SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This presentation covers Oak Ridge National Labatory (ORNL) integral experiment work for fiscal year 2022. The talk highlights the three main Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) funded tasks for 2022.
This year, NASA Range Safety transitioned to a condensed annual report to allow for Secretariat support to the Range Safety Group, Risk Committee. Although much shorter than in previous years, this report contains full-length articles concerning various subject areas, as well as links to past reports. Additionally, summaries from various NASA Range Safety Program activities that took place throughout the year are presented, as well as information on several projects that may have a profound impact on the way business will be done in the future. The sections include a program overview and 2009 highlights; Range Safety Training; Range Safety Policy; Independent Assessments Support to Program Operations at all ranges conducting NASA launch operations; a continuing overview of emerging range safety-related technologies; and status reports from all of the NASA Centers that have Range Safety responsibilities.
The Committee for Review of Oversight Mechanisms for Space Shuttle Software was asked by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Office of Space Flight to determine the need to continue independent verification and validation (IV&V) for Space Shuttle flight software. The Committee found that the current IV&V process is necessary to maintain NASA's stringent safety and quality requirements for man-rated vehicles. Therefore, the Committee does not support NASA's plan to eliminate funding for the IV&V effort in fiscal year 1993. The Committee believes that the Space Shuttle software development process is not adequate without IV&V and that elimination of IV&V as currently practiced will adversely affect the overall quality and safety of the software, both now and in the future. Furthermore, the Committee was told that no organization within NASA has the expertise or the manpower to replace the current IV&V function in a timely fashion, nor will building this expertise elsewhere necessarily reduce cost. Thus, the Committee does not recommend moving IV&V functions to other organizations within NASA unless the current IV&V is maintained for as long as it takes to build comparable expertise in the replacing organization.
Realization of the expected proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) depends on the development and validation of performance standards for UAS Detect and Avoid (DAA) Systems. The RTCA Special Committee 228 is charged with leading the development of draft Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA Systems. NASA, as a participating member of RTCA SC-228, is committed to supporting the development and validation of draft requirements as well as the safety substantiation and end-to-end assessment of DAA system performance. A recent study conducted using NASA's ACES (Airspace Concept Evaluation System) simulation capability begins to address questions surrounding the development of draft MOPS for DAA systems. ACES analyses were conducted to determine: 1) the rate at which IFR aircraft encounter other IFR and VFR aircraft, and 2) the rate at which UAS aircraft encounter VFR aircraft. Five different separation thresholds were used (two for encounter and one each for well-clear, near mid-air collision, and closest point of approach). The results will be used by SC228 to inform decisions about the safety aspect of UAS DAA systems and future requirements development and validation efforts.
Viewgraphs of briefings from the Space Systems and Technology Advisory Committee (SSTAC)/ARTS review of the draft integrated technology plan (ITP) on human support are included. Topics covered include: human support program; human factors; life support technology; fire safety; medical support technology; advanced refrigeration technology; EVA suit system; advanced PLSS technology; and ARC-EVA systems research program.
Realization of the expected proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) depends on the development and validation of performance standards for UAS Detect and Avoid (DAA) Systems. The RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228) is charged with leading the development of draft Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA Systems. NASA, as a participating member of RTCA SC-228 is committed to supporting the development and validation of draft requirements as well as the safety substantiation and end-to-end assessment of DAA system performance. With regard to the safety aspect being studied by the SC-228 DAA Safety sub-group, NASA has conducted a study using the ACES (Airspace Concept Evaluation System) simulation capability to determine: 1) the rate at which IFR aircraft encounter other IFR and VFR aircraft, and 2) the rate at which UAS aircraft encounter VFR aircraft as well as the corresponding encounter geometries. Five different separation thresholds were used (two for encounter and one each for well-clear, near mid-air collision, and closest point of approach). The results will be used by the SC-228 DAA Safety sub-group to inform decisions about the safety aspect of UAS DAA systems and future requirements development and validation efforts.
