SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Probabilistic risk”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Applications and Performance of a Lightning Risk Assessment using Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) Data

Lightning is a hazard globally, particularly in lesser-developed countries. Cloud-to-ground lightning strikes are a threat to human safety, motivating a desire to monitor location-based lightning risk to mitigate harm. A lightning risk assessment for human safety was created that uses a combination of probabilistic risk calculation and spatial lightning mapping data to produce a risk magnitude. This risk magnitude evolves with time and changing conditions and is compared to tolerability thresholds in order to evaluate safety. The risk assessment using lightning mapping array (LMA) flash extent density (FED) data was found to perform comparatively (with respect to issuing lightning warnings) to a more standard method of monitoring lightning safety where National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) flashes were monitored within a 5 nautical mile radius of a location of interest. This research investigates the replacement of LMA FED with FED from the Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) within the risk assessment framework. Using GLM FED would allow for risk to be calculated outside of LMA domains and anywhere within the GLM field of view, including areas outside of the United States (US). A few applications of the risk method with GLM FED are shown and discussed for locations both in and outside of the US. Additionally, the performance of the risk method is compared based on the type of lightning input source (LMA vs GLM). The end goal of this work is to provide forecasters and end users with a tool to help monitor lightning risk in decision support scenarios.

Kelley Murphy↗

NASA NTRS2021

Comparison of Health and Performance Risk for Accelerated Mars Mission Scenarios

This document details the results for a quantitative estimate of the difference in human health and performance risk that crews would face for two hypothetical variations on Mars mission scenarios: an Accelerated Mars Mission (AMM) and a Standard Mars Mission(SMM).NASA goals for Mars mission concepts, duration, and tasks have varied over the years. While neither of the cases considered here are likely to accurately represent the initial mission to Mars, the exercise of evaluating significant differences in mission duration from an astronaut health perspective can provide bounding insight to the level of risk that is likely to be encountered in an eventual Mars mission. Medical Probabilistic Risk Assessment using the Integrated Medical Model (IMM)(1–3)and the NASA Space Radiation Cancer Risk Model (NSCR)(4,5) are used here to help mission planners gain the best insight currently available into the expected magnitude of impacts to astronaut health when undertaking a Mars mission. These impacts occur both in-mission as well as in the long-term health of the astronauts post-mission. These evaluations are currently the best available modeling estimates to characterize and bound the health risks in a proposed mission domain where humans have no experience.

Erik Antonsen↗

NASA NTRS1998

Methods and Techniques for Risk Prediction of Space Shuttle Upgrades

Since the Space Shuttle Accident in 1986, NASA has been trying to incorporate probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) in decisions concerning the Space Shuttle and other NASA projects. One major study NASA is currently conducting is in the PRA area in establishing an overall risk model for the Space Shuttle System. The model is intended to provide a tool to predict the Shuttle risk and to perform sensitivity analyses and trade studies including evaluation of upgrades. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and its prime contractors including Pratt and Whitney (P&W) are part of the NASA team conducting the PRA study. MSFC responsibility involves modeling the External Tank (ET), the Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), the Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM), and the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME). A major challenge that faced the PRA team is modeling the shuttle upgrades. This mainly includes the P&W High Pressure Fuel Turbopump (HPFTP) and the High Pressure Oxidizer Turbopump (HPOTP). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the various methods and techniques used for predicting the risk of the P&W redesigned HPFTP and HPOTP.

Hoffman, Chad R.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Medical Updates Number 5 to the International Space Station Probability Risk Assessment (PRA) Model Using the Integrated Medical Model

