Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “consequence prioritization”

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 19 records

Human Factors Assessment and Redesign of the ISS Respiratory Support Pack (RSP) Cue Card

The Respiratory Support Pack (RSP) is a medical pack onboard the International Space Station (ISS) that contains much of the necessary equipment for providing aid to a conscious or unconscious crewmember in respiratory distress. Inside the RSP lid pocket is a 5.5 by 11 inch paper procedural cue card, which is used by a Crew Medical Officer (CMO) to set up the equipment and deliver oxygen to a crewmember. In training, crewmembers expressed concerns about the readability and usability of the cue card; consequently, updating the cue card was prioritized as an activity to be completed. The Usability Testing and Analysis Facility at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) evaluated the original layout of the cue card, and proposed several new cue card designs based on human factors principles. The approach taken for the assessment was an iterative process. First, in order to completely understand the issues with the RSP cue card, crewmember post training comments regarding the RSP cue card were taken into consideration. Over the course of the iterative process, the procedural information was reorganized into a linear flow after the removal of irrelevant (non-emergency) content. Pictures, color coding, and borders were added to highlight key components in the RSP to aid in quickly identifying those components. There were minimal changes to the actual text content. Three studies were conducted using non-medically trained JSC personnel (total of 34 participants). Non-medically trained personnel participated in order to approximate a scenario of limited CMO exposure to the RSP equipment and training (which can occur six months prior to the mission). In each study, participants were asked to perform two respiratory distress scenarios using one of the cue card designs to simulate resuscitation (using a mannequin along with the hardware). Procedure completion time, errors, and subjective ratings were recorded. The last iteration of the cue card featured a schematic of the RSP, colors, borders, and simplification of the flow of information. The time to complete the RSP procedure was reduced by approximately three minutes with the new design. In an emergency situation, three minutes significantly increases the probability of saving a life. In addition, participants showed the highest preference for this design. The results of the studies and the new design were presented to a focus group of astronauts, flight surgeons, medical trainers, and procedures personnel. The final cue card was presented to a medical control board and approved for flight. The revised RSP cue card is currently onboard ISS.

Byrne, Vicky↗

Human Factors Assessment of Respiratory Support Pack (RSP) Cue Card

The Respiratory Support Pack (RSP) is a medical pack onboard the International Space Station (ISS) that contains much of the necessary equipment for providing aid to a conscious or unconscious crewmember in respiratory distress. Inside the RSP lid pocket is a 5.5 by 11 inch paper cue card, which is used by a Crew Medical Officer as the procedure to set up the equipment and deliver oxygen to a crewmember. In training, crewmembers expressed concerns about the readability and usability of the cue card; consequently, updating the cue card was prioritized as an activity to be completed prior to Space Shuttle return-to-flight. The Usability Testing and Analysis Facility at the Johnson Space Center evaluated the current layout of the cue card, and proposed several new cue card designs based on human factors principals. A series of three studies were performed in order to experimentally compare performance with each of the cue card designs. Nonmedically trained personnel used either a redesigned RSP cue card, or the original card to simulate resuscitation (using a mannequin along with the hardware). Time to completion, errors and subjective ratings were recorded. The addition of pictures, colors, borders, and simplification of the flow of information (making minimal changes to the actual procedure content) elicited great benefits during testing. Time to complete RSP procedures was reduced by as much as three minutes with the final cue card design. Detailed results from these studies, as well as general guidelines for cue card design will be discussed.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗

Addressing Human System Risks to Future Space Exploration

NASA is contemplating future human exploration missions to destinations beyond low Earth orbit, including the Moon, deep-space asteroids, and Mars. While we have learned much about protecting crew health and performance during orbital space flight over the past half-century, the challenges of these future missions far exceed those within our current experience base. To ensure success in these missions, we have developed a Human System Risk Board (HSRB) to identify, quantify, and develop mitigation plans for the extraordinary risks associated with each potential mission scenario. The HSRB comprises research, technology, and operations experts in medicine, physiology, psychology, human factors, radiation, toxicology, microbiology, pharmacology, and food sciences. Methods: Owing to the wide range of potential mission characteristics, we first identified the hazards to human health and performance common to all exploration missions: altered gravity, isolation/confinement, increased radiation, distance from Earth, and hostile/closed environment. Each hazard leads to a set of risks to crew health and/or performance. For example the radiation hazard leads to risks of acute radiation syndrome, central nervous system dysfunction, soft tissue degeneration, and carcinogenesis. Some of these risks (e.g., acute radiation syndrome) could affect crew health or performance during the mission, while others (e.g., carcinogenesis) would more likely affect the crewmember well after the mission ends. We next defined a set of design reference missions (DRM) that would span the range of exploration missions currently under consideration. In addition to standard (6-month) and long-duration (1-year) missions in low Earth orbit (LEO), these DRM include deep space sortie missions of 1 month duration, lunar orbital and landing missions of 1 year duration, deep space journey and asteroid landing missions of 1 year duration, and Mars orbital and landing missions of 3 years duration. We then assessed the likelihood and consequences of each risk against each DRM, using three levels of likelihood (Low: less than or equal to 0.1%; Medium: 0.1%–1.0%; High: greater than or equal to 1.0%) and four levels of consequence ranging from Very Low (temporary or insignificant) to High (death, loss of mission, or significant reduction to length or quality of life). Quantitative evidence from clinical, operational, and research sources were used whenever available. Qualitative evidence was used when quantitative evidence was unavailable. Expert opinion was used whenever insufficient evidence was available. Results: A set of 30 risks emerged that will require further mitigation efforts before being accepted by the Agency. The likelihood by consequence risk assessment process provided a means of prioritizing among the risks identified. For each of the high priority risks, a plan was developed to perform research, technology, or standards development thought necessary to provide suitable reduction of likelihood or consequence to allow agency acceptance. Conclusion: The HSRB process has successfully identified a complete set of risks to human space travelers on planned exploration missions based on the best evidence available today. Risk mitigation plans have been established for the highest priority risks. Each risk will be reassessed annually to track the progress of our risk mitigation efforts.

Paloski, W. H.↗

Potential Health Impacts, Treatments, and Countermeasures of Martian Dust on Future Human Space Exploration

The challenges of human space exploration produce some of humanity’s greatest technological and scientific advances, not excluding innovations in medicine. The microgravity environment causes a whole host of physiological changes, and exposure to dust on the Moon caused considerable pulmonary distress to astronauts during the Apollo missions. As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)and other space organizations prepare for long duration exploration missions to Mars, the hazards and consequences of the Martian surface need to be accounted for. This review investigates how substances analogous to the hazardous components of Martian dust have caused disease in people on Earth. Because of the small grain size of Martian dust, dust on Mars is more likely to cause lung irritation, absorb into the bloodstream, and lead to diseases in astronauts. Toxic components of Martian dust to astronaut health include perchlorates, silica, nanophase iron oxides, and gypsum in addition to trace amounts of toxic metals whose abundances are debated: chromium, beryllium, arsenic, and cadmium. Predicted effects of dust exposure ranges from asymptomatic to life threatening, with many substances being carcinogenic and most damage impacting the pulmonary system. The longer transit time for astronauts to return home makes the operations of performing emergency medical treatment more difficult and increases both the likelihood and consequences of developing chronic disease. Exposure mitigation needs to be prioritized; however, supplements may be taken to prevent disease from breakthrough exposures and treatment regimens could lessen morbidity and mortality. Treatments and equipment need to be carefully thought out and transported with the astronauts to be prepared for all possible scenarios.

Justin L Wang↗

Aviation Safety Concerns for the Future

The Future Aviation Safety Team (FAST) is a multidisciplinary international group of aviation professionals that was established to identify possible future aviation safety hazards. The principle was adopted that future hazards are undesirable consequences of changes, and a primary activity of FAST became identification and prioritization of possible future changes affecting aviation. Since 2004, FAST has been maintaining a catalogue of "Areas of Change" (AoC) that could potentially influence aviation safety. The horizon for such changes is between 5 to 20 years. In this context, changes must be understood as broadly as possible. An AoC is a description of the change, not an identification of the hazards that result from the change. An ex-post analysis of the AoCs identified in 2004 demonstrates that changes catalogued many years previous were directly implicated in the majority of fatal aviation accidents over the past ten years. This paper presents an overview of the current content of the AoC catalogue and a subsequent discussion of aviation safety concerns related to these possible changes. Interactions among these future changes may weaken critical functions that must be maintained to ensure safe operations. Safety assessments that do not appreciate or reflect the consequences of significant interaction complexity will not be fully informative and can lead to inappropriate trade-offs and increases in other risks. The FAST strongly encourages a system-wide approach to safety risk assessment across the global aviation system, not just within the domain for which future technologies or operational concepts are being considered. The FAST advocates the use of the "Areas of Change" concept, considering that several possible future phenomena may interact with a technology or operational concept under study producing unanticipated hazards.