Realization of the expected proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) depends on the development and validation of performance standards for UAS Detect and Avoid (DAA) Systems. The RTCA Special Committee 228 is charged with leading the development of draft Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA Systems. NASA, as a participating member of RTCA SC-228 is committed to supporting the development and validation of draft requirements as well as the safety substantiation and end-to-end assessment of DAA system performance. The Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) Project conducted flight test program, referred to as Flight Test 4, at Armstrong Flight Research Center from April -June 2016. Part of the test flights were dedicated to the NASA Ames-developed Detect and Avoid (DAA) System referred to as JADEM (Java Architecture for DAA Extensibility and Modeling). The encounter scenarios, which involved NASA's Ikhana UAS and a manned intruder aircraft, were designed to collect data on DAA system performance in real-world conditions and uncertainties with four different surveillance sensor systems. Flight test 4 has four objectives: (1) validate DAA requirements in stressing cases that drive MOPS requirements, including: high-speed cooperative intruder, low-speed non-cooperative intruder, high vertical closure rate encounter, and Mode CS-only intruder (i.e. without ADS-B), (2) validate TCASDAA alerting and guidance interoperability concept in the presence of realistic sensor, tracking and navigational errors and in multiple-intruder encounters against both cooperative and non-cooperative intruders, (3) validate Well Clear Recovery guidance in the presence of realistic sensor, tracking and navigational errors, and (4) validate DAA alerting and guidance requirements in the presence of realistic sensor, tracking and navigational errors. The results will be presented at RTCA Special Committee 228 in support of final verification and validation of the DAA MOPS.
A perspective on safety program management was developed for a complex R&D operating system, such as the NASA-Lewis Research Center. Using a systems approach, hazardous operations are subjected to third-party reviews by designated-area safety committees and are maintained under safety permit controls. To insure personnel alertness, emergency containment forces and employees are trained in dry-run emergency simulation exercises. The keys to real safety effectiveness are top management support and visibility of residual risks.
A perspective on safety program management has been developed for a complex R&D operating system, such as the NASA-Lewis Research Center. Using a systems approach, hazardous operations are subjected to third-party reviews by designated area safety committees and are maintained under safety permit controls. To insure personnel alertness, emergency containment forces and employees are trained in dry-run emergency simulation exercises. The keys to real safety effectiveness are top management support and visibility of residual risks.
Realization of the expected proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) depends on the development and validation of performance standards for UAS Detect and Avoid (DAA) Systems. The RTCA Special Committee 228 is charged with leading the development of draft Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA Systems. NASA, as a participating member of RTCA SC-228 is committed to supporting the development and validation of draft requirements as well as the safety substantiation and end-to-end assessment of DAA system performance. A recent study conducted using NASA's ACES (Airspace Concept Evaluation System) simulation capability begins to address questions surrounding the development of draft MOPS for DAA systems by assessing DAA performance in a NAS-wide context. ACES analyses were conducted to determine the impact of varying elements of UAS pilot performance and uncertainty mitigations on DAA system performance. Simulations were conducted with recorded cooperative and non-cooperative VFR (Visual Flight Rules) traffic to accurately model UAS encounters with other NAS traffic (ATC (Air Traffic Control) being responsible for separation with other IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) aircraft) and with roughly 25, 000 simulated UAS operations The number of Loss of Well Clear (LoWC) events were recorded across the range of independent variables: pilot response time, horizontal LoWC prediction buffer and horizontal LoWC resolution buffer. The number of LoWC events was compared to the unmitigated case (without the benefit of a DAA system) to determine the resultant risk-ratio for each of 8 simulation conditions. The parameter trades presented by the resultant DAA system performance (risk ratio) will be used by SC 228 to inform decisions about future requirements development and validation efforts.
The recent resurgence in advance (non-light water) reactor development has been paralleled by the development of risk-informed performance-based (RIPB) licensing pathways. Specifically, the creation of the RIPB Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) approach and subsequent endorsement by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now provides advanced reactor vendors with a defined RIPB method to develop an affirmative safety case for licensing. In addition, the Technology Inclusive Content of Applications Project (TICAP) has published guidance on developing a license application based on the LMP approach. To support the utilization of risk information as part of advanced reactor design and licensing efforts, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)/American Nuclear Society (ANS) Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (JCNRM) has developed a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) standard for advanced reactors. The standard, which was formerly approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 2021 and recently endorsed by the NRC in trial use Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.247, is an integral standard, covering from initiating events to offsite consequence. A major feature of the standard is that it permits the inclusion of any source of radioactivity material at the site within the plant PRA. Therefore, non-core sources of radioactivity, such as fuel storage, fuel processing, and purification systems, can be included within a single comprehensive plant PRA. For those advanced reactor vendors utilizing a RIPB licensing approach, there is an opportunity to include the non-core sources of radioactivity within the RIPB framework for licensing decision-making, such as the categorization of events, classification of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), and evaluation of the adequacy of defense-in-depth (DID). For advanced reactor designs that contain multiple non-core sources of radioactivity, or for monolithic plant sites that include associated fuel facilities, this approach could potentially simplify licensing applications through the use of a single, uniform, and consistent decision-making framework across all radioactive sources at the site. In addition, a RIPB approach could provide additional insights regarding plant behavior, flexibility regarding licensing decision-making, and potentially allow the use of risk information as part of the plant oversight process. Risk-informing these aspects of advanced reactor licensing would also be consistent with the NRC’s risk policy statement. However, there is diverse regulation and guidance regarding the licensing of non-core sources of radioactivity and generally limited experience using RIPB approaches for the evaluation as part of licensing.