The Integrated Medical Model (IMM) Project has been developing a probabilistic risk assessment tool, the IMM, to help evaluate in-flight crew health needs and impacts to the mission due to medical events. This package is a follow-up to a data package provided in June 2009. The IMM currently represents 83 medical conditions and associated ISS resources required to mitigate medical events. IMM end state forecasts relevant to the ISS PRA model include evacuation (EVAC) and loss of crew life (LOCL). The current version of the IMM provides the basis for the operational version of IMM expected in the January 2011 timeframe. The objectives of this data package are: 1. To provide a preliminary understanding of medical risk data used to update the ISS PRA Model. The IMM has had limited validation and an initial characterization of maturity has been completed using NASA STD 7009 Standard for Models and Simulation. The IMM has been internally validated by IMM personnel but has not been validated by an independent body external to the IMM Project. 2. To support a continued dialogue between the ISS PRA and IMM teams. To ensure accurate data interpretation, and that IMM output format and content meets the needs of the ISS Risk Management Office and ISS PRA Model, periodic discussions are anticipated between the risk teams. 3. To help assess the differences between the current ISS PRA and IMM medical risk forecasts of EVAC and LOCL. Follow-on activities are anticipated based on the differences between the current ISS PRA medical risk data and the latest medical risk data produced by IMM.

Butler, Doug↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving the Fidelity of Capability & Resource Weighting in A Probalistic Risk Assessment Model for Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION NASA’s Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) tool uses Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to provide an evidence-based, data-driven estimate of how medical system capabilities affect mission outcomes. IMPACT maps condition incidence to available resources thereby facilitating the calculation of outcome metrics that allow the estimation of mission medical risk. Conditions can be nominally categorized as either treated or untreated depending on the availability of necessary diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. This categorization enables IMPACT to estimate the effect of various medical system configurations on mission outcomes such as crew mortality, disability, crew member down-time, return to duty/recovery, and need for evacuation. IMPACT currently employs an equal weighting, “partial credit” approach to define treatment in which each of the capabilities associated with a given condition contributes an equal amount to management of the condition. This feature enables IMPACT to report values in between “fully untreated” and “fully treated” based on the proportion of capabilities available within the model. However, as is normal in medical/clinical practice, not all individual capabilities contribute equally to medical care. For example, the ability to provide intramuscular epinephrine during an anaphylactic episode contributes more likelihood of overall management success than does the administration of oral diphenhydramine. We hypothesize that weighting the relative contribution of each capability to each specific condition will improve outcome prediction and therefore will better provide mission planners with more nuanced and accurate options when designing space medical systems. METHODS Using a five-point Fibonacci scaling sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8) subject matter experts from NASA’s Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) element assigned relative contribution weighting values to each identified capability within IMPACT. Since the relative importance of each capability varies depending on the specific condition, the resulting “partial” weighting was completed for more than 1,600 individual weighting assignments for 666 capabilities across 121 conditions. Each assignment required three-physician concurrence based on the overall importance of the capability to the diagnosis and management of the condition being considered and the difficulty with which it could be improvised by the crew. Once complete, 100,000 IMPACT simulations were run for a 6-month Lunar mission with a 30-day surface stay to evaluate the effect of this modification of the model. RESULTS Partial weighting significantly decreased predicted task time loss (TTL), evacuation, and loss of crew life without causing significant changes to the recommended medical system design. CONCLUSIONS The paucity of real-world referent data to support long-duration space missions of this type limits the ability to judge one predictive analytics method as superior to another. However, since the proposed method significantly reduces and optimizes outcome risks—without changing the medical system design—incorporating a partial weighting methodology is likely to provide a more accurate and operationally-relevant representation of medical risk without compromising IMPACTs ability to inform overarching medical system requirements.

Steller JG↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving Quantification of Medical Evacuation Risk for Human Spaceflight in the IMPACT Model

Traditionally, mission planners have used a heuristic and qualitative approach to design medical systems based on prior experience however this approach may result in high variability and implicit bias to design and could put missions and crewmembers at risk. The Informing Mission Planning through Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) tool is a probabilistic risk assessment tool designed by NASA to model medical risk in long duration missions outside of low earth orbit (LEO). This tool can quantify risk metrics such as risk of crewmember death, loss of crew task time, and the need for medical evacuation to better inform and augment the more traditional approach to medical system design. The risk metric of Return to Definitive Care (RTDC) represents the likelihood of requiring medical evacuation and has been difficult to quantify in a reliable and standardized manner. Initial development of the RTDC metric was constrained due to the complexity of a medical evacuation decision and the lack of prior spaceflight data and this presentation will discuss the review and improvement process used to increase model accuracy and fidelity.

