Risk Management (RM) on JPL Projects
Risk: the combination of the likelihood of occurance and the severity of the consequences of the occurance of an event (usually undesirable).
Risk Management JPL Projects↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Risk Management JPL 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.
Mission Operations and Command Assurance: Flight Operations Quality Improvements
Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA) is a Total Quality Management (TQM) task on JPL projects to instill quality in flight mission operations. From a system engineering view, MO&CA facilitates communication and problem-solving among flight teams and provides continuous process improvement to reduce risk in mission operations by addressing human factors. The MO&CA task has evolved from participating as a member of the spacecraft team to an independent team reporting directly to project management and providing system level assurance. JPL flight projects have benefited significantly from MO&CA's effort to contain risk and prevent rather than rework errors. MO&CA's ability to provide direct transfer of knowledge allows new projects to benefit from previous and ongoing flight experience.
mission↗
Mission operations and command assurance: Flight operations quality improvements
Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA) is a Total Quality Management (TQM) task on JPL projects to instill quality in flight mission operations. From a system engineering view, MO&CA facilitates communication and problem-solving among flight teams and provides continuous solving among flight teams and provides continuous process improvement to reduce risk in mission operations by addressing human factors. The MO&CA task has evolved from participating as a member of the spacecraft team, to an independent team reporting directly to flight project management and providing system level assurance. JPL flight projects have benefited significantly from MO&CA's effort to contain risk and prevent rather than rework errors. MO&CA's ability to provide direct transfer of knowledge allows new projects to benefit from previous and ongoing flight experience.
Welz, Linda L.↗
New Millennium DS-2 Electronic Packaging Smaller, Faster with Managed Risk
New Millennium DS-2 is the second project of the New Millennium Program series, managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The project consists of a pair of probes, that will be carried by the Mars '98 spacecraft.
New↗
Mission operations and command assurance: Instilling quality into flight operations
Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA) is a Total Quality Management (TQM) task on JPL projects to instill quality in flight mission operations. From a system engineering view, MO&CA facilitates communication and problem-solving among flight teams and provides continuous process improvement to reduce the probability of radiating incorrect commands to a spacecraft. The MO&CA task has evolved from participating as a member of the spacecraft team to an independent team reporting directly to flight project management and providing system level assurance. JPL flight projects have benefited significantly from MO&CA's effort to contain risk and prevent rather than rework errors. MO&CA's ability to provide direct transfer of knowledge allows new projects to benefit from previous and ongoing flight experience.
Welz, Linda L.↗
Advancing the practice of systems engineering at JPL
In FY 2004, JPL launched an initiative to improve the way it practices systems engineering. The Lab's senior management formed the Systems Engineering Advancement (SEA) Project in order to "significantly advance the practice and organizational capabilities of systems engineering at JPL on flight projects and ground support tasks." The scope of the SEA Project includes the systems engineering work performed in all three dimensions of a program, project, or task: 1. the full life-cycle, i.e., concept through end of operations 2. the full depth, i.e., Program, Project, System, Subsystem, Element (SE Levels 1 to 5) 3. the full technical scope, e.g., the flight, ground and launch systems, avionics, power, propulsion, telecommunications, thermal, etc. The initial focus of their efforts defined the following basic systems engineering functions at JPL: systems architecture, requirements management, interface definition, technical resource management, system design and analysis, system verification and validation, risk management, technical peer reviews, design process management and systems engineering task management, They also developed a list of highly valued personal behaviors of systems engineers, and are working to inculcate those behaviors into members of their systems engineering community. The SEA Project is developing products, services, and training to support managers and practitioners throughout the entire system lifecycle. As these are developed, each one needs to be systematically deployed. Hence, the SEA Project developed a deployment process that includes four aspects: infrastructure and operations, communication and outreach, education and training, and consulting support. In addition, the SEA Project has taken a proactive approach to organizational change management and customer relationship management - both concepts and approaches not usually invoked in an engineering environment. This paper'3 describes JPL's approach to advancing the practice of systems engineering at the Lab. It describes the general approach used and how they addressed the three key aspects of change: people, process and technology. It highlights a list of highly valued personal behaviors of systems engineers, discusses the various products, services and training that were developed, describes the deployment approach used, and concludes with several lessons learned.