emerging risks↗

Demystification of Processes that Effect Prioritization of Space Radiation Element Research

In an effort to demystify how research funding priorities are established , the Space Radiation Element will present an introduction to the Human Space Risk Board (HSRB) framework that is that used to inform Human System Risk and can be found at https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Risks/. These risks are based on the consequences of hazards (space radiation, altered gravity, isolation & confinement, distance from earth and hostile/closed environment) a human body is exposed to during spaceflight. The HSRB regularly evaluates risks to humans in space which includes updating the knowledge base to reflect emerging research, the development of effective countermeasures, and evolving operational approaches toward addressing those risks. To increase understanding and clarity, this talk will step through how risks (with the focus on Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis) are assigned a rating (and color code) based on design reference missions, likelihood, and consequence. Further, The Space Radiation Element will discuss how risks, including the magnitude/rating, required technical deliverables, and expected products from current research efforts affect our element strategy and prioritization of research. In addition, navigation of the publicly available www.nasa.gov/hrp, will be demonstrated to inform principal investigators where this information can be readily accessed. Our primary objectives for this presentation/demonstration are to demystify The Space Radiation Element’s internal processes and to educate researchers concerning publicly available documents that can be used to better align their proposed objectives with Element priorities.

J A Zawaski↗

Wildfire Segmentation From Remotely Sensed Data Using Quantum-Compatible Conditional Vector Quantized-Variational Autoencoders

Wildfires represent a critical environmental hazard with multifaceted implications for ecosystems, communities, and public health [1]. The escalating frequency and intensity of wildfires globally have intensified the urgency for robust segmentation methodologies to facilitate effective mitigation, response, and recovery strategies [2]. Accurate wildfire segmentation is pivotal for delineating fire boundaries, assessing progression patterns, and prioritizing resource allocation during emergency scenarios. Furthermore, precise segmentation enables stakeholders, including policymakers, environmental scientists, and emergency responders, to formulate evidence-based strategies, thereby minimizing socio-economic disruptions and ecological degradation. Consequently, advancing wildfire segmentation techniques through innovative technological interventions remains a paramount research imperative. Although foundational in wildfire segmentation, traditional deterministic models exhibit inherent limitations that compromise their efficacy in dynamic and uncertain environments. These models often operate on rigid algorithms prioritizing deterministic classifications, thereby overlooking the inherent complexities and uncertainties associated with wildfire behavior and satellite data variability. Such deterministic frameworks tend to produce oversimplified representations that fail to capture the intricate nuances of evolving fire dynamics, spatial heterogeneity, and environmental interactions [1]. Consequently, the deterministic approach’s propensity for uncertainty collapsing [1, 3] hampers the accuracy, reliability, and applicability of segmentation outcomes in real-world scenarios. Contrastingly, stochastic models offer a more nuanced and adaptable framework for wildfire segmentation. By integrating probabilistic elements into the modeling paradigm, stochastic approaches, particularly probabilistic approaches such as variational auto encoders (VAEs) [4], facilitate comprehensive uncertainty assessment, enabling researchers to quantify and incorporate uncertainties into segmentation outcomes effectively. This probabilistic nature empowers stochastic models to encapsulate variability, account for data inconsistencies, and adapt to evolving environmental conditions, enhancing segmentation accuracy, reliability, and robustness. Embracing stochastic methodologies thus catalyzes advancements in wildfire science by fostering a more holistic, adaptive, and resilient segmentation framework. Despite VAEs demonstrating significant promise in various applications, they come with inherent limitations that have garnered attention within the machine learning community. One of the primary drawbacks lies in their reliance on static priors, which essentially assume a fixed distribution for latent variables, thereby limiting the model’s flexibility to capture complex data structures effectively [5]. This static nature leads to suboptimal representations, especially when dealing with complex and high-dimensional data. Additionally, VAEs often struggle with generating sharp and realistic samples, a phenomenon commonly referred to as mode collapse [5, 7, 6]. Furthermore, the optimization process in VAEs, which involves balancing the reconstruction loss and the regularization term, can sometimes be challenging to fine-tune [7]. In recent efforts to address these shortcomings, alternative approaches like Vector Quantized Variational Auto encoders(VQ-VAEs) [7], address the challenges by incorporating discrete latent variables and leveraging techniques that enhance the quality and diversity of generated samples while maintaining efficient training dynamics. VQ-VAEs propose a dynamic prior distribution generation mechanism that diverges from the static priors commonly associated with traditional VAEs. This dynamic approach allows for more adaptive and context-aware latent variable representations, thereby potentially capturing complex data structures more effectively. Unlike autoregressive prior models such as PixelCNN, which, despite their ability to model dependencies across data dimensions, suffer from significant computational inefficiencies and lack flexibility in handling diverse datasets. In our work, we propose to use a generative quantum-compatible approach to help alleviate the shortcomings of autoregressive prior model in VQ-VAEs. Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs) are a viable alternative prior model that can learn prior distributions in a faster and more flexible manner. In this research endeavor, we meticulously curate a state-of-the-art dataset leveraging satellite MODIS data in conjunction with VIIRS fire masks, derived from Fire Radiative Power (FRP), thereby encapsulating diverse wildfire scenarios and environmental contexts. We developed a conditional VQ-VAE architecture with the RBM prior model that is trained in a supervised manner for segmenting wildfire masks. This innovative approach synergistically harnesses deep learning capabilities, enabling the generation of segmentation maps characterized by heightened precision, granularity, and contextual relevance. Furthermore, replacing the autoregressive prior learning method proposed by the original VQ-VAE with a prior density approximation via quantum-compatible RBM facilitates expedited inference processes, augments flexibility in prior sampling, optimizes computational efficiency and establishes a groundbreaking benchmark in wildfire segmentation methodologies.