Prashant Parmar↗

NASA NTRS2010

Risk Informed Design as Part of the Systems Engineering Process

This slide presentation reviews the importance of Risk Informed Design (RID) as an important feature of the systems engineering process. RID is based on the principle that risk is a design commodity such as mass, volume, cost or power. It also reviews Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as it is used in the product life cycle in the development of NASA's Constellation Program.

Deckert, George↗

NASA NTRS2004

Effect of Clouds on Optical Imaging of the Space Shuttle During the Ascent Phase: A Statistical Analysis Based on a 3D Model

Clouds are highly effective in obscuring optical images of the Space Shuttle taken during its ascent by ground-based and airborne tracking cameras. Because the imagery is used for quick-look and post-flight engineering analysis, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommended the return-to-flight effort include an upgrade of the imaging system to enable it to obtain at least three useful views of the Shuttle from lift-off to at least solid rocket booster (SRB) separation (NASA 2003). The lifetimes of individual cloud elements capable of obscuring optical views of the Shuttle are typically 20 minutes or less. Therefore, accurately observing and forecasting cloud obscuration over an extended network of cameras poses an unprecedented challenge for the current state of observational and modeling techniques. In addition, even the best numerical simulations based on real observations will never reach "truth." In order to quantify the risk that clouds would obscure optical imagery of the Shuttle, a 3D model to calculate probabilistic risk was developed. The model was used to estimate the ability of a network of optical imaging cameras to obtain at least N simultaneous views of the Shuttle from lift-off to SRB separation in the presence of an idealized, randomized cloud field.

FROM↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact Outputs for A Representative Extended Duration Artemis Mission

BACKGROUND: As NASA and private industry begin preparation for long-duration spaceflight, quantifying the impact that potential human health and performance capabilities have on crew health outcomes is imperative for medical risk mitigation. NASA’s Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces tool (IMPACT) applies Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) methodology to estimate these outcomes. OVERVIEW: As NASA prepares to return to the Moon, medical system planning has already begun for extended Artemis missions, which will see humans spending months at a time in cis-lunar space and on the surface of the Moon. The Long Duration Lunar Orbital and Lunar Surface (LDLOLS) design reference mission (DRM) lasts 9 months, including 3 months on the lunar surface, and involves 2 male and 2 female crewmembers. LDLOLS assumes no extravehicular activities (EVAs) in orbit, but, while on the lunar surface, involves 2-4 EVAs/month in a pressurized rover and 2-4 EVAs/month in an unpressurized rover or on foot. This DRM assumes a physician level Crew Medical Officer with commensurate knowledge, skills, and abilities. The IMPACT tool was utilized to estimate in-flight medical risk for this mission. More specifically, 100,000 simulations of this DRM were modeled, and overall estimates for loss of crew life (LOCL), need for evacuation (RTDC; return to definitive care), and crew task time lost (TTL; a measure of disability) were calculated. A recommended medical capability set, with appropriate mass and volume constraints, was also generated. DISCUSSION: This abstract reviews the IMPACT-derived risk for these mission outcomes with and without treatment, a macroscopic look at the total mass and volume necessary for full diagnostic and treatment capability, and how these change with input mission parameters.

