Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk Management Space Projects”

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

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

At least 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1992

Reducing the complexity of software systems - A strategic software perspective

The results of a combined management and technical initiative aimed at reducing the size and complexity associated with developing operations planning, scheduling, and resource management software systems are presented. The initiative has produced operations concepts, functional requirements, system architectures, a comprehensive lexicon, and software tools to revolutionize the traditional software technology and development practices for planning, scheduling, and resource management systems used in space operations control centers. Examples of technology and practices to reduce complexity include a method for projecting design consequences from an operations concept, a universal architecture for heuristic algorithms, an object-oriented framework for describing large classes of problems that parametrically adapt to all domain peculiarities, the identification of general approaches which respond to changes with minimum impact on systems implementations, and a management structure for prototyping to minimize the risks of ill-conceived designs.

Hornstein, Rhoda S.↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery Day 6 Post MMT Meeting

Wane Hill, Deputy Manager of the Space Shuttle Program, and Steve Poulos, Manager, Orbiter Project Office discussed damage assessments caused during ascent. Steve further detailed the damage analysis and assessments with chart presentation of composite tile damage and gap filler sites evaluation, protruding ceramic shim, left wing tile damage, comparisons of ground test results versus FD5 focused inspection, and the window 1 blanket. Gap fillers, the STS-73, thermal protection, temperature range, heating and heating range, aerodynamics, aerothermodynamics, risk, foam damage, tile adhesions, and extravehicular activities are topics covered with the News media.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2017

Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA): Challenges and New Considerations

Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA) challenges associated with the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components and emerging technologies are cause for risk acceptance in space flight missions. The RHA flow includes environment definition, hazard evaluation, requirements definition, evaluation of design, and design trades to accommodate the risk a project or program takes. The varied missions profiles and environments don't necessarily benefit from the same risk reduction efforts or cost reduction attempts. The level of effort within the RHA flow can be tailored to minimize risk based on the environment or design criticality.

Space Technology↗
NASA NTRS1996

Requirement Metrics for Risk Identification

The Software Assurance Technology Center (SATC) is part of the Office of Mission Assurance of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). The SATC's mission is to assist National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) projects to improve the quality of software which they acquire or develop. The SATC's efforts are currently focused on the development and use of metric methodologies and tools that identify and assess risks associated with software performance and scheduled delivery. This starts at the requirements phase, where the SATC, in conjunction with software projects at GSFC and other NASA centers is working to identify tools and metric methodologies to assist project managers in identifying and mitigating risks. This paper discusses requirement metrics currently being used at NASA in a collaborative effort between the SATC and the Quality Assurance Office at GSFC to utilize the information available through the application of requirements management tools.

Hammer, Theodore↗
NASA NTRS2012

Tailoring Systems Engineering Processes in a Conceptual Design Environment: A Case Study at NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center's ACO

This paper provides an overview of Systems Engineering as it is applied in a conceptual design space systems department at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Marshall Spaceflight Center (MSFC) Advanced Concepts Office (ACO). Engineering work performed in the NASA MFSC's ACO is targeted toward the Exploratory Research and Concepts Development life cycle stages, as defined in the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) System Engineering Handbook. This paper addresses three ACO Systems Engineering tools that correspond to three INCOSE Technical Processes: Stakeholder Requirements Definition, Requirements Analysis, and Integration, as well as one Project Process Risk Management. These processes are used to facilitate, streamline, and manage systems engineering processes tailored for the earliest two life cycle stages, which is the environment in which ACO engineers work. The role of systems engineers and systems engineering as performed in ACO is explored in this paper. The need for tailoring Systems Engineering processes, tools, and products in the ever-changing engineering services ACO provides to its customers is addressed.

Mulqueen, John↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

What You Need to Know about Planetary Protection Categorization for Your Mission

Planetary protection mission categorization helps to define the risk posture for requirements definition and implementation practices on space flight projects with planetary protection considerations. NASA has recently updated it’s planetary protection policy (NPR 8715.24), and with the update comes a major change in how the planetary protection categorization process is performed for NASA missions. Previously, projects would request the NASA Planetary Protection Officer (PPO) provide a categorization letter documenting the planetary protection category assigned to the proposed mission. Under the new policy the project manager (PM) proposes the planetary protection category for their mission. Depending on the level of the category, the PPO either concurs or recommends concurrence to the Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) before forwarding to the Mission Directorate Associate Administrator (MDAA) for final approval prior to the system requirements review (SRR). But what topics must be considered for categorization? This presentation will provide key considerations for planetary protection mission categorization including the target solar system body to be explored, the trajectory to get to the target body, and the operations to be performed at the target body. Additional unique scenarios such as secondary and auxiliary payloads, encountering other solar system bodies on the way to the target body, and sample return missions will also be discussed to share lessons learned from missions that have been through the new categorization process.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2008