quantum machine learning↗

Alignment of NASA’s Human System Risks with Technological Capability Gaps to Enable Integrated Research and Technology Development Strategic Planning

BACKGROUND: Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains a set of twenty-nine different Human System Risks with subject matter experts from across the agency providing regular updates to the estimated likelihood and consequence associated with each risk. The Human Research Program (HRP) has historically used these risk classifications as a primary basis for identifying and prioritizing human research investments aimed at characterizing and/or mitigating the respective human system risks. In many cases, technology development is required to mature and validate risk mitigation strategies, however, NASA’s primary technology development programs have not typically used Human System Risks as a basis for strategic planning. A primary function of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is to continually identify, review, and update technological capability gaps and to establish and oversee multiyear strategic roadmaps aimed at guiding NASA’s technology development priorities in these areas. These roadmaps are intended to be agency-wide and independent of any program, directorate, or other organization within NASA. DESCRIPTION: The SCLT and HRP collaborated to establish a set of Human System Capability Gaps, which establish a formal linkage between the capability gaps used to prioritize investments across much of NASA, and the Human System Risks that are primarily used to inform and prioritize human research. This set of twenty-eight gaps was developed by subject matter experts, and each gap mapped to the primary associated Human System Risks. The gaps and risk mapping were then reviewed and approved via the HSRB, thereby formally aligning the research-focused Human System Risks with the technology-focused capability gaps. DISCUSSION: This effort has enabled development of integrated roadmaps and budget coordination with research and technology development activities that are formally linked to agency-recognized capability gaps and Human System Risks. Close and ongoing coordination between the SCLT, HRP, Mars Campaign Office, and the Health & Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) is essential to ensure alignment and prioritization of CHP-related research and technology development to enable NASA’s future exploration missions.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗

Microcalorimeters with Germanium Thermistors for High Resolution Soft and Hard X-ray Astronomy

This is a progress report for the first year of a three year Space Research and Technology (SR&T) grant to continue the advancement of neutron transmutation doped (NTD-based) microcalorimeters. We have re-prioritized certain aspects of the statement of work and chose to emphasize issues of array development in the first year rather than wait until year two. Consequently, some of the projects scheduled for the first year were delayed to the second year. Here we report on our progress to: a) Build and test a 1 x 4 element array and to investigate electrical and thermal cross-talk; b) Build a multiplexed 4 channel analog pulse processor; c) Build a digital pulse processor that can accommodate 4 channels with independent triggers; d) Develop a proportional thermal baseline restoration system compatible with the constant voltage mode of microcalorimeter operation.

Silver, E.↗

Microcalorimeters with NTD and Expitaxial Germanium Thermistors for High Resolution X-Ray Spectroscopy

This is a progress report for the second year of a three year SR&T grant to continue the advancement of NTD-based microcalorimeters. We reported last year that we re-prioritized certain aspects of the statement of work and chose to emphasize issues of array development in the first year rather than wait until year two. Consequently, some of the projects scheduled for the first year were delayed to the second year and we report on those topics here. These include: a) Measurements that map out JFET , thermistor, l/f and feedback resistor noise; b) Investigations that evaluate the limits of the JFET preamplifier circuitry as it pertains to stability at the 2 eV level; The results of a) and b) have led to preliminary measurements that demonstrate 3.08 eV resolution at 6 keV. c) Calculations that can predict the current performance.