J G Steller↗

NASA NTRS2009

Johnson Space Center's Risk and Reliability Analysis Group 2008 Annual Report

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) Directorate s Risk and Reliability Analysis Group provides both mathematical and engineering analysis expertise in the areas of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) analysis, and data collection and analysis. The fundamental goal of this group is to provide National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decisionmakers with the necessary information to make informed decisions when evaluating personnel, flight hardware, and public safety concerns associated with current operating systems as well as with any future systems. The Analysis Group includes a staff of statistical and reliability experts with valuable backgrounds in the statistical, reliability, and engineering fields. This group includes JSC S&MA Analysis Branch personnel as well as S&MA support services contractors, such as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and SoHaR. The Analysis Group s experience base includes nuclear power (both commercial and navy), manufacturing, Department of Defense, chemical, and shipping industries, as well as significant aerospace experience specifically in the Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS), and Constellation Programs. The Analysis Group partners with project and program offices, other NASA centers, NASA contractors, and universities to provide additional resources or information to the group when performing various analysis tasks. The JSC S&MA Analysis Group is recognized as a leader in risk and reliability analysis within the NASA community. Therefore, the Analysis Group is in high demand to help the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) continue to fly safely, assist in designing the next generation spacecraft for the Constellation Program (CxP), and promote advanced analytical techniques. The Analysis Section s tasks include teaching classes and instituting personnel qualification processes to enhance the professional abilities of our analysts as well as performing major probabilistic assessments used to support flight rationale and help establish program requirements. During 2008, the Analysis Group performed more than 70 assessments. Although all these assessments were important, some were instrumental in the decisionmaking processes for the Shuttle and Constellation Programs. Two of the more significant tasks were the Space Transportation System (STS)-122 Low Level Cutoff PRA for the SSP and the Orion Pad Abort One (PA-1) PRA for the CxP. These two activities, along with the numerous other tasks the Analysis Group performed in 2008, are summarized in this report. This report also highlights several ongoing and upcoming efforts to provide crucial statistical and probabilistic assessments, such as the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) PRA for the Hubble Space Telescope service mission and the first fully integrated PRAs for the CxP's Lunar Sortie and ISS missions.

Valentine, Mark↗

NASA NTRS2011

Risk Acceptance Personality Paradigm: How We View What We Don't Know We Don't Know

The purpose of integrated hazard analyses, probabilistic risk assessments, failure modes and effects analyses, fault trees and many other similar tools is to give managers of a program some idea of the risks associated with their program. All risk tools establish a set of undesired events and then try to evaluate the risk to the program by assessing the severity of the undesired event and the likelihood of that event occurring. Some tools provide qualitative results, some provide quantitative results and some do both. However, in the end the program manager and his/her team must decide which risks are acceptable and which are not. Even with a wide array of analysis tools available, risk acceptance is often a controversial and difficult decision making process. And yet, today's space exploration programs are moving toward more risk based design approaches. Thus, risk identification and good risk assessment is becoming even more vital to the engineering development process. This paper explores how known and unknown information influences risk-based decisions by looking at how the various parts of our personalities are affected by what they know and what they don't know. This paper then offers some criteria for consideration when making risk-based decisions.

Massie, Michael J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Brace For Impact – It’s Coming, Do You Know What to Do With It?

Long-duration human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for providing in-mission medical care. Compared with the International Space Station, the greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and significant limitations on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Spacecraft mass, volume, and power will be curtailed while higher demands will be placed on the crew’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In this higher risk environment, it is important to define and quantitatively estimate human system risk attributable to medical conditions. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and medical trade space analysis tool being developed by NASA to advance medical system design for exploration missions. IMPACT has made a number of enhancements on the Integrated Medical Model, the PRA tool currently used by NASA. These updates include a novel medical evidence base baselined to a long duration, deep space exploration environment; an expanded medical condition list; and a trade space analysis capability (e.g. comparing risk profiles and mass/volume constraints for medical capabilities and resources). IMPACT core functionality includes quantification of a medical capability set and assisting with identification of specific medical resources/hardware for exploration missions. In addition, IMPACT provides sophisticated trade space capabilities to estimate how human system risk varies with changes to the mission architecture or medical capability set. This presentation will provide a brief overview of the IMPACT tool, discuss representative use cases, and show example results.

