page 8

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2010

Obtaining Valid Safety Data for Software Safety Measurement and Process Improvement

We report on a preliminary case study to examine software safety risk in the early design phase of the NASA Constellation spaceflight program. Our goal is to provide NASA quality assurance managers with information regarding the ongoing state of software safety across the program. We examined 154 hazard reports created during the preliminary design phase of three major flight hardware systems within the Constellation program. Our purpose was two-fold: 1) to quantify the relative importance of software with respect to system safety; and 2) to identify potential risks due to incorrect application of the safety process, deficiencies in the safety process, or the lack of a defined process. One early outcome of this work was to show that there are structural deficiencies in collecting valid safety data that make software safety different from hardware safety. In our conclusions we present some of these deficiencies.

Basili, Victor r.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Modular Open System Architecture for Reducing Contamination Risk in the Space and Missile Defense Supply Chain

To combat contamination of physical assets and provide reliable data to decision makers in the space and missile defense community, a modular open system architecture for creation of contamination models and standards is proposed. Predictive tools for quantifying the effects of contamination can be calibrated from NASA data of long-term orbiting assets. This data can then be extrapolated to missile defense predictive models. By utilizing a modular open system architecture, sensitive data can be de-coupled and protected while benefitting from open source data of calibrated models. This system architecture will include modules that will allow the designer to trade the effects of baseline performance against the lifecycle degradation due to contamination while modeling the lifecycle costs of alternative designs. In this way, each member of the supply chain becomes an informed and active participant in managing contamination risk early in the system lifecycle.

Seasly, Elaine↗

NASA NTRS2019

Overview of NASA's Solar Electric Propulsion Project

NASA is continuing to develop and qualify a state of the art 13 kW-class Advanced Electric Propulsion System (AEPS) for NASA exploration missions through a contract with Aerojet Rocketdyne (AR). An objective of the AEPS project is accelerate the adoption of high power electric propulsion technologies by reducing the risk and uncertainty of integrating Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) technologies into space flight systems. NASA and AR have recently initiated testing of engineering hardware including the Hall Current Thruster (HCT), Power Processing Unit (PPU), and Xenon Flow Controller (XFC) at both the component and system levels. The successful completion of these tests will provide the required information to advance the AEPS system towards Critical Design Review. In support of the AEPS contract, NASA and JPL have been performing risk reduction activities to address specific concerns of this higher power Hall thruster propulsion system. These risk reduction activities have included long duration wear testing of the Technology Demonstration Unit (TDU) Hall thruster and cathode hardware, thermal cycling of TDU cathode heaters and coils, plasma plume measurements, and performed early circuit testing of the AEPS PPU design. In addition to the propulsion system development, the SEP project is developing the Plasma Diagnostic Package (PDP) and the SEP Testbed. The PDP is designed for use in conjunction with a high-powered electric propulsion (EP) system to characterize in-space operation. The SEP Testbed system is being developed to demonstrate integrated SEP system performance. The paper presents an overview of the NASA and the AEPS contract activities and a summary of the associated NASA in-house activities.

Plasma diagnostics package↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Numerical Prediction of Heat Transfer Coefficients during Xenon Tank Fill in Microgravity

NASA’s Gateway will serve as an orbital outpost to enable sustained human lunar exploration and facilitate access to destinations beyond the Moon. To maintain sustainable deep space missions, on-orbit propellant transfer and refueling must be realized. One of Gateway’s critical components, the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE), will use solar electric propulsion to perform attitude control maneuvers and orbit transfers. Xenon will be used as the propellant for the PPE and stored in a composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV). During the propellant refueling process, xenon will compress causing the fluid and tank walls to warm. There is concern that the bond between the tank liner and composite may degrade at elevated temperatures, along with the possibility of the tank exceeding design pressure. While on-orbit testing is being proposed, numerical models are being used to predict the thermal response and reduce risk during a refueling operation in microgravity where natural convection is diminished. Accurate numerical models may be used to inform decisions for follow-on testing, or design and operation of refueling architectures. Challenges of modeling xenon tank fill in microgravity include non-ideal gas behavior, operating near the fluid’s critical point, and lack of experimental flight data. This study presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model with conjugate heat transfer that is used to predict averaged heat transfer coefficients during tank filling. At the anticipated injection flow rates, the CFD results showed that forced convection dominates in microgravity. Initial results from a multi-node Thermal Desktop model that assumed a purely conducting fluid (Nu=1) over-predicted the CFD fluid temperature and pressure, while a similar model allowing for natural convection under-predicted. The heat transfer coefficients predicted by CFD were implemented into the multi-node model, and the COPV thermal response from the two computational approaches were compared with good agreement.