process improvement↗
Zero to Integration in Eight Months, the Dawn Ground Data System Engineering Challenge
The Dawn Project has presented the Ground Data System (GDS) with technical challenges driven by cost and schedule constraints commonly associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery Projects. The Dawn mission consists of a new and exciting Deep Space partnership among: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), manages the project and is responsible for flight operation; Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC), is the spacecraft builder and is responsible for flight system test and integration; and the University of California, at Los Angeles (UCLA), is responsible for science planning and operations. As a cost-capped mission, one of Dawn's implementation strategies is to leverage from both flight and ground heritage. OSC's ground data system is used for flight system test and integration as part of the flight heritage strategy. Mission operations, however, are to be conducted with JPL's ground system. The system engineering challenge of dealing with two heterogeneous ground systems emerged immediately. During the first technical interchange meeting between the JPL's GDS Team and OSC's Flight Software Team, August 2003, the need to integrate the ground system with the flight software was brought to the table. This need was driven by the project's commitment to enable instrument engineering model integration in a spacecraft simulator environment, for both demonstration and risk mitigation purposes, by April 2004. This paper will describe the system engineering approach that was undertaken by JPL's GDS Team in order to meet the technical challenge within a non-negotiable eight-month schedule. Key to the success was adherence to fundamental systems engineering practices: decomposition of the project request into manageable requirements; integration of multiple ground disciplines and experts into a focused team effort; definition of a structured yet flexible development process; definition of an in-process risk reduction plan; and aggregation of the intermediate products to an integrated final product. In addition, this paper will highlight the role of lessons learned from the integration experience. The lessons learned from an early GDS deployment have served as the foundation for the design and implementation of the Dawn Ground Data System.
Ground Data System (GDS)↗
Zero to Integration in Eight Months, the Dawn Ground Data System Engineering Challange
The Dawn Project has presented the Ground Data System (GDS) with technical challenges driven by cost and schedule constraints commonly associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery Projects. The Dawn mission consists of a new and exciting Deep Space partnership among: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), responsible for project management and flight operations; Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC), spacecraft builder and responsible for flight system test and integration; and the University of California, at Los Angeles (UCLA), responsible for science planning and operations. As a cost-capped mission, one of Dawn s implementation strategies is to leverage from both flight and ground heritage. OSC's ground data system is used for flight system test and integration as part of the flight heritage strategy. Mission operations, however, are to be conducted with JPL s ground system. The system engineering challenge of dealing with two heterogeneous ground systems emerged immediately. During the first technical interchange meeting between the JPL s GDS Team and OSC's Flight Software Team, August 2003, the need to integrate the ground system with the flight software was brought to the table. This need was driven by the project s commitment to enable instrument engineering model integration in a spacecraft simulator environment, for both demonstration and risk mitigation purposes, by April 2004. This paper will describe the system engineering approach that was undertaken by JPL's GDS Team in order to meet the technical challenge within a non-negotiable eight-month schedule. Key to the success was adherence to an overall systems engineering process and fundamental systems engineering practices: decomposition of the project request into manageable requirements; definition of a structured yet flexible development process; integration of multiple ground disciplines and experts into a focused team effort; in-process risk management; and aggregation of the intermediate products to an integrated final product. In addition, this paper will highlight the role of lessons learned from the integration experience. The lessons learned from an early GDS deployment have served as the foundation for the design and implementation of the Dawn Ground Data System.
systems engineering↗
Managing Analysis Models in the Design Process
Design of large, complex space systems depends on significant model-based support for exploration of the design space. Integrated models predict system performance in mission-relevant terms given design descriptions and multiple physics-based numerical models. Both the design activities and the modeling activities warrant explicit process definitions and active process management to protect the project from excessive risk. Software and systems engineering processes have been formalized and similar formal process activities are under development for design engineering and integrated modeling. JPL is establishing a modeling process to define development and application of such system-level models.