Silver, Eric↗

Training for Aviation Decision Making: The Naturalistic Decision Making Perspective

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

Orasanu, Judith↗

Determining the Relative Criticality of Diverse Exploration Risks in NASA's Human Research Program

The mission of NASA s Human Research Program (HRP) is to understand and reduce the risk to crew health and performance in exploration missions. The HRP addresses 27 specific risks, primarily in the context of Continuous Risk Management. Each risk is evaluated in terms of two missions (a six month stay on the Moon and a thirty month round trip to Mars) and three types of consequences (in-mission crew health, post-mission crew health, and in-mission performance). The lack of a common metric between the three consequence scales, such as financial costs or quality adjusted life years lost, makes it difficult to compare the relative criticality of the risks. We are, therefore, exploring the use of a ternary scale of criticality based on the common metric of influencing an operational decision. The three levels correspond to the level of concern the risk generates for a "go/no-go" decision to launch a mission: 1) no-go; 2) go with significant reservations; 3) go. The criticality of each of the 27 risks is scored for the three types of consequence in both types of mission. The scores are combined to produce an overall criticality rating for each risk. The overall criticality rating can then be used to guide the prioritization of resources to affect the greatest amount of risk reduction.

Kundrot, Craig E.↗

The NASA Continuous Risk Management Process

As an intern this summer in the GRC Risk Management Office, I have become familiar with the NASA Continuous Risk Management Process. In this process, risk is considered in terms of the probability that an undesired event will occur and the impact of the event, should it occur (ref., NASA-NPG: 7120.5). Risk management belongs in every part of every project and should be ongoing from start to finish. Another key point is that a risk is not a problem until it has happened. With that in mind, there is a six step cycle for continuous risk management that prevents risks from becoming problems. The steps are: identify, analyze, plan, track, control, and communicate & document. Incorporated in the first step are several methods to identify risks such as brainstorming and using lessons learned. Once a risk is identified, a risk statement is made on a risk information sheet consisting of a single condition and one or more consequences. There can also be a context section where the risk is explained in more detail. Additionally there are three main goals of analyzing a risk, which are evaluate, classify, and prioritize. Here is where a value is given to the attributes of a risk &e., probability, impact, and timeframe) based on a multi-level classification system (e.g., low, medium, high). It is important to keep in mind that the definitions of these levels are probably different for each project. Furthermore the risks can be combined into groups. Then, the risks are prioritized to see what risk is necessary to mitigate first. After the risks are analyzed, a plan is made to mitigate as many risks as feasible. Each risk should be assigned to someone in the project with knowledge in the area of the risk. Then the possible approaches to choose from are: research, accept, watch, or mitigate. Next, all risks, mitigated or not, are tracked either individually or in groups. As the plan is executed, risks are re-evaluated, and the attribute values are adjusted as necessary. Metrics are established and monitored as tools for risk tracking. Also a trigger or threshold should be set on the metric data that indicates when an action is needed. Results of this tracking are usually evaluated and reported in a relevant format at weekly or monthly meetings. Choosing controls is the subsequent step, which involves the effects of the tracking. The three basic controls are: close, continue tracking, and re- plan. Finally communicate & document is the last step, but occurs throughout the process. It is vital that main risks, plans, changes, and progress are known by everyone in the project. A good way to keep everyone updated and inform other projects of common issues is by thoroughly documenting project risks. NASA sees value in risk management and believes that projects have greater probability or success by using the NASA Continuous Risk Management Process.

Pokorny, Frank M.↗

Aerocapture Systems Analysis for a Titan Mission

Performance projections for aerocapture show a vehicle mass savings of between 40 and 80%, dependent on destination, for an aerocapture vehicle compared to an all-propulsive chemical vehicle. In addition aerocapture is applicable to multiple planetary exploration destinations of interest to NASA. The 2001 NASA In-Space Propulsion Program (ISP) technology prioritization effort identified aerocapture as one of the top three propulsion technologies for solar system exploration missions. An additional finding was that aerocapture needed a better system definition and that supporting technology gaps needed to be identified. Consequently, the ISP program sponsored an aerocapture systems analysis effort that was completed in 2002. The focus of the effort was on aerocapture at Titan with a rigid aeroshell system. Titan was selected as the initial destination for the study due to potential interest in a follow-on mission to Cassini/Huygens. Aerocapture is feasible, and the performance is adequate, for the Titan mission and it can deliver 2.4 times more mass to Titan than an all-propulsive system for the same launch vehicle.