Heat Transfer↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Long-Term Health Metric Development Effort

INTRODUCTION Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a methodology applied when high-stakes decisions need to be made about complex systems. PRA often uses risk minimization to aid decision making, such as when establishing vehicle requirements or resource allocations. The NASA Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains the human spaceflight risk postures, many of which have in-mission medical outcomes, but the full risk set also includes performance and Long-Term Health (LTH) outcomes. An effort is underway to determine the dependencies between LTH risk outcomes and mission characteristics and to identify metrics for quantifying LTH outcomes. The LTH metrics will be incorporated into future PRA tools currently under development to support crew health and performance decision making. LONG-TERM HEALTH (LTH) RISK LTH risk encompasses the timeframe from immediately post-flight, through the rest of an astronaut’s career, through retirement, and until death. LTH outcomes include the time and interventions needed for the astronaut to return to preflight physiological states after experiencing spaceflight hazards and recovery from any in-mission medical events that persist into the post-flight timeframe. It includes chronic complications that may arise due to experiencing in-flight medical conditions or injuries and medical conditions that occur later in life with a higher probability of occurrence or with more severity because of their spaceflight exposure. Finally, LTH outcomes can also include a reduction in life expectancy due to spaceflight exposures. Eighteen of the HSRB risks contain an LTH component, each with a unique incidence rate and consequence severity. ON-GOING LTH METRIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS Based on guidance from a stakeholder workshop held on June 1, 2023, only LTH outcomes with causes tied to spaceflight experience that are significantly different from normal healthy aging and which can be affected by changes in in-mission resources are targeted for inclusion within the PRA modeling efforts. Current on-going efforts include a sensitivity analysis of potential in-flight medical conditions to determine which conditions may persist into post-flight and how the consequences may be affected by in-mission medical resources. Also underway is determination of differences in the time for a return to preflight physiological baselines when in-flight countermeasures are available versus when they are not. Analyses performed with publicly available astronaut data and collaborations with the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health team are being designed to understand which LTH outcomes differ significantly from natural healthy aging. Information exchanges are also occurring with LTH risk custodians to understand how they quantify outcomes. FUTURE PLANS Risk characteristics will be determined for each LTH risk that meets our inclusion criteria and the dependencies of their outcomes to in-mission resources and mission characteristics will be established. The individual risks will be integrated together into one or more high level LTH metrics for inclusion in the PRA tool, so that LTH risks can be considered along with in-mission risks during crew health and performance system decision support trade studies.

B. E. Lewandowski↗

NASA NTRS2013

New Approaches in Reusable Booster System Life Cycle Cost Modeling

This paper presents the results of a 2012 life cycle cost (LCC) study of hybrid Reusable Booster Systems (RBS) conducted by NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The work included the creation of a new cost estimating model and an LCC analysis, building on past work where applicable, but emphasizing the integration of new approaches in life cycle cost estimation. Specifically, the inclusion of industry processes/practices and indirect costs were a new and significant part of the analysis. The focus of LCC estimation has traditionally been from the perspective of technology, design characteristics, and related factors such as reliability. Technology has informed the cost related support to decision makers interested in risk and budget insight. This traditional emphasis on technology occurs even though it is well established that complex aerospace systems costs are mostly about indirect costs, with likely only partial influence in these indirect costs being due to the more visible technology products. Organizational considerations, processes/practices, and indirect costs are traditionally derived ("wrapped") only by relationship to tangible product characteristics. This traditional approach works well as long as it is understood that no significant changes, and by relation no significant improvements, are being pursued in the area of either the government acquisition or industry?s indirect costs. In this sense then, most launch systems cost models ignore most costs. The alternative was implemented in this LCC study, whereby the approach considered technology and process/practices in balance, with as much detail for one as the other. This RBS LCC study has avoided point-designs, for now, instead emphasizing exploring the trade-space of potential technology advances joined with potential process/practice advances. Given the range of decisions, and all their combinations, it was necessary to create a model of the original model and use genetic algorithms to explore results. A strong business case occurs when viable paths are identified for an affordable up-front investment, and these paths can credibly achieve affordable, responsive operations, characterized by smaller direct touch labor efforts at the wing level from flight to flight. The results supporting this approach, its potential, and its conclusions are presented here.