design↗
Managing the Risk of Command File Errors
Command File Error (CFE), as defined by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) is, regardless of the consequence on the spacecraft, either: an error in a command file sent to the spacecraft, an error in the process for developing and delivering a command file to the spacecraft, or the omission of a command file that should have been sent to the spacecraft. The risk consequence of a CFE can be mission ending and thus a concern to space exploration projects during their mission operations. A CFE during space mission operations is often the symptom of some kind of imbalance or inadequacy within the system that comprises the hardware & software used for command generation and the human experts involved in this endeavour. As we move into an era of enhanced collaboration with other NASA centers and commercial partners, these systems become more and more complex and hence it is all the more important to formally model and analyze CFEs in order to manage the risk of CFEs. Here we will provide a summary of the ongoing efforts at JPL in this area and also explain some more recent developments in the area of developing quantitative models for the purpose of managing CFE's.
Bayesian Belief Networks↗
Initiating the 2002 Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Focused Technology Program
The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Project is an aggressive mission launching in 2009 to deliver a new generation of rover safely to the surface of Mars and conduct comprehensive in situ investigations using a new generation of instruments. This system will be designed to land with precision and be capable of operating over a large percentage on the surface of Mars. It will have capabilities that will support NASA's scientific goals into the next decade of exphation. The MSL Technology program is developing a wide-range of technologies needed for this Mission and potentially other space missions. The MSL Technology Program reports to both the MSL Project and the Mars Technology Program (MTP). The dual reporting process creates a challenging management situation, but ensures the new technology meets both the specific MSL requirements and the broader Mars Program requirements. MTP is a NASA-wide technology development program managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and is divided into a Focused Program and a Base Program. The Focused Technology Program addresses technologies that are specific and critical to near-term missions, while the Base Technology Program addresses those technologies that are applicable to multiple missions and which can be characterized as longer term, higher risk, and high payoff technologies. The MSL Technology Program is under the Focused Program and is tightly coupled to MSL's mission milestones and deliverables. The technology budget is separate from the flight Project budget, but the technology s requirements and the development process are tightly coordinated with the Project. The Technology Program combines proven management techniques of flight projects with commercial and academic technology management strategies, to create a technology management program that meets the near-term requirements of MSL and the long-term requirements of MTP. This paper examines the initiation of 2002 MSL Technology program. Some of the areas discussed in this paper include technology definition, task selection, technology management, and technology assessment.
Caffrey, Robert T.↗
V&V on a NASA Technology Demonstration Project: Low Density Supersonic Decelerator
Given their smaller budgets, but higher allowed risk posture, technology demonstration missions face different Verification and Validation (V&V) challenges than typical NASA missions. Despite these challenges, the Low Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD) project, managed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), has been extremely successful in testing new supersonic atmospheric decelerator technologies. A contribution to the project’s success is the unique V&V program that emphasized efficiency and flexibility. This paper will provide an overview of LDSD test objectives, Supersonic Flight Dynamics Tests (SFDT) performed so far, unique requirements structure and V&V processes implemented. The paper will focus on the V&V of the SFDT test architecture. Furthermore, lessons learned will also be presented at the end of the paper to aid future technology demonstration projects.
Murry, Michael L.↗
Mission operations and command assurance - Automating an operations TQM task
A long-term program is in progress at JPL to reduce cost and risk of mission operations through defect prevention and error management. A major element of this program, Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA), provides a system level function on flight projects to instill quality in mission operations. MO&CA embodies the total quality management TQM principle of continuous process improvement (CPI) and uses CPI in applying automation to mission operations to reduce risk and costs. MO&CA has led efforts to apply and has implemented automation in areas that impact the daily flight project work environment including Incident Surprise Anomaly tracking and reporting; command data verification, tracking and reporting; and command support data usage. MO&CA's future work in automation will take into account that future mission operations systems must be designed to avoid increasing error through the introduction of automation, while adapting to the demands of smaller flight teams.