Benjamin Easter↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CHP-PRA: Sensorimotor Countermeasures Proof of Concept

The capabilities included in Crew Health and Performance (CHP) systems are designed to keep the crew healthy, happy, and productive. In doing so, the CHP system allows reductions in human related risks to be realized. All human missions, though particularly future Artemis and Mars missions, have constraints on the mass and volume allocated to the CHP system. Thus, trades must be made on how to best buy down risk while still meeting other requirements. Understanding how different CHP capabilities influence medical, performance, and long-term health risks is key to making informed choices among these trades. To address this, an integrated CHP Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) model is being developed. Much like how IMPACT is designed to allow medical resource trades informed by medical risks, CHP PRA will enable analogous trades in human system risks across all CHP functions and capabilities. There are 29 Human System Risk Board (HSRB) risk areas to consider for model implementation. This effort focused solely on the implementation of countermeasures associated with sensorimotor risk. The framework and lessons learned from this proof of concept will benefit the implementation of other risks and countermeasures. Astronauts experience sensorimotor changes when entering or exiting a microgravity environment. While most sensorimotor issues are resolved within a few days, they pose a serious risk to crew health and performance during the adaptation period. This adaptation period aligns with gravity transitions and key mission phases where the crew members may be required to complete challenging tasks ideally with an undisturbed sensorimotor system. Countermeasures such as training or pharmaceuticals can be used to mitigate risk. This effort began by identifying physiological changes to the sensorimotor system that could lead to functional performance decrements or medical conditions and potential countermeasures, so that the overall effect of sensorimotor disturbance on human risk could be captured. We then selected example countermeasures, mapped relationships between countermeasures and outcomes, and used results from existing sensorimotor investigations to define the relationship between a sensorimotor countermeasure and subsequent performance of a sensorimotor-affected task. Specifically, using shuttle landing performance data, we compared the use or absence of inflight training capabilities to yield a relative performance change that can be applied to the prediction of the risk associated with manual control performance in future missions, as depicted in the figure. This sensorimotor proof of concept demonstrates how HRP research information can be transformed into quantifiable relationships to describe changes in HSRB medical and performance risks.

Caroline R Austin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Accounting for Point Estimate Uncertainty in Space Systems Reliability and Risk Analysis

Understanding and accounting for uncertainty in risk analysis is a critical step in the management and communication of risk in engineered systems. The component and system-level analysis to determine the probability of a negative outcome and its consequence is often quantified by a point estimate. Many Program and Enterprise decisions involving technical concerns and issues rely on reliability engineering activities to produce quantified risk analysis to inform the decision making process. At NASA, it is common to use a Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) to inform the overall risk to Loss of Mission or Loss of Crew that involves integration across all spacecraft subsystem fault trees to produce an overall probability of mission failure. The point estimate is an estimate of this overall probability and is an immediate result of a fault tree model. It is the result of a model where the probability of each event is taken to be equal to its mean. The value provides an approximation of the overall mean without running any uncertainty calculations (e.g., no sampling). Using only the point estimate can lead to a false sense of precision and the point estimate may not match the resulting mean when uncertainty is taken into consideration. This paper will explore five conditions that can cause the PRA model mean to diverge from the point estimate and will provide engineers and managers insight into the importance of understanding uncertainty in the elements of PRA models.

Paul J Collier↗

NASA NTRS2016

Mass and Reliability System (MaRS)

The Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Directorate is responsible for mitigating risk, providing system safety, and lowering risk for space programs from ground to space. The S&MA is divided into 4 divisions: The Space Exploration Division (NC), the International Space Station Division (NE), the Safety & Test Operations Division (NS), and the Quality and Flight Equipment Division (NT). The interns, myself and Arun Aruljothi, will be working with the Risk & Reliability Analysis Branch under the NC Division's. The mission of this division is to identify, characterize, diminish, and communicate risk by implementing an efficient and effective assurance model. The team utilizes Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to ensure decisions concerning risks are informed, vehicles are safe and reliable, and program/project requirements are realistic and realized. This project pertains to the Orion mission, so it is geared toward a long duration Human Space Flight Program(s). For space missions, payload is a critical concept; balancing what hardware can be replaced by components verse by Orbital Replacement Units (ORU) or subassemblies is key. For this effort a database was created that combines mass and reliability data, called Mass and Reliability System or MaRS. The U.S. International Space Station (ISS) components are used as reference parts in the MaRS database. Using ISS components as a platform is beneficial because of the historical context and the environment similarities to a space flight mission. MaRS uses a combination of systems: International Space Station PART for failure data, Vehicle Master Database (VMDB) for ORU & components, Maintenance & Analysis Data Set (MADS) for operation hours and other pertinent data, & Hardware History Retrieval System (HHRS) for unit weights. MaRS is populated using a Visual Basic Application. Once populated, the excel spreadsheet is comprised of information on ISS components including: operation hours, random/nonrandom failures, software/hardware failures, quantity, orbital replaceable units (ORU), date of placement, unit weight, frequency of part, etc. The motivation for creating such a database will be the development of a mass/reliability parametric model to estimate mass required for replacement parts. Once complete, engineers working on future space flight missions will have access a mean time to failures and on parts along with their mass, this will be used to make proper decisions for long duration space flight missions