Zapata, Edgar↗

NASA NTRS2013

New Approaches in Reuseable Booster System Life Cycle Cost Modeling

Zapata, Edgar↗

NASA NTRS2004

Validating the autonomous EO-1 science agent

This paper describes the validation process for the Autonomous Science Agent, a software agent that is currently flying onboard NASA EO-1 spacecraft. The agent autonomously collects, analyzes, and reacts to onboard science data. The Autonomous Science Agent has been designed using a layered architectural approach with specific redundant safeguards to reduce the risk of an agent malfunction to the EO-1 spacecraft. This safe design has been thoroughly validated by informal validation methods supplemented by sub-system and system-level testing. This paper describes the analysis used to define agent safety, elements of the design that increase the safety of the agent, and the process used to validate agent safety.

software↗

NASA NTRS2017

RNAV STAR Procedural Adherence

In this exploratory archival study we mined the performance of 24 major US airports area navigation standard terminal arrival routes (RNAV STARs) over the preceding three years. Overlaying radar track data on top of RNAV STAR routes provided a comparison between aircraft flight paths and the waypoint positions and altitude restrictions. NASA Ames Supercomputing resources were utilized to perform the data mining and processing. We investigated STARs by lateral transition path (full-lateral), vertical restrictions (full-lateral/full-vertical), and skipped waypoints (skips). In addition, we graphed altitudes and their frequencies of occurrence for altitude restrictions. Full-lateral compliance was generally greater than Full-lateral/full-vertical, but the delta between the rates was not always consistent. Full-lateral/full-vertical usage medians of the 2016 procedures ranged from 0 in KDEN (Denver) to 21 in KMEM (Memphis). Waypoint skips ranged from 0 to nearly 100 for specific waypoints. Altitudes restrictions were sometimes missed by systemic amounts in 1000 ft. increments from the restriction, creating multi-modal distributions. Other times, altitude misses looked to be more normally distributed around the restriction. This work is a preliminary investigation into the objective performance of instrument procedures and provides a framework to track how procedural concepts and design intervention function. In addition, this tool may aid in providing acceptability metrics as well as risk assessment information.

Stewart, Michael J.↗

NASA NTRS2026

The Relevance of the VIPER Mission to NASA’s Artemis Human Exploration of the Moon

NASA has ambitious plans to send astronaut crews to the south polar region of the Moon and explore this lunar terrain with humans for the first time through a series of Artemis missions. Artemis will provide economic benefits, drive technological advancement, and inspire the next generation of explorers. Simultaneously, Artemis presents a unique opportunity for humans to conduct high-priority planetary science in situ in the south polar region of the Moon. Prior to human exploration, landed robotic precursor investigations can provide valuable information to reduce risk and maximize discovery and productivity of subsequent crewed missions. NASA’s Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) is a robotic mission designed to explore and characterize the lunar south polar region prior to crewed Artemis landed missions. VIPER is designed to explore multiple thermal regimes to characterize the lunar polar environment and regolith properties, and to explore for surface and subsurface ices. Each of these objectives are key for both scientific investigation and to detect and assess volatile deposits to support in situ resource utilization (ISRU) and a sustained human presence on the Moon. VIPER would also operate with a real-time mission operations architecture with relevance and feed-forward to Artemis crewed operations on the lunar surface. VIPER would provide key information regarding the lunar environment, scientific exploration, technologies, and real-time operations to optimize the valuable surface exploration time of Artemis crew members while simultaneously reducing risk to crew and increasing health and human safety on the lunar surface.

