Engineering topics
Cornford, Steven L.
Publications and source records attributed to Cornford, Steven L..
Pathfinding Model-Based Mission Assurance:S&MA Representation & Interaction within MBSE
UNKNOWN
NASA quality assurance in an MBSE world
We explore the impact and consequences of the MBSE Value items discussed above and how they impact the disciplines of quality assurance, reliability and maintainability, system safety, and software assurance. We provide insight into how the MBSE modeling tools can be used to define S&MA processes (ideally as a result of Use Case [1] elaboration of processes represented in MagicDraw®), produce S&MA products (ViewEditor output of various items), and represent S&MA disciplines (S&MA inside of MagicDraw). We also provide insight into the degree to which some elements can be directly integrated into a SysML® model and when, as often happens, an interface to some external source must be provided.
Enabling Assurance in the MBSE Environment
A number of specific benefits that fit within the hallmarks of effective development are realized with implementation of model-based approaches to systems and assurance. Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) enabled by standardized modeling languages (e.g., SysML®) is at the core. These benefits in the context of spaceflight system challenges can include [1]: • Improved management of complex development • Reduced risk in the development process • Improved cost management • Improved design decisions With appropriate modeling techniques the assurance community also can improve early oversight and insight into project development. NASA has shown the basic constructs of SysML in an MBSE environment offer several key advantages, within a Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA) initiative [2, 3]. These include the following: • Model viewpoints that promote rapid and systematic assessment of requirements coverage, hazard tagging and risk management • Embedded safety assessments for launch vehicles • Deployment of model assisted development of reliability products - Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) and Fault Trees • Test Planning • Validation and Verification of complex functions • Support of Assurance Case development for complex systems In addition, while there are benefits to be harvested, there is a realization that these do not come without effort and cost. Enabling model-based approaches requires structure, not only in an organizational context, but in a modeling context as well. There can be a steep learning curve and costs associated to train skilled modelers. But, on the other hand, not all of the assurance community need to be modelers. Models themselves must conform to ontologies that enable assurance. This places constraints upon the models and modelers. Optimums have yet to be developed where resources and constraints on modeling must be traded off in the organization and modeling efforts for projects. A number of barriers need to be overcome, as well, which pose challenges to the developers of the software that supports MBSE/MBMA. Information and data must be made to flow seamlessly through the life cycle. Because there is a wide variety of tools used in the community, to avoid the problems of the past of silos, delays, and diverging interests, information should flow among these tools to support the “single source of truth” paradigm of MBSE. This will greatly facilitate MBMA and advancement of assurance functions.
Enabling Assurance in the MBSE Environment
A number of specific benefits that fit within the hallmarks of effective development are realized with implementation of model-based approaches to systems and assurance. Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) enabled by standardized modeling languages (e.g., SysML®) is at the core. These benefits in the context of spaceflight system challenges can include: Improved management of complex development, Reduced risk in the development process, Improved cost management, Improved design decisions. With appropriate modeling techniques the assurance community can improve early oversight and insight into project development. NASA has shown the basic constructs of SysML in an MBSE environment offer several key advantages, within a Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA) initiative.
A Framework for Reliability and Safety Analysis of Complex Space Missions
Long duration and complex mission scenarios are characteristics of NASA's human exploration of Mars, and will provide unprecedented challenges. Systems reliability and safety will become increasingly demanding and management of uncertainty will be increasingly important. NASA's current pioneering strategy recognizes and relies upon assurance of crew and asset safety. In this regard, flexibility to develop and innovate in the emergence of new design environments and methodologies, encompassing modeling of complex systems, is essential to meet the challenges.
Identifying Where Mission Assurance Can Benefit from Model Based Systems Engineering
Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is being introduced and used to support many aspects of the engineering of complex systems. Our focus is on space systems, with a particular interest in Mission Assurance of those systems. We seek to identify where Mission Assurance can potentially benefit when a space system is developed using an MBSE approach. To do so we consider how MBSE can help provide the evidence that Mission Assurance needs, using the recently developed NASA Reliability and Maintainability Objective Hierarchy as the exposition of those needs. We illustrate this MBSE’s potential contributions using examples drawn from our prior survey of the MBSE literature addressing space mission assurance concerns. The overall conclusion we draw from this is that there are numerous ways in which MBSE may, and in some cases already does, support Mission Assurance.