Cassini Information Management System in Distributed Operations Collaboration and Cassini Science Planning

Launched on October 15, 1997, the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft began its ambitious journey to the Saturnian system with a complex suite of 12 scientific instruments, and another 6 instruments aboard the European Space Agencies Huygens Probe. Over the next 6 1/2 years, Cassini would continue its relatively simplistic cruise phase operations, flying past Venus, Earth, and Jupiter. However, following Saturn Orbit Insertion (SOI), Cassini would become involved in a complex series of tasks that required detailed resource management, distributed operations collaboration, and a data base for capturing science objectives. Collectively, these needs were met through a web-based software tool designed to help with the Cassini uplink process and ultimately used to generate more robust sequences for spacecraft operations. In 2001, in conjunction with the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and later Venustar Software and Engineering Inc., the Cassini Information Management System (CIMS) was released which enabled the Cassini spacecraft and science planning teams to perform complex information management and team collaboration between scientists and engineers in 17 countries. Originally tailored to help manage the science planning uplink process, CIMS has been actively evolving since its inception to meet the changing and growing needs of the Cassini uplink team and effectively reduce mission risk through a series of resource management validation algorithms. These algorithms have been implemented in the web-based software tool to identify potential sequence conflicts early in the science planning process. CIMS mitigates these sequence conflicts through identification of timing incongruities, pointing inconsistencies, flight rule violations, data volume issues, and by assisting in Deep Space Network (DSN) coverage analysis. In preparation for extended mission operations, CIMS has also evolved further to assist in the planning and coordination of the dual playback redundancy of highvalue data from targets such as Titan and Enceladus. This paper will outline the critical role that CIMS has played for Cassini in the distributed ops paradigm throughout operations. This paper will also examine the evolution that CIMS has undergone in the face of new science discoveries and fluctuating operational needs. And finally, this paper will conclude with theoretical adaptation of CIMS for other projects and the potential savings in cost and risk reduction that could potentially be tapped into by future missions.

Equils, Douglas J.↗
NASA NTRS2001

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center Space Transportation Directorate Risk Management Implementation Program

The US civil aerospace program has been a great contributor to the creation and implementation of techniques and methods to identify, analyze, and confront risk. NASA has accomplished mission success in many instances, but also has had many failures. Anomalies have kept the Agency from achieving success on other occasions, as well. While NASA has mastered ways to prevent risks, and to quickly and effectively react and recover from anomalies or failures, it was not until few years ago that a comprehensive Risk Management process started being implemented in some of its programs and projects. A Continuous Risk Management (CRM) cycle process was developed and has been promoted and used successfully in programs and projects across the Agency.

Duarte, Luis Alberto↗
NASA NTRS2002

Risk Management for the International Space Station

The International Space Station (ISS) is an extremely complex system, both technically and programmatically. The Space Station must support a wide range of payloads and missions. It must be launched in numerous launch packages and be safely assembled and operated in the harsh environment of space. It is being designed and manufactured by many organizations, including the prime contractor, Boeing, the NASA institutions, and international partners and their contractors. Finally, the ISS has multiple customers, (e.g., the Administration, Congress, users, public, international partners, etc.) with contrasting needs and constraints. It is the ISS Risk Management Office strategy to proactively and systematically manages risks to help ensure ISS Program success. ISS program follows integrated risk management process (both quantitative and qualitative) and is integrated into ISS project management. The process and tools are simple and seamless and permeate to the lowest levels (at a level where effective management can be realized) and follows the continuous risk management methodology. The risk process assesses continually what could go wrong (risks), determine which risks need to be managed, implement strategies to deal with those risks, and measure effectiveness of the implemented strategies. The process integrates all facets of risk including cost, schedule and technical aspects. Support analysis risk tools like PRA are used to support programatic decisions and assist in analyzing risks.

