Engineering topics
Lutomski, Michael G.
Publications and source records attributed to Lutomski, Michael G..
Challenges of Sustaining the International Space Station Through 2020 and Beyond: Reassessing Confidence Targets for System Availability
The International Space Station (ISS) was originally designed to operate until 2015 with a plan for deorbiting the ISS in 2016. Currently, the international partnership has agreed to extend the operations until 2020 and discussions are underway to extend the life even further to 2028. Each partner is responsible for the sustaining engineering, sparing, and maintenance of their own segments. National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) challenge is to purchase the needed number of spares to maintain the functional availability of the ISS systems necessary for the United States On-Orbit Segment s contribution. This presentation introduces an analytical approach to assessing uncertainty in ISS hardware necessary to extend the life of the vehicle. Some key areas for consideration are: establishing what confidence targets are required to ensure science can be continuously carried out on the ISS, defining what confidence targets are reasonable to ensure vehicle survivability, considering what is required to determine if the confidence targets are too high, and whether sufficient number of spares are purchased. The results of the analysis will provide a methodological basis for reassessing vehicle subsystem confidence targets. This analysis compares the probability of existing spares exceeding the total expected unit demand of the Orbital Replacement Unit (ORU) in functional hierarchies approximating the vehicle subsystems. In cases where the functional hierarchies' availability does not meet subsystem confidence targets, the analysis will further identify which ORUs may require additional spares to extend the life of the ISS. The resulting probability is dependent upon hardware reliability estimates. However, the ISS hardware fleet carries considerable epistemic uncertainty which must be factored into the development and execution of sparing risk postures. In addition, it is also recognized that uncertainty in the assessment is due to disconnects between modeled functions and actual subsystem operations. Perhaps most importantly, it is acknowledged that conservative confidence targets per subsystem are currently accepted. This presentation will also discuss how subsystem confidence targets may be relaxed based on calculating the level of uncertainty for each corresponding ORU-function. The presentation will conclude with the various strengths and limitations for implementing the analytical approach in sustaining the ISS through end of life; 2020 and beyond.
Applications of the International Space Station Probabilistic Risk Assessment Model
Recently the International Space Station (ISS) has incorporated more Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs) in the decision making process for significant issues. Future PRAs will have major impact to ISS and future spacecraft development and operations. These PRAs will have their foundation in the current complete ISS PRA model and the current PRA trade studies that are being analyzed as requested by ISS Program stakeholders. ISS PRAs have recently helped in the decision making process for determining reliability requirements for future NASA spacecraft and commercial spacecraft, making crew rescue decisions, as well as making operational requirements for ISS orbital orientation, planning Extravehicular activities (EVAs) and robotic operations. This paper will describe some applications of the ISS PRA model and how they impacted the final decision. This paper will discuss future analysis topics such as life extension, requirements of new commercial vehicles visiting ISS.
Long-Term International Space Station (ISS) Risk Reduction Activities
As the assembly of the ISS nears completion, it is worthwhile to step back and review some of the actions pursued by the Program in recent years to reduce risk and enhance the safety and health of ISS crewmembers, visitors, and space flight participants. While the initial ISS requirements and design were intended to provide the best practicable levels of safety, it is always possible to further reduce risk given the determination, commitment, and resources to do so. The following is a summary of some of the steps taken by the ISS Program Manager, by our International Partners, by hardware and software designers, by operational specialists, and by safety personnel to continuously enhance the safety of the ISS, and to reduce risk to all crewmembers. While years of work went into the development of ISS requirements, there are many things associated with risk reduction in a Program like the ISS that can only be learned through actual operational experience. These risk reduction activities can be divided into roughly three categories: Areas that were initially noncompliant which have subsequently been brought into compliance or near compliance (i.e., Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris [MMOD] protection, acoustics) Areas where initial design requirements were eventually considered inadequate and were subsequently augmented (i.e., Toxicity hazard level-4 materials, emergency procedures, emergency equipment, control of drag-throughs) Areas where risks were initially underestimated, and have subsequently been addressed through additional mitigation (i.e., Extravehicular Activity [EVA] sharp edges, plasma shock hazards). Due to the hard work and cooperation of many parties working together across the span of more than a decade, the ISS is now a safer and healthier environment for our crew, in many cases exceeding the risk reduction targets inherent in the intent of the original design. It will provide a safe and stable platform for utilization and discovery for years to come.