Lockwood, Mary K.↗

Bridging the Divide between Safety and Risk Management for your Project or Program

This presentation will bridge the divide between these separate but overlapping disciplines and help explain how to use Risk Management as an effective management decision support tool that includes safety. Risk Management is an over arching communication tool used by management to prioritize and effectively mitigate potential problems before they concur. Risk Management encompasses every kind of potential problem that can occur on a program or project. Some of these are safety issues such as hazards that have a specific likelihood and consequence that need to be controlled and included to show an integrated picture of accepted) mitigated, and residual risk. Integrating safety and other assurance disciplines is paramount to accurately representing a program s or projects risk posture. Risk is made up of several components such as technical) cost, schedule, or supportability. Safety should also be a consideration for every risk. The safety component can also have an impact on the technical, cost, and schedule aspect of a given risk. The current formats used for communication of safety and risk issues are not consistent or integrated. The presentation will explore the history of these disciplines, current work to integrate them, and suggestions for integration for the future.

Lutomski, Mike↗

Baseline Medical System Translation for the Impact Medical Database

NASA has developed a new evidence-based data-driven probabilistic risk assessment and tradespace analysis tool as a successor to the Integrated Medical Model (IMM). This updated decision support tool is known as IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces). Whereas IMM focuses on the resources and risks associated with International Space Station (ISS) and Low Earth Orbit (LEO) missions, IMPACT estimates the frequency and consequences of medical conditions that might arise during exploration missions. One of the services offered by IMM is a series of generic or baseline medical systems associated with typical mission types or DRMs (Design Reference Missions), such that requestors may prioritize questions pertaining to the mission itself over the medical supplies indicated by the model outputs for that DRM. In a mission focused request, the appropriate baseline medical system is used in place of a prepared or optimized medical kit. In preparation, an effort was undertaken to create baseline systems of medical resources within IMPACT suitable for typical DRMs. Using an existing baseline medical system within IMM’s Integrated Medical Evidence Database (iMED) as a starting point, the resources found within the medical kit were compared to and substituted for equivalent resources available within the IMPACT MD (Medical Database). In consultation with clinicians with knowledge of IMPACT’s MD, each resource was matched as closely as possible to a similarly purposed resource in IMPACT, seeking to preserve the treatment capabilities and procedures offered by the IMM medical system while reconciling the differences in modeled resources and medical conditions between the models. To demonstrate the efficacy of this work, a prototype ISS medical system in IMPACT was translated from the baseline used in the IMM. The appropriate medical system was then run through its associated medical model to compare and validate the resultant risks and risk mitigation provided by each baseline ISS medical kit.

S Schwartz↗

Modeling a Civil Event Case Study for Consequence Management Using the IMPRINT Forces Module

A critical challenge in the Consequence Management (CM) domain is the appropriate allocation of necessary and skilled military and civilian personnel and materiel resources in unexpected emergencies. To aid this process we used the Forces module in the Improved Performance Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT). This module enables analysts to enter personnel and equipment capabilities, prioritized schedules and numbers available, along with unexpected emergency requirements in order to assess force response requirements. Using a suspected terrorist threat on a college campus, we developed a test case model which exercised the capabilities of the module, including the scope and scale of operations. The model incorporates data from multiple sources, including daily schedules and frequency of events such as fire calls. Our preliminary results indicate that the model can predict potential decreases in civilian emergency response coverage due to an involved unplanned incident requiring significant portions of police, fire and civil responses teams.

Gacy, Marc↗

Multidimensional Risk Analysis: MRISK

Multidimensional Risk (MRISK) calculates the combined multidimensional score using Mahalanobis distance. MRISK accounts for covariance between consequence dimensions, which de-conflicts the interdependencies of consequence dimensions, providing a clearer depiction of risks. Additionally, in the event the dimensions are not correlated, Mahalanobis distance reduces to Euclidean distance normalized by the variance and, therefore, represents the most flexible and optimal method to combine dimensions. MRISK is currently being used in NASA's Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) project o assess risk and prioritize scarce resources.

McCollum, Raymond↗