Sebastian, J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Techniques for Assuring NASA Mission Success Using Redundancy and Multi-Functionality Designs

Topics include NASA centers around the country; 2009 highlights of significant successes in space transportation, exploration, and science; significant accomplishments; places to explore include Lagrange points, near-Earth objects, Mars and the Moon, and International Space Station research; Marshall's missions include propulsion and transportation systems, life support systems, and earth and space science spacecraft, systems, and operations; project lifecycle management model; motivation of avionics fault-tolerance, redundancy needs and concerns, redundancy versus reliability; parallel-series configurations; effect of adding redundancy on mission success; example of rules-based approach where reliability and safety interaction impacts design; impact of common cause failure; approach ot bottom-up reliability analysis; three factors that lead to redundant system failure; Apollo 13 multi-functional reliability and example; and mitigating the risk of single string spacecraft architecture;.

Shivers, Herb↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lessons Learned in Systems Engineering Availability and Recommendations for Mission Technical Leaders

In spaceflight missions at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), the Mission System Engineer (MSE) is the technical leader of the overall engineering team and also is the Independent Engineering Technical Authority. The responsibility of this role includes the definition of the mission design architecture, concept of operations, and mission requirements, management of risk throughout the development, and verification and validation of the final system performance and function amongst other duties. This responsibility inherently requires time management, enabling focus on a balanced development with appropriate risk. Time is the most valuable resource of the MSE. The system engineer’s availability to interact with the development team (often product or component design leads and technicians, often in different worksites) to discover and mitigate mission risks during development is key to mission success. This paper presents examples from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Landsat 9, and Neutron star Interior Composition ExploreR (NICER) which represent in-house and out-of-house hardware builds. These examples demonstrate how interactions between the Mission Systems Engineers and other project and partner engineers result in discovery of critical risks, leading to early mitigation with significant cost and performance savings. These three missions would have suffered test failures or on-orbit failures had their MSEs not set aside time to visit engineers and technicians that were working on key pieces of space flight hardware. Availability is more than just time; it is openness to listen to concerns and questions. It begins by building a level of trust in the team that it is safe to ask questions or share concerns without the fear of blame or additional workload. It also requires enabling informal conversations (over lunch, coffee, in the clean room, or at the team members desk, etc.) where key information can be exchanged, and team members may even provide an easy-to-implement mitigation idea for another subsystem. Availability is a highly valuable commodity and completely non-obvious to protect and optimize. The natural tendency of engineers is to keep themselves busy with solving problems that they know about. This paper is encouraging MSEs to resist this tendency to try and solve all the complex problems themselves and actively devote daily time to learning and solving problems that are found with informal communications with other team members.