The domestic and international consensus standards for nuclear criticality safety (NCS) have provided guidance for staff performing hands-on work in operations with fissionable materials. These consensus standards have contributed directly to the significant reduction in the rate of criticality accidents in process facilities since the 1940s. The last known criticality accident inside the United States was in 1978 (nearly 43 years ago) at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, and outside the United States, an accident occurred at Tokai-mura, Japan, in 1999 (23 years ago). The domestic consensus standards for NCS include the American Nuclear Society (ANS) standards. The ANS Standards Board, the NCS Consensus Committee, and the ANS-8 Subcommittee oversee the development and maintenance of these standards. There are currently eighteen standards in the ANS-8 series. Currently, there are six ANS-8 standards in revision mode and eleven in a maintenance mode with one new standard under development. The international consensus standards for NCS calculations, procedures, and practices are maintained and developed within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Technical Committee 85 on Nuclear Energy, Subcommittee 5 on Nuclear Fuel Technology, and Working Group 8, “Nuclear Criticality Safety.” Eleven standards are currently available, three standards are in revision mode, and two standards are development. This paper provides the NCS community with an overview and status report of domestic and international NCS consensus standards to stimulate interest and to support their continued development.
The domestic and international consensus standards for nuclear criticality safety (NCS) have provided guidance for staff performing hands-on work in operations with fissionable materials. These consensus standards have contributed directly to the significant reduction in the rate of criticality accidents in process facilities since the 1940s. The last known criticality accident inside the United States was in 1978 (nearly 43 years ago) at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, and outside the United States, an accident occurred at Tokai-mura, Japan, in 1999 (22 years ago). The domestic consensus standards for NCS include the American Nuclear Society (ANS) standards. The ANS Standards Board, the NCS Consensus Committee, and the ANS-8 Subcommittee oversee the development and maintenance of these standards. There are currently eighteen standards in the ANS-8 series. Currently, there are six ANS-8 standards in re- vision mode and eleven in a maintenance mode with one new standard under development. The international consensus standards for NCS calculations, procedures, and practices are maintained and developed within the International Organization for Standardization, Technical Committee 85 on Nuclear Energy, Subcommittee 5 on Nuclear Fuel Technology, and Working Group 8, “Nuclear Criticality Safety.” Eleven standards are currently available, three standards are in revision mode, and two standards are development. This paper provides the NCS community with an overview and status report of domestic and international NCS consensus standards to stimulate interest and to support their continued development.
Abstract not provided.
NASA has an integrated planetary protection strategy that leverages COSPAR Policy guide-lines, workshops, scientific consensus, partnerships and international working groups to develop policy and implementation guidelines. The Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance, which in-cludes NASA’s Oÿce of Planetary Protection, depends on these activities to support NASA’s missions in the assurance of crew safety and mission success while protecting the public and planetary environment from harmful contamination. This report will detail the overall planetary protection policy development perspective to sup-port NASA’s upcoming mission opportunities for exploration to include crewed Mars and sam-ple return missions. NASA continues to evolve its strategies, policies, and standards. NASA’s support in the COSPAR workshop series on Refining Planetary Protection Requirements for Crewed Missions to Mars have resulted in a NASA interim directive and paved the way for the development of NASA planetary protection roadmaps. These Agency level roadmaps address technology development and testing required to fill knowledge gaps for developing responsive policy guidelines and quantitative technical standards. In addition to workshops and tech-nology management strategies, NASA is also leveraging the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee of Planetary Protection to serve as a source of advice on planetary protection measures. Finally, the report will include how the Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance is incorporating planetary protection into existing and new multi-agency partnerships.