Jennifer L Heldmann↗

NASA NTRS2010

Achieving a Risk-Informed Decision-Making Environment at NASA: The Emphasis of NASA's Risk Management Policy

This slide presentation reviews the evolution of risk management (RM) at NASA. The aim of the RM approach at NASA is to promote an approach that is heuristic, proactive, and coherent across all of NASA. Risk Informed Decision Making (RIDM) is a decision making process that uses a diverse set of performance measures along with other considerations within a deliberative process to inform decision making. RIDM is invoked for key decisions such as architecture and design decisions, make-buy decisions, and budget reallocation. The RIDM process and how it relates to the continuous Risk Management (CRM) process is reviewed.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗

NASA NTRS2017

Tracking Historical NASA EVA Training: Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH) Development of the EVA Suit Exposure Tracker (EVA SET)

During a spacewalk, designated as extravehicular activity (EVA), an astronaut ventures from the protective environment of the spacecraft into the vacuum of space. EVAs are among the most challenging tasks during a mission, as they are complex and place the astronaut in a highly stressful environment dependent on the spacesuit for survival. Due to the complexity of EVA, NASA has conducted various training programs on Earth to mimic the environment of space and to practice maneuvers in a more controlled and forgiving environment. However, rewards offset the risks of EVA, as some of the greatest accomplishments in the space program were accomplished during EVA, such as the Apollo moonwalks and the Hubble Space Telescope repair missions. Water has become the environment of choice for EVA training on Earth, using neutral buoyancy as a substitute for microgravity. During EVA training, an astronaut wears a modified version of the spacesuit adapted for working in water. This high fidelity suit allows the astronaut to move in the water while performing tasks on full-sized mockups of space vehicles, telescopes, and satellites. During the early Gemini missions, several EVA objectives were much more difficult than planned and required additional time. Later missions demonstrated that "complex (EVA) tasks were feasible when restraints maintained body position and underwater simulation training ensured a high success probability".1,2 EVA training has evolved from controlling body positioning to perform basic tasks to complex maintenance of the Hubble Space Telescope and construction of the International Space Station (ISS). Today, preparation is centered at special facilities built specifically for EVA training, such as the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) at NASA's Johnson Space Center ([JSC], Houston) and the Hydrolab at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Centre ([GCTC], Star City, outside Moscow). Underwater training for an EVA is also considered hazardous duty for NASA astronauts. This activity places astronauts at risk for decompression sickness and barotrauma as well as various musculoskeletal disorders from working in the spacesuit. The medical, operational and research communities over the years have requested access to EVA training data to better understand the risks. As a result of these requests, epidemiologists within the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH) team have compiled records from numerous EVA training venues to quantify the exposure to EVA training. The EVA Suit Exposure Tracker (EVA SET) dataset is a compilation of ground-based training activities using the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) in neutrally buoyant pools to enhance EVA performance on orbit. These data can be used by the current ISS program and future exploration missions by informing physicians, researchers, and operational personnel on the risks of EVA training in order that future suit and mission designs incorporate greater safety. The purpose of this technical report is to document briefly the various facilities where NASA astronauts have performed EVA training while describing in detail the EVA training records used to generate the EVA SET dataset.

Laughlin, Mitzi S.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing a Dashboard Interface to Display Assessment of Hazards and Risks to sUAS Flights

The Supplemental Data Services Provider-Consolidated Dashboard (SDSP-CD) is a graphical user interface (GUI) that displays the results of predictive tools in a single location. It is intended to be used in the preflight planning phase of an operation to allow users to proactively assess predicted flight hazards off-line; expanding an operator’s overall situational awareness of a flight plan and providing an opportunity for decision making and assessing the associated risks prior to flight. Hazard data and risk predictions are informative but can be complex to read and understand. However, presented visually and in relation to flight parameters (such as flight path), the nature and significance of hazards become much more evident. The SDSP-Consolidation Dashboard interface was designed to offer a means to present the results of hazard services in an easy to-use format. Two usability studies were run to explore what features might make a suite of hazard assessment services easy to use, and to assess the SDSP-CD interface. The first study evaluated the presentation of information on the GUI and the second evaluated users’ ability to understand and use the information. The studies gathered valuable information about how users approach a hazard assessment task and interpret information from the interface. Many suggestions were given for improving the interface’s information display, to allow users to more quickly understand and interpret the information being presented.