Lessons Learned↗
NASA NTRS2024

ISS Technology Demonstrations for Future Spaceflight Medical Systems

Throughout the history of human spaceflight, crewmembers have experienced various in-flight medical conditions including illness and injury. Planned missions to the Moon and Mars will require capabilities to maintain the health of future space travelers. Mass, power, and volume available in the vehicles and habitats for these missions will be severely constrained; resupply of resources will be limited or non-existent, as will opportunities for evacuation to Earth. Furthermore, ground-based support will be hampered by communication latencies and blackouts. These vehicle and mission constraints will necessitate a medical system that has been efficiently planned, providing on-board procedural guidance in addition to a variety of medical devices and consumable resources. Medical capabilities required for the diagnosis and treatment of potential medical conditions during future spaceflight missions may include real-time health monitoring, medical imaging, and biomarker analyses ( e.g., blood or urine). Terrestrial medicine shares these needs, thus many of these medical capabilities could likely be satisfied by Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) devices and methodologies; however, in some cases the unique space environment and increased mission duration will drive the need to modify technologies and the way care is provided. NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element and Mars Campaign Office’s Exploration Medical Integrated Product Team (XMIPT) are working together to decrease medical risk during exploration missions. Flight-tested medical diagnostic and treatment technologies are necessary to effectively manage medical conditions relevant to exploration missions while meeting vehicle constraints, integrating with medical decision-support tools, and enabling increasingly Earth-independent operations. Several projects have leveraged the ISS as a testbed for exploration, including 1) i n- situ blood analysis, 2) medical inventory, 3) intravenous fluid generation, and 4) autonomous medical procedure guidance. Management of several in-flight medical conditions, such as bacterial and viral infections and acute radiation syndrome, is dramatically improved with ability to assess blood cell populations, electrolytes, and metabolites. I n December 2020 and January 2021 ExMC performed an ISS technology demonstration (Tech Demo) of the HemoCue® WBC DIFF analyzer (HemoCue, Brea, CA), a COTS device that was modified to enable functionality in a spaceflight environment. This Tech Demo marked the first time that hematology measurements were successfully performed real-time in microgravity. Also modified and demonstrated was the reusable Handheld Electrolytes and Lab Technology for Humans (rHEALTH) ONE analyzer (rHEALTH, Bedford, MA), which uses flow cytometry and sheath-based hydrodynamic focusing methodologies. The rHEALTH ONE ISS Tech Demo in May 2022 demonstrated test results obtained in-flight matched those on the ground. NASA currently relies on crew self-reporting to manage and maintain medical inventory on ISS.The ability to maintain an accurate inventory becomes more critical during long duration missions since the crew will need to be increasingly autonomous in finding and utilizing medical items, including those scenarios when alternative treatments need to be considered due to limited or no resupply. HRP’s Medical Consumables Tracking (MCT) project was developed by ZIN Technologies, Inc. (Cleveland, OH), and demonstrated real-time tracking of medical supplies aboard the ISS between December 2016 and July 2018. The MCT system design utilized Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) technology to perform automated inventory and was installed in the Crew Health Care System (CHeCS) Resupply Stowage Rack (RSR). The challenge of limited shelf life, exacerbated by the lack of resupply opportunities, affects a plethora of medical system components including consumables, pharmaceuticals, and intravenous (IV) fluid. In 2010, ExMC funded ZIN Technologies, Inc. (Cleveland, OH), to develop the Intravenous Fluid Generation (IVGEN) system. IV fluids were successfully generated with IVGEN using the potable water supply on ISS during ISS Expedition 23. The XMIPT is in the process of developing a miniaturized version of the original IVGEN hardware for a future Tech Demo aboard the ISS. Current ISS medical operations rely heavily on preflight training and real-time remote guidance, both of which become impractical or impossible for exploration missions. The primary goal of the Autonomous Medical Officer Support (AMOS) Software Tech Demos on ISS was to confirm telemedical proof-of-concept for autonomous medical imaging in an operational setting. This novel software tool shifts emphasis from preflight training and real-time remote guidance to in-flight just-in-time instruction, a new and necessary paradigm for crew medical autonomy. AMOS introduces a novel, streamlined skill management concept for exploration missions featuring comprehensive training and guidance modules for ultrasound examinations using the ISS Ultrasound 2 (a modified GE Vivid-q™; General Electric HealthCare, Chicago, IL). With no prior crew training or remote guidance, two Tech Demos on the ISS (April 2020 and June 2022) resulted in high quality, clinically useful image sets. We will provide a review of historical, current, and planned medical devices and technologies considered for inclusion within future spaceflight medical systems and summarize hardware development activities and medical device tech demos conducted on the ISS.

Astronaut health and performance↗
NASA NTRS2019

Integrated Research Plan to Assess the Combined Effects of Space Radiation, Altered Gravity, and Isolation and Confinement on Crew Health and Performance: Implementation Strategy

This document supplements the white paper titled CBS Integrated Research Plan: Problem Statement. The Problem Statement describes why it is important to implement a fully integrated research plan to derive risk estimates for the combined, potentially synergistic, effects of the three major spaceflight hazards (space radiation; isolated, confined, and extreme environments; altered gravity). These risk estimates will help establish acceptable maximum decrement or change in a physiological or behavioral parameter during or after spaceflight, and the acceptable limit of exposure to the combined spaceflight hazards. This Implementation Strategy describes how the research plan will accomplish the CBS Integrated Research Plan goals. The Implementation Strategy includes approaches to evaluate relationships among biological responses underlying three risks that are managed by three of NASA’s Human Research Project (HRP) organizational “elements”. This CBS (Acute effects of radiation on CNS, BMed, Sensorimotor) Integrated Research Plan also identifies strategies to monitor and mitigate decrements to operationally relevant performance. Currently, the strategy that was initiated in 2018, includes an eight-year research plan and a four-year validation plan that extend to the year 2030. Once the monitoring tools and countermeasures are developed, they will be validated and refined during four years of early exploration missions. The planned tasks and their associated research products and deliverables have been mapped to the individual research emphases to clearly demonstrate how each research area helps ensure crew health and safety during exploration missions.

