Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Programmatic”

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 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission: 2018 Status

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) continues its dual-mode mission of scientific exploration and programmatic support. Now in its 13th year of flight (and its 12th year in its low-altitude, sun-synchronous orbit around Mars), the spacecraft continues in its normal flight mode and its science instruments continue to acquire a treasure trove of data which is being used to study the Martian environment (surface, sub-surface, and atmosphere). To date (July 2018), more than 333 TB of scientific data have been returned to Earth. Building onto the 2017 IAC paper: “The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission: Continuing a Record of Exploration from Mars Orbit,” [1] this paper provides a 2018 status update on the MRO Mission. A signature event since the 2017 writing is the onset and evolution of a planet-encircling dust event (PEDE), the first such event since 2007. Additional recent science highlights for MRO include the discovery of mid-latitude ice cliffs, polar cap characterization, daily global mapping of the 2018 PEDE dust activity and the atmospheric thermal response, further characterization of the tantalizing recurring slope lineae (RSL), and continued detection of surface changes. Programmatically, UHF relay support for the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover Curiosity and the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) rover Opportunity continues at a pace that provides the engineers and scientists operating those surface vehicles timely information to support their mission planning and science analysis. Most of the landing site characterization requests for the NASA Mars 2020 rover and the ESA ExoMars Rover/Surface Platform (RSP) missions have been completed, with final acquisitions delayed due to the obscuring dust haze from the current PEDE. In parallel, the flight team has faced new engineering challenges as the spacecraft has aged. The team has developed and is implementing actions that are aimed at stretching spacecraft battery life. A new all-stellar capability using the spacecraft’s star trackers now allows for normal spacecraft operations without IMUs. In addition to its current relay duties, MRO will be synchronized to provide critical communications support for the InSight Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) event on November 26, 2018, and will be readied to support InSight’s critical commissioning phase with UHF relay support and environmental characterization. A new split-pass relay capability has been developed which will allow MRO to relay with two surface vehicles in “close proximity” on the same overflight, i.e. the InSight lander and the Curiosity rover. Extended for another year of operations by NASA, this paper will highlight recent scientific progress and describe actions that will extend MRO’s life well into the 2020’s as a key element of the Mars Exploration Program.

Zurek, Richard W.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.

High↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tours of High-containment and Pristine Facilities in Support of Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Definition Studies

During 2019 and 2020, the NASA Tiger Team RAMA (acronym of the authors) toured several high-containment biosafety laboratories and pristine space-mission facilities worldwide to better understand their practices, capabilities, and lessons-learned to aid in planning a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) in support of Mars Sample Return (MSR). The team also included tours of a manufacturer of mobile and modular high-containment facilities as well as manufacturers of isolators and gloveboxes. In addition, the team visited the European Space Agency (ESA)ultraclean and sterile ISO 3 / airborne molecular contamination -9 (AMC-9) isolator line to clean and assemble the most critical hardware for ESA’s ExoMars Mars Lander System, and researchers developing a novel double-walled isolator (DWI) and robotic handling techniques in support of an MSR SRF. The RAMA team visits covered several construction modalities for an MSR SRF: (1) a new traditional fixed facility; (2) use of an existing fixed Biosafety Level 4(BSL-4) facility; (3) a novel modular BSL-4 approach; and (4) a hybrid combination of fixed, modular, and existing facilities. A new fixed facility approach can be tailored to MSR’s needs and is the approach used by all U.S. BSL-4 laboratories constructed to date. However, this approach could be the most expensive modality, take the longest to implement (8-12 years), and have significant programmatic risk of delay. The utilization of an existing BSL-4 facility may be possible depending on the final contamination control and science requirements for the MSR SRF. Due to the internal dimensions of the labs visited and facility structural requirements, it is unlikely that any modification can be made to the facility to meet cleanliness requirements. Furthermore, due to possible construction delays, possible capacity issues, and potential cross contamination vectors from in-house select agents, there may also be significant programmatic risks for sharing an existing facility. Another approach is building a contemporary modular facility. This is a novel approach that has recently been used for a BSL-3/3Ag facilities. The modular elements would be installed in a traditional building or shell structure. A modular facility has many advantages over a traditional fixed facility with lower costs, shorter design/construction/ commissioning schedule, and flexibility for easier retrofits and future expansion. Lastly, a hybrid approach of combining the use of either: (1) a modular facility inside a new fixed facility or (2) a modular and/or fixed BSL-4 annex in conjunction with an existing BSL-4 space should be considered. The advantage of a hybrid approach is that the facility could leverage the strengths of other approaches. Beyond facility construction approaches, the RAMA team investigated technologies and techniques for isolating and handling Martian samples in pristine environments. For example, ESA has been studying and developing a DWI breadboard along with other sample-handling technologies. The research and development investment for clean, remote manipulation and robotics at the start of the facility design phase would be beneficial to the SRF. Additionally, under-standing the lessons learned from Thales Alenia Space during the construction and operation of the most advanced state-of-the-art precision cleaning, sterilization, and assembly glovebox isolators ever developed for spacecraft hardware are also critical for the SRF. The RAMA team lays out a summary of the 18 facilities toured, and includes 43 observations,18 findings, and 22 areas of possible follow-up that the RAMA team and others could pursue to enable further findings. The observations and findings illustrate that constructing an MSR SRF would combine the complexity of both high-containment and pristine facilities, and merging these technologies would be challenging, but achievable.