Barnes, Sarah↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact-Identified Medical Capabilities with Largest Effect on Medical Risk for an Extended Duration Artemis Mission

Historically, identifying resources to include in a medical system has been based on heuristically guided clinical subject matter expert assessment. Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and tradespace analysis have the power to simplify and increase the fidelity of this traditional approach by providing initial risk estimates and system design solutions that fit within the specified constraints. This will be especially important as the increased mission complexity, distance from Earth, and duration of LDEMs is likely to drive an increase in mission medical risk. NASA’s Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces tool (IMPACT) is designed to do just that. IMPACT uses an evidence based medical database of conditions likely to affect LDEM outcomes and a PRA computational engine to estimate how medical conditions and included medical capabilities affect mission outcomes. We identified the 10 medical conditions with the largest effect on medical risks and determined what medical system capabilities affected risk reduction the greatest.

Anderson A↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance Risk Model Validation with Operationally Relevant Tasks

Human Research Program aims to develop methods to support astronauts’ health and productivity during spaceflight. The Crew Health and Performance Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) team uses powerful computational methods to predict mission risk in both domains: medical and performance. Here, we show how CHP-PRA uses the Performance Risk Model (PRisM) to quantify the performance risk and show an application of the model on operationally relevant tasks. There are various metrics adopted across performance researchers that PRisM can accommodate. For data analysis, interpretation, and integration, we use a method of unifying data from multiple sources by converting each to a single metric. We consult subject matter experts prior to integrating the converted data into PRisM. The method we use is inspired by the Cooper-Harper rating scale [1]. Using this unified metric, we can easily combine data from various tests and lab groups. We explain our conversion method in detail and show how it pertains to the process of testing and validation of PRisM on operational tasks. We conducted an initial validation in collaboration with the Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) lab. We test PRisM using data on their operationally relevant task ROBoT-r, a track-and-capture task for grappling incoming resupply vehicles [2]. Several other labs at NASA Johnson Space Center worked together to design 7 Functional Task Tests (FTTs) in pursuit of simulating the tasks required after landing on a planetary surface and after return to Earth [3]. Here we use the results from both ROBoT-r and the 7 FTTs and compare their experiment data to PRisM’s computational output to demonstrate how PRisM can support operations by predicting crew performance on future missions.

performance modeling↗

NASA NTRS2020

MEDPRAT-SEL: Medical Resource Set Selector Searching High-Dimensionality Space

NASA Human Research Program's (HRP) next generation risk model closes the loop on medical risk and resource evaluation, providing researchers with a tool to assess and choose capabilities scientifically. The Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) simulator (SIM) evaluates resources in terms of medical benefit, such as reduced crew quality time lost (QTL), vs. cost, in mass or volume. The MEDPRAT resource set selector (SEL) searches the space of resource benefits v. cost, closing a feedback loop around the simulator, thus selecting resource sets with best benefit for cost. We discuss the design and results of the resource set selector. NASA HRP's emphasis on scientific assessment of risk, PRA, has led to the Cross-cutting Computational Modeling Project (CCMP).

Leinweber, Lawrence↗