Susan Steinberg↗
NASA NTRS2008

Sensor Selection and Data Validation for Reliable Integrated System Health Management

For new access to space systems with challenging mission requirements, effective implementation of integrated system health management (ISHM) must be available early in the program to support the design of systems that are safe, reliable, highly autonomous. Early ISHM availability is also needed to promote design for affordable operations; increased knowledge of functional health provided by ISHM supports construction of more efficient operations infrastructure. Lack of early ISHM inclusion in the system design process could result in retrofitting health management systems to augment and expand operational and safety requirements; thereby increasing program cost and risk due to increased instrumentation and computational complexity. Having the right sensors generating the required data to perform condition assessment, such as fault detection and isolation, with a high degree of confidence is critical to reliable operation of ISHM. Also, the data being generated by the sensors needs to be qualified to ensure that the assessments made by the ISHM is not based on faulty data. NASA Glenn Research Center has been developing technologies for sensor selection and data validation as part of the FDDR (Fault Detection, Diagnosis, and Response) element of the Upper Stage project of the Ares 1 launch vehicle development. This presentation will provide an overview of the GRC approach to sensor selection and data quality validation and will present recent results from applications that are representative of the complexity of propulsion systems for access to space vehicles. A brief overview of the sensor selection and data quality validation approaches is provided below. The NASA GRC developed Systematic Sensor Selection Strategy (S4) is a model-based procedure for systematically and quantitatively selecting an optimal sensor suite to provide overall health assessment of a host system. S4 can be logically partitioned into three major subdivisions: the knowledge base, the down-select iteration, and the final selection analysis. The knowledge base required for productive use of S4 consists of system design information and heritage experience together with a focus on components with health implications. The sensor suite down-selection is an iterative process for identifying a group of sensors that provide good fault detection and isolation for targeted fault scenarios. In the final selection analysis, a statistical evaluation algorithm provides the final robustness test for each down-selected sensor suite. NASA GRC has developed an approach to sensor data qualification that applies empirical relationships, threshold detection techniques, and Bayesian belief theory to a network of sensors related by physics (i.e., analytical redundancy) in order to identify the failure of a given sensor within the network. This data quality validation approach extends the state-of-the-art, from red-lines and reasonableness checks that flag a sensor after it fails, to include analytical redundancy-based methods that can identify a sensor in the process of failing. The focus of this effort is on understanding the proper application of analytical redundancy-based data qualification methods for onboard use in monitoring Upper Stage sensors.

Garg, Sanjay↗
NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors Research for Space Exploration: Measurement, Modeling, and Mitigation

As part of NASA's Human Research Program, the Space Human Factors Engineering Project serves as the bridge between Human Factors research and Human Spaceflight applications. Our goal is to be responsive to the operational community while addressing issues at a sufficient level of abstraction to ensure that our tools and solutions generalize beyond the point design. In this panel, representatives from four of our research domains will discuss the challenges they face in solving current problems while also enabling future capabilities. Historically, engineering-dominated organizations have tended to view good Human Factors (HF) as a desire rather than a requirement in system design and development. Our field has made significant gains in the past decade, however; the Department of Defense, for example, now recognizes Human-System Integration (HSI), of which HF is a component, as an integral part of their divisions hardware acquisition processes. And our own agency was far more accepting of HF/HSI requirements during the most recent vehicle systems definition than in any prior cycle. Nonetheless, HF subject matter experts at NASA often find themselves in catch up mode... coping with legacy systems (hardware and software) and procedures that were designed with little regard for the human element, and too often with an attitude of we can deal with any operator issues during training. Our challenge, then, is to segregate the true knowledge gaps in Space Human Factors from the prior failures to incorporate best (or even good) HF design principles. Further, we strive to extract the overarching core HF issues from the point-design-specific concerns that capture the operators (and managers) attention. Generally, our approach embraces a 3M approach to Human Factors: Measurement, Modeling, and Mitigation. Our first step is to measure human performance, to move from subjective anecdotes to objective, quantified data. Next we model the phenomenon, using appropriate methods in our field, modifying them to suit the unique aspects of the space environment. Finally, we develop technologies, tools, and procedures to mitigate the decrements in human performance and capabilities that occur in space environments. When successful, we decrease risks to crew safety and to mission success. When extremely successful (or lucky), we devise generalizable solutions that advance the state of our practice. Our panel is composed of researchers from diverse domains of our project... from different boxes, if you will, of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS).