Welz, Linda↗
Mission Operations and Command Assurance: Automating an Operations TQM Task
A long-term program is in progress at JPL to reduce cost and risk of mission operations through defect prevention and error management. A major element of this program, Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&QA), provides a system level function on flight projects to instill quality in mission operations. MO&CA embodies the Total Quality Management (TQM) principle of Continuous Process Inprovement (CPI) and uses CPI in applying automation to mission operations to reduce risk and costs. MO&CA has led efforts to apply and has implemented automation in areas that impact the daily flight project environment including Incident Surprise Anomoly tracking and reporting; command data verification, tracking, and reporting; and command support data usage. MO&CA's future work in automation will take into account that future missions systems must be designed to avoid increasing error through the introduction of automation, while adapting to the demands of smaller flight teams.
automation↗
Mission Operations and Command Assurance: Automating an Operations TQM Task
Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA) is a Total Quality Management (TQM) task on JPL projects to instill quality into mission operations. The mission operations environment is inherently risky because each decision made is potentially mission critical. The flight operations environment generally requires operators to make rapid critical decisions and solve problems based on limited information, while closely following standard procedures. MO&CA's primary goal is to help improve the operational reliability and reduce risk of projects during flight. To achieve this goal, automation of the MO&CA task is required. MO&CA specifically embodies the TQM principle of continuous process improvement (CPI) in which processes are continually examined and analyzed for opportunities for improvement. The second way in which MO&CA implements CPI on JPL projects is on new projects or upgrades to existing projects.
mission↗
(abstract) Mission Operations and Control Assurance: Flight Operations Quality Improvements
Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA), a recent addition to flight operations teams at JPL. provides a system level function to instill quality in mission operations. MO&CA's primary goal at JPL is to help improve the operational reliability for projects during flight. MO&CA tasks include early detection and correction of process design and procedural deficiencies within projects. Early detection and correction are essential during development of operational procedures and training of operational teams. MO&CA's effort focuses directly on reducing the probability of radiating incorrect commands to a spacecraft. Over the last seven years at JPL, MO&CA has become a valuable asset to JPL flight projects. JPL flight projects have benefited significantly from MO&CA's efforts to contain risk and prevent rather than rework errors. MO&CA's ability to provide direct transfer of knowledge allows new projects to benefit directly from previous and ongoing experience. Since MO&CA, like Total Quality Management (TQM), focuses on continuous improvement of processes and elimination of rework, we recommend that this effort be continued on NASA flight projects.
mission operation flight operations error detectio↗
Mission Operations and Command Assurance: Flight Operations Quality Improvements
Flight mission operations systems place human operators in demanding, high risk environments. The objective of Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA) is to help improve the operational reliability of flight projects by reducing error -- Pareto Analysis shows that the human is the largest error category. MO&CA is a system level task reporting to project flight management and JPL Systems Assurance Division. MO&CA provides direct transfer of knowledge, continuous process improvement, and communication facilitation.
mission↗
Risk analysis simulation of rover operations for Mars surface exploration
Risk management advocates have long sought to directly influence the early stages of the systems engineering process through a more effective role in system design trade studies. The principal obstacle to this has been the lack of credible ways to represent and quantify mission risk—that is, a combination of the probability of mission success (“system safety”) and science value—for the project manager and the rest of the design team. If it were possible to quantify mission risk, then the effects of proposed mission and system design changes could be calculated, and along with life-cycle costs, could be used to explore the design space more extensively and select better designs. JPL has been working to build the capability to quantify the probability of mission success using a federation of diverse simulations and models, each of which contributes some vital piece of the puzzle. The initial institutional focus has been on Mars surface operations. This ensemble computing framework enables the diverse models and simulations to work together seamlessly. Recent work at JPL has demonstrated the capability to exercise this ensemble from end-to-end using an Oracle-based database to automatically move results from one model/simulation to the next stage in the analysis.
Shishko, Robert↗