Identifying Where Mission Assurance Can Benefit from Model Based Systems Engineering
No abstract available
Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Assessment
The Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Project requested the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conduct an independent evaluation of the Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) models used in the latest JPSS MMOD risk assessment. The principal focus of the assessment was to compare Orbital Debris Engineering Model version 3 (ORDEM 3.0) with the Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial Environment Reference version 2009 (MASTER-2009) and Aerospace Debris Environment Projection Tool (ADEPT) and provide recommendations to the JPSS Project regarding MMOD protection. The outcome of the NESC assessment is contained in this report.
Fusing Quantitative Requirements Analysis with Model-based Systems Engineering
A vision is presented for fusing quantitative requirements analysis with model-based systems engineering. This vision draws upon and combines emergent themes in the engineering milieu. "Requirements engineering" provides means to explicitly represent requirements (both functional and non-functional) as constraints and preferences on acceptable solutions, and emphasizes early-lifecycle review, analysis and verification of design and development plans. "Design by shopping" emphasizes revealing the space of options available from which to choose (without presuming that all selection criteria have previously been elicited), and provides means to make understandable the range of choices and their ramifications. "Model-based engineering" emphasizes the goal of utilizing a formal representation of all aspects of system design, from development through operations, and provides powerful tool suites that support the practical application of these principles. A first step prototype towards this vision is described, embodying the key capabilities. Illustrations, implications, further challenges and opportunities are outlined.
Experiences using Visualization Techniques to Present Requirements, Risks to Them, and Options for Risk Mitigation
For several years we have been employing a risk-based decision process to guide development and application of advanced technologies, and for research and technology portfolio planning. The process is supported by custom software, in which visualization plays an important role. During requirements gathering, visualization is used to help scrutinize the status (completeness, extent) of the information. During decision making based on the gathered information, visualization is used to help decisionmakers understand the space of options and their consequences. In this paper we summarize the visualization capabilities that we have employed, indicating when and how they have proven useful.
Intertwining Risk Insights and Design Decisions
The state of systems engineering is such that a form of early and continued use of risk assessments is conducted (as evidenced by NASA's adoption and use of the 'Continuous Risk Management' paradigm developed by SEI). ... However, these practices fall short of theideal: (1) Integration between risk assessment techniques and other systems engineering tools is weak. (2) Risk assessment techniques and the insights they yield are only informally coupled to design decisions. (3) Individual riskassessment techniques lack the mix of breadth, fidelity and agility required to span the gamut of the design space. In this paper we present an approach that addresses these shortcomings. The hallmark of our approach is a simple representation comprising objectives (what the system is to do), risks (whose occurrence would detract from attainment of objectives) and activities (a.k.a. 'mitigations') that, if performed, will decrease those risks. These are linked to indicate by how much a risk would detract from attainment of an objective, and by how much an activity would reduce a risk. The simplicity of our representational framework gives it the breadth to encompass the gamut of the design space concerns, the agility to be utilized in even the earliest phases of designs, and the capability to connect to system engineering models and higher-fidelity risk tools. It is through this integration that we address the shortcomings listed above, and so achieve the intertwining between risk insights and design decisions needed to guide systems engineering towards superior final designs while avoiding costly rework to achieve them. The paper will use an example, constructed to be representative of space mission design, to illustrate our approach.
Planning a large-scale progression of R&D - a pilot study in the aerospace domain
The purpose of the study was to assess feasibility and utility, and to prototype adaptations to the approach as and when such adaptations were found to be needed.
Relating Risk and Reliability Predictions to Design and Development Choices
In this context there are many possible assurance activities. Some focus on the prevention of defects - for example, up-front planning, adoption of design standards, configuration management, training, etc. Others focus on the detection of defects - either to detect latent defects in a system (and so be able to correct them before actual deployment of the system), or to increase confidence that such defects are not present. For example, a wide gamut of reviews, design walkthroughs, tests, inspections, analyses, etc. can be applied to systems and their components.
Overcoming obstacles to the exchange of information between risk tools
Our work to date in connecting risk tools hs had successes, but also has revealed there to be significant impediments to information exchange between them. These impediments stem from the well-known phenomenon of 'semantic dissonance' - mismatch between conceptual assumptions made by the separately developed tools. This issue represents a fundamental challenge that arises regardless of the mechanism of information exchange. This paper explains the issue and illustrates it with reference to our experiences to date connecting several risk tools. We motivate this work, present and discuss the solutions we have adopted to surmount these impediments, and the implications this work has for future efforts to integrate risk tools.
Got risk? risk-centric perspective for spacecraft technology decision-making
A risk-based decision-making methodology conceived and developed at JPL and NASA has been used to aid in decision making for spacecraft technology assessment, adoption, development and operation. It takes a risk-centric perspective, through which risks are used as a reasoning step to interpose between mission objectives and risk mitigation measures.