In-flight loss of control remains the leading contributor to aviation accident fatalities, with stall upsets being the leading causal factor. The February 12, 2009. Colgan Air, Inc., Continental Express flight 3407 accident outside Buffalo, New York, brought this issue to the forefront of public consciousness and resulted in recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board to conduct training that incorporates stalls that are fully developed and develop simulator standards to support such training. In 2010, Congress responded to this accident with Public Law 11-216 (Section 208), which mandates full stall training for Part 121 flight operations. Efforts are currently in progress to develop recommendations on implementation of stall training for airline pilots. The International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) is currently defining simulator fidelity standards that will be necessary for effective stall training. These recommendations will apply to all civil transport aircraft including straight-wing turboprop aircraft. Government-funded research over the previous decade provides a strong foundation for stall/post-stall simulation for swept-wing, conventional tail jets to respond to this mandate, but turboprops present additional and unique modeling challenges. First among these challenges is the effect of power, which can provide enhanced flow attachment behind the propellers. Furthermore, turboprops tend to operate for longer periods in an environment more susceptible to ice. As a result, there have been a significant number of turboprop accidents as a result of the early (lower angle of attack) stalls in icing. The vulnerability of turboprop configurations to icing has led to studies on ice accumulation and the resulting effects on flight behavior. Piloted simulations of these effects have highlighted the important training needs for recognition and mitigation of icing effects, including the reduction of stall margins. This paper addresses simulation modeling requirements that are unique to turboprop transport aircraft and highlights the growing need for aerodynamic models suitable for stall training for these configurations. A review of prominent accidents that involved aerodynamic stall is used to illustrate various modeling features unique to turboprop configurations and the impact of stall behavior on susceptibility to loss of control that has led to new training requirements. This is followed by an overview of stability and control behavior of straight-wing turboprops, the related aerodynamic characteristics, and a summary of recent experimental studies on icing effects. In addition, differences in flight dynamics behavior between swept-wing jets and straight-wing turboprop configurations are discussed to compare and contrast modeling requirements. Specific recommendations for aerodynamic models along with further research needs and data measurements are also provided. 1
The domestic and international consensus standards for nuclear criticality safety (NCS) were developed based on the lessons-learned from process criticality accidents. These consensus standards were developed to reduce the rate of process criticality accidents in facilities that process, store, handle, or transport fissionable materials by hand. After a significant increase in criticality accidents through the mid-1960s, the rate of criticality accidents decreased as a result of these standards, and the criticality accident rate is extremely low from an industrial safety perspective. The last known criticality accident inside the United States was in 1978 (nearly 47 years ago) at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, and outside the United States, an accident occurred at Tokai-mura, Japan, in 1999 (almost 26 years ago). The domestic consensus standards for NCS include the American National Standards (ANS) that are prepared and published by the American Nuclear Society and approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The ANS Standards Board, the NCS Consensus Committee, and the ANS-8 Subcommittee oversee the development and maintenance of these standards. There are currently 18 standards in the ANS-8 series. Nine ANS-8 standards are either in revision mode or planned for revision. A new standard for the use of nondestructive assay measurements (ANSI/ANS-8.28-2024) for NCS was approved in March of 2024. The international consensus standards for NCS calculations, procedures, and practices are maintained and developed within the International Organization for Standardization, Technical Committee 85 “Nuclear Energy,” Subcommittee 5, “Nuclear Fuel Technology,” and Working Group 8, “Nuclear Criticality Safety.” Eleven standards are currently available, four standards are proposed for revision, and four standards are at various stages of development. This paper provides the NCS community with a high-level overview and status report of domestic and international NCS consensus standards to stimulate interest and to support their continued development.
The Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) was conducted from 1995 through 1997 at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to demonstrate increasingly longer duration operation of integrated, closed-loop life support systems that employed biological and physicochemical techniques for water recycling, waste processing, air revitalization, thermal control, and food production. An analog environment for long-duration human space travel, the conditions of isolation and confinement also enabled studies of human factors, medical sciences (both physiology and psychology) and crew training. Four tests were conducted, Phases I, II, IIa and III, with durations of 15, 30, 60 and 91 days, respectively. The first phase focused on biological air regeneration, using wheat to generate enough oxygen for one experimental subject. The systems demonstrated in the later phases were increasingly complex and interdependent, and provided life support for four crew members. The tests were conducted using two human-rated, atmospherically-closed test chambers, the Variable Pressure Growth Chamber (VPGC) and the Integrated Life Support Systems Test Facility (ILSSTF). Systems included test articles (the life support hardware under evaluation), human accommodations (living quarters, kitchen, exercise equipment, etc.) and facility systems (emergency matrix system, power, cooling, etc.). The test team was managed by a lead engineer and a test director, and included test article engineers responsible for specific systems, subsystems or test articles, test conductors, facility engineers, chamber operators and engineering technicians, medical and safety officers, and science experimenters. A crew selection committee, comprised of psychologists, engineers and managers involved in the test, evaluated male and female volunteers who applied to be test subjects. Selection was based on the skills mix anticipated for each particular test, and utilized information from psychological and medical testing, data on the knowledge, experience and skills of the applicants, and team building exercises. The design, development, buildup and operation of test hardware and documentation followed the established NASA processes and requirements for test buildup and operation.