Engineering topics

Mattenberger, Chris

Publications and source records attributed to Mattenberger, Chris.

3 records

NASA NTRS2014

An Integrated Reliability and Physics-Based Risk Modeling Approach for Assessing Human Spaceflight Systems

This paper presents an integrated reliability and physics-based risk modeling approach for assessing human spaceflight systems. The approach is demonstrated using an example, end-to-end risk assessment of a generic-crewed space transportation system during a reference mission to the International Space Station. The behavior of the system is modeled using analysis techniques from multiple disciplines in order to properly capture the dynamic time- and state- dependent consequences of failures encountered in different mission phases. We discuss how to combine traditional reliability analyses with Monte Carlo simulation methods and physics-based engineering models to produce loss-of- mission and loss-of-crew risk estimates supporting risk-based decision-making and requirement verification. This approach facilitates risk-informed design by providing more realistic representation of system failures and interactions; identifying key risk-driving sensitivities, dependencies, and assumptions; and tracking multiple figures of merit within a single, responsive assessment framework that can readily incorporate evolving design information throughout system development.

Risk assessment↗

NASA NTRS2013

Near-Earth Phase Risk Comparison of Human Mars Campaign Architectures

A risk analysis of the launch, orbital assembly, and Earth-departure phases of human Mars exploration campaign architectures was completed as an extension of a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) originally carried out under the NASA Constellation Program Ares V Project. The objective of the updated analysis was to study the sensitivity of loss-of-campaign risk to such architectural factors as composition of the propellant delivery portion of the launch vehicle fleet (Ares V heavy-lift launch vehicle vs. smaller/cheaper commercial launchers) and the degree of launcher or Mars-bound spacecraft element sparing. Both a static PRA analysis and a dynamic, event-based Monte Carlo simulation were developed and used to evaluate the probability of loss of campaign under different sparing options. Results showed that with no sparing, loss-of-campaign risk is strongly driven by launcher count and on-orbit loiter duration, favoring an all-Ares V launch approach. Further, the reliability of the all-Ares V architecture showed significant improvement with the addition of a single spare launcher/payload. Among architectures utilizing a mix of Ares V and commercial launchers, those that minimized the on-orbit loiter duration of Mars-bound elements were found to exceed the reliability of no spare all-Ares V campaign if unlimited commercial vehicle sparing was assumed

Manning, Ted A.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Lunar Landing Operational Risk Model

Characterizing the risk of spacecraft goes beyond simply modeling equipment reliability. Some portions of the mission require complex interactions between system elements that can lead to failure without an actual hardware fault. Landing risk is currently the least characterized aspect of the Altair lunar lander and appears to result from complex temporal interactions between pilot, sensors, surface characteristics and vehicle capabilities rather than hardware failures. The Lunar Landing Operational Risk Model (LLORM) seeks to provide rapid and flexible quantitative insight into the risks driving the landing event and to gauge sensitivities of the vehicle to changes in system configuration and mission operations. The LLORM takes a Monte Carlo based approach to estimate the operational risk of the Lunar Landing Event and calculates estimates of the risk of Loss of Mission (LOM) - Abort Required and is Successful, Loss of Crew (LOC) - Vehicle Crashes or Cannot Reach Orbit, and Success. The LLORM is meant to be used during the conceptual design phase to inform decision makers transparently of the reliability impacts of design decisions, to identify areas of the design which may require additional robustness, and to aid in the development and flow-down of requirements.

Mattenberger, Chris↗