Kaiser, Mary K.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Operational Implementation of a Pc Uncertainty Construct for Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis

Earlier this year the NASA Conjunction Assessment and Risk Analysis (CARA) project presented the theoretical and algorithmic aspects of a method to include the uncertainties in the calculation inputs when computing the probability of collision (Pc) between two space objects, principally uncertainties in the covariances and the hard-body radius. The output of this calculation approach is to produce rather than a single Pc value an entire probability density function that will represent the range of possible Pc values given the uncertainties in the inputs and bring CA risk analysis methodologies more in line with modern risk management theory. The present study provides results from the exercise of this method against an extended dataset of satellite conjunctions in order to determine the effect of its use on the evaluation of conjunction assessment (CA) event risk posture. The effects are found to be considerable: a good number of events are downgraded from or upgraded to a serious risk designation on the basis of consideration of the Pc uncertainty. The findings counsel the integration of the developed methods into NASA CA operations.

assessment↗
NASA NTRS2022

Directed Acyclic Graph Guidance Documentation

For over a decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has tracked and configuration-managed approximately 30 risks to astronaut health and performance that occur before, during and after spaceflight. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB), a Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) Board at NASA Johnson Space Center, is the entity responsible for identifying, assessing, analyzing, and monitoring the official understanding of the risk or risk posture for each of the Human System Risks and determining – based on evaluation of the available evidence – when that risk posture changes. The ultimate purpose of tracking and researching these risks is to find ways to reduce the risk that astronaut crews face during spaceflight. Historically, research, development and operations relevant to one risk have been conducted in isolation from other risks; these individual risk ‘silos’ enabled initial characterization of each specific risk. In spaceflight however, the impact of exposure to risk for astronaut crews is cumulative, and not independent of exposures or other risks, as all the adverse effects of the spaceflight environment begin at launch, continue throughout the duration of the mission and in some cases across the lifetime of the crews. In January of 2020, the HSRB at NASA embarked on a pilot project designed to assess the potential value of causal diagramming as a tool to facilitate understanding these cumulative and interdependent effects as applied within Human System Risk management. This process uses directed acyclic graphs as a means of formalizing a shared mental model of the causal flow of risk among Risk Board stakeholders. Initially this model was to improve communication among those stakeholders, but the potential value exceeds communication alone. Formalization of the process for creating these causal diagrams will enable the creation of a composite risk network that is vetted by members of the NASA community and configuration managed. The causal diagrams are formulated as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to function as a type of knowledge graph for reference for the board and its stakeholders. This document outlines the pilot process, the standardized approaches, and guidance for risk custodian teams when creating and updating DAGs as a part of the NASA Human System Risk Management process.

Risk↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Incorporating UAS Traffic Management into Wildland Firefighting Operations: Initial Findings of Subject Matter Expert Interviews

Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UASs) are being utilized throughout the disaster and emergency response domain, including in wildland firefighting operations. While UASs can offer safety benefits in comparison to crewed aircraft, such as removing the human pilot from the vehicle so that they are not exposed to the same risks and the ability to operate in low-visibility conditions, they are not without tradeoffs. For example, it can be challenging for UAS pilots (UASPs) to build situation awareness of the airspace in which their UAS is operating. In order to address some of the challenges associated with using UASs and provide greater assistance to the firefighters and incident personnel in the wildland firefighting environment, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched the Advanced Capabilities for Emergency Response Operations (ACERO) project. Building on previous NASA research, ACERO will explore the implementation of a traffic management system in the wildland fire environment to enhance safety and support situation awareness. ACERO draws on the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system previously demonstrated in an urban environment. However, a traffic management system implemented in the wildland fire environment is expected to look and function much differently in order to meet the unique needs of this domain. At the outset of the ACERO project, interviews were conducted with five UASPs who operate UASs at wildland fire incidents. The interviews focused on exploring UASPs’ initial insights about the application of a traffic management system in wildland firefighting and understanding the unique needs of this environment. The UASPs discussed a range of topics including, the shape, size, and organization of UAS operations in the wildland fire environment, information needs for a user interface, such as traffic and map information, an alerting function when other traffic nears their operation area, and the importance of conformance monitoring. The UASPs also discussed their willingness to share operational information to support safety. In this paper, we describe the foundational work upon which ACERO will build and summarize the information and insights gathered during the UASP interviews, some of which have already informed the development of the ACERO work.

Uncrewed Aircraft System (UAS)↗