UAV display↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing a Dashboard Interface to Display Assessment of Hazards and Risks to sUAS Flights

The Supplemental Data Services Provider-Consolidated Dashboard (SDSP-CD) is a graphical user interface (GUI) that displays the results of predictive tools in a single location. It is intended to be used in the prefight planning phase of an operation to allow users to proactively assess predicted flight hazards off-line; expanding an operator’s overall situational awareness of a flight plan and providing an opportunity for decision making and assessing the associated risks prior to flight. Hazard data and risk predictions are informative but can be complex to read and understand. However, presented visually and in relation to flight parameters (such as flight path), the nature and significance of hazards become much more evident. The SDSP-Consolidation Dashboard interface was designed to offer a means to present the results of hazard services in an easy to-use format. Two usability studies were run to explore what features might make a suite of hazard assessment services easy to use, and to assess the SDSP-CD interface. The first study evaluated the presentation of information on the GUI and the second evaluated users’ ability to understand and use the information. The studies gathered valuable information about how users approach a hazard assessment task and interpret information from the interface. Many suggestions were given for improving the interface’s information display, to allow users to more quickly understand and interpret the information being presented

UAV display↗

NASA NTRS2008

Managing Large Scale Project Analysis Teams through a Web Accessible Database

Large scale space programs analyze thousands of requirements while mitigating safety, performance, schedule, and cost risks. These efforts involve a variety of roles with interdependent use cases and goals. For example, study managers and facilitators identify ground-rules and assumptions for a collection of studies required for a program or project milestone. Task leaders derive product requirements from the ground rules and assumptions and describe activities to produce needed analytical products. Disciplined specialists produce the specified products and load results into a file management system. Organizational and project managers provide the personnel and funds to conduct the tasks. Each role has responsibilities to establish information linkages and provide status reports to management. Projects conduct design and analysis cycles to refine designs to meet the requirements and implement risk mitigation plans. At the program level, integrated design and analysis cycles studies are conducted to eliminate every 'to-be-determined' and develop plans to mitigate every risk. At the agency level, strategic studies analyze different approaches to exploration architectures and campaigns. This paper describes a web-accessible database developed by NASA to coordinate and manage tasks at three organizational levels. Other topics in this paper cover integration technologies and techniques for process modeling and enterprise architectures.

O'Neil, Daniel A.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana↗

NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. To determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators, and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules, and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗

NASA NTRS2010

The Importance of HRA in Human Space Flight: Understanding the Risks

Human performance is critical to crew safety during space missions. Humans interact with hardware and software during ground processing, normal flight, and in response to events. Human interactions with hardware and software can cause Loss of Crew and/or Vehicle (LOCV) through improper actions, or may prevent LOCV through recovery and control actions. Humans have the ability to deal with complex situations and system interactions beyond the capability of machines. Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) is a method used to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the occurrence of human failures that affect availability and reliability of complex systems. Modeling human actions with their corresponding failure probabilities in a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) provides a more complete picture of system risks and risk contributions. A high-quality HRA can provide valuable information on potential areas for improvement, including training, procedures, human interfaces design, and the need for automation. Modeling human error has always been a challenge in part because performance data is not always readily available. For spaceflight, the challenge is amplified not only because of the small number of participants and limited amount of performance data available, but also due to the lack of definition of the unique factors influencing human performance in space. These factors, called performance shaping factors in HRA terminology, are used in HRA techniques to modify basic human error probabilities in order to capture the context of an analyzed task. Many of the human error modeling techniques were developed within the context of nuclear power plants and therefore the methodologies do not address spaceflight factors such as the effects of microgravity and longer duration missions. This presentation will describe the types of human error risks which have shown up as risk drivers in the Shuttle PRA which may be applicable to commercial space flight. As with other large PRAs of complex machines, human error in the Shuttle PRA proved to be an important contributor (~12 percent) to LOCV. An existing HRA technique was adapted for use in the Shuttle PRA, but additional guidance and improvements are needed to make the HRA task in space-related PRAs easier and more accurate. Therefore, this presentation will also outline plans for expanding current HRA methodology to more explicitly cover spaceflight performance shaping factors.

Hamlin, Teri↗