Estimating the Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission for Crew Spacecraft
Once the US Space Shuttle retires in 2011, the Russian Soyuz Launcher and Soyuz Spacecraft will comprise the only means for crew transportation to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The U.S. Government and NASA have contracted for crew transportation services to the ISS with Russia. The resulting implications for the US space program including issues such as astronaut safety must be carefully considered. Are the astronauts and cosmonauts safer on the Soyuz than the Space Shuttle system? Is the Soyuz launch system more robust than the Space Shuttle? The Soyuz launcher has been in operation for over 40 years. There have been only two loss of life incidents and two loss of mission incidents. Given that the most recent incident took place in 1983, how do we determine current reliability of the system? Do failures of unmanned Soyuz rockets impact the reliability of the currently operational man-rated launcher? Does the Soyuz exhibit characteristics that demonstrate reliability growth and how would that be reflected in future estimates of success? NASA s next manned rocket and spacecraft development project will have to meet the Agency Threshold requirements set forth by NASA. The reliability targets are currently several times higher than the Shuttle and possibly even the Soyuz. Can these targets be compared to the reliability of the Soyuz to determine whether they are realistic and achievable? To help answer these questions this paper will explore how to estimate the reliability of the Soyuz Launcher/Spacecraft system, compare it to the Space Shuttle, and its potential impacts for the future of manned spaceflight. Specifically it will look at estimating the Loss of Crew (LOC) and Loss of Mission (LOM) probability using historical data, reliability growth, and Probabilistic Risk Assessment techniques used to generate these numbers.
Estimating the Reliability of a Soyuz Spacecraft Mission
Once the US Space Shuttle retires in 2010, the Russian Soyuz Launcher and Soyuz Spacecraft will comprise the only means for crew transportation to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The U.S. Government and NASA have contracted for crew transportation services to the ISS with Russia. The resulting implications for the US space program including issues such as astronaut safety must be carefully considered. Are the astronauts and cosmonauts safer on the Soyuz than the Space Shuttle system? Is the Soyuz launch system more robust than the Space Shuttle? Is it safer to continue to fly the 30 year old Shuttle fleet for crew transportation and cargo resupply than the Soyuz? Should we extend the life of the Shuttle Program? How does the development of the Orion/Ares crew transportation system affect these decisions? The Soyuz launcher has been in operation for over 40 years. There have been only two loss of life incidents and two loss of mission incidents. Given that the most recent incident took place in 1983, how do we determine current reliability of the system? Do failures of unmanned Soyuz rockets impact the reliability of the currently operational man-rated launcher? Does the Soyuz exhibit characteristics that demonstrate reliability growth and how would that be reflected in future estimates of success? NASA s next manned rocket and spacecraft development project is currently underway. Though the projects ultimate goal is to return to the Moon and then to Mars, the launch vehicle and spacecraft s first mission will be for crew transportation to and from the ISS. The reliability targets are currently several times higher than the Shuttle and possibly even the Soyuz. Can these targets be compared to the reliability of the Soyuz to determine whether they are realistic and achievable? To help answer these questions this paper will explore how to estimate the reliability of the Soyuz Launcher/Spacecraft system, compare it to the Space Shuttle, and its potential impacts for the future of manned spaceflight. Specifically it will look at estimating the Loss of Mission (LOM) probability using historical data, reliability growth, and Probabilistic Risk Assessment techniques
Derivation of Failure Rates and Probability of Failures for the International Space Station Probabilistic Risk Assessment Study
National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) International Space Station (ISS) Program uses Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as part of its Continuous Risk Management Process. It is used as a decision and management support tool to not only quantify risk for specific conditions, but more importantly comparing different operational and management options to determine the lowest risk option and provide rationale for management decisions. This paper presents the derivation of the probability distributions used to quantify the failure rates and the probability of failures of the basic events employed in the PRA model of the ISS. The paper will show how a Bayesian approach was used with different sources of data including the actual ISS on orbit failures to enhance the confidence in results of the PRA. As time progresses and more meaningful data is gathered from on orbit failures, an increasingly accurate failure rate probability distribution for the basic events of the ISS PRA model can be obtained. The ISS PRA has been developed by mapping the ISS critical systems such as propulsion, thermal control, or power generation into event sequences diagrams and fault trees. The lowest level of indenture of the fault trees was the orbital replacement units (ORU). The ORU level was chosen consistently with the level of statistically meaningful data that could be obtained from the aerospace industry and from the experts in the field. For example, data was gathered for the solenoid valves present in the propulsion system of the ISS. However valves themselves are composed of parts and the individual failure of these parts was not accounted for in the PRA model. In other words the failure of a spring within a valve was considered a failure of the valve itself.