Mars Sample Return↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tailoring Early Concept Maturity Levels for Small Satellite Missions

The Concept Maturity Level (CML) framework has gained widespread acceptance as a process to assess mission concept maturity, particularly for early mission concepts in the formulation phase. Popularized by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory almost 15 years ago to evaluate large NASA science mission concepts, the CML method offers wide-ranging programmatic and technical evaluation criteria to assess and measure the progress of mission concepts at all stages of maturity. It also provides a useful tool to facilitate stakeholder relationships through effective engagement, interaction, and communication. The CML approach is modeled largely after the widespread Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale, a measure of how new technology progresses from early concept through to being operational at the mission flight system level. Tailoring the CML framework for small satellites allows for more relevant technical and programmatic evaluations for these missions. Given the diversity of small satellite mission objectives, cost constraints, complexity, and risk tolerance, this modified CML framework enables study teams and stakeholders to determine the appropriate CML fidelity to implement based upon the opportunity and strategic investment approach. A decision process flow method is proposed to guide teams through the logic of determining what CML fidelity to implement in evaluating small satellite mission concepts. The goal is to provide enhanced stakeholder engagement such that CML assessments are clearly articulated and understood early in the design study. This would allow for more appropriate application of CML methodology by study teams developing University led missions, technology demonstrations, commercial constellations, and more complex planetary science missions.

Concept Maturity Level↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Flight Environment HEPA Filter Testing for Lunar Dust Removal Capability

Lunar dust is an abrasive regolith that can cause critical damage to hardware and crew. Its morphology and chemical makeup differs from typical earth dust due to space weathering effects. Current space missions require extensive air filtration of lunar dust to ensure mission success; as such filtration testing is paramount in verifying the dust-removal capabilities of the system. Previous testing at NASA GRC consisted of two stages: testing a flat high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) media sheet at various pressure ranges (Stage 1) and testing a pleated HEPA filter at different humidity and dust levels (Stage 2). This testing was done to buy-down risk when testing the flight-qualification HEPA filter for the proposed Stage 3 test. Stage 3 testing used a flight-ready HEPA filter to measure its performance characteristics to verify programmatic requirements. This included measuring lunar dust loading versus pressure drop performance and establishing a maximum capacity based on the allowable pressure drop, determining the HEPA filter efficiency utilizing two separate methodologies, and assessing if the lunar dust caused the HEPA filter to experience any damage. Additionally, dust removal from the HEPA filter was performed using a vacuum to ascertain if the filter life can be prolonged. These test results will aid the program in verifying programmatic requirements and ensuring risk buydown before this HEPA filter takes flight.

HEPA↗
NASA NTRS2023

Identifying and Closing Medical Capability Gaps for Human Spaceflight Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit

BACKGROUND: Features of human space missions beyond low Earth orbit such as increasing distance from Earth, lack of real-time communication, and limited or no evacuation or resupply capability are expected to drive an increase in medical risk and require crews to operate in an increasingly autonomous fashion. A diverse set of stakeholders at NASA are seeking to fund the development of concepts of operations, medical requirements, and medical capabilities for such missions. However, a systematic approach to identification of current medical capability gaps and a strategic framework to gap closure is needed. OVERVIEW: The Exploration Medical Integrated Product Team (XMIPT) has developed a list of nine high-level medical capability gaps and associated activities required for gap closure. The list was derived based on inputs from subject matter experts at NASA including flight surgeons, other clinical providers, as well as operational and research communities regarding medical capabilities required to support human missions to the Moon and the Mars surface. Responses were reviewed and distilled to identify common themes across capabilities. To ensure alignment with established human system risks, the gap list was further refined based on inputs from NASA’s Human System Risk Board. Relevant medical gap closure activities outside of those funded by the XMIPT were identified through solicitation of inputs from Elements of NASA’s Human Research Program (particularly Exploration Medical Capability), the broader medical operations community, and other stakeholders. This medical capability gap list is reviewed and updated regularly as new information becomes available or new stakeholders are identified. DISCUSSION: The medical capability gap list has matured to include a large group of NASA stakeholders and development activities. This has enabled articulation of priorities to funding entities and programmatic stakeholders, while serving as an accessible resource summarizing gap closure activities, relevant programmatic infusion points, and opportunities for collaboration between stakeholders. This presentation will provide an overview of the nine NASA medical capability gaps and their associated gap closure activities.

Moriah Thompson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

RadLab: A Comprehensive Database and Graphical and Programming Interfaces for Biologically Relevant Space Radiation Data

RadLab, a new component of the NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR), is a platform built upon a database of radiation data relevant to space biology. RadLab provides visual and programmatic interfaces for interrogation of its database, as well as a submission process for inclusion of data from investigators. The RadLab application programming interface (API) implements a request syntax enabling users to retrieve data filtered by various combinations of parameters (detector type, location, direction, timespan, etc), which are delivered in machine-readable text formats, ready to be ingested by downstream analysis pipelines; while the graphical user interface (GUI) provides easy means to iteratively modify query parameters and incorporates a number of standard analyses and visualizations (time series plots, geospatial visualizations, detector comparison). Investigators from many countries, including US, Russia, Japan, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, and Italy, have committed to provide data from their instruments located on the ISS; RadLab will also include data from other spacecraft in LEO (e.g., the Space Shuttle, the Mir space station), BLEO (e. g. BioSentinel, Mars Orbiter, among others), and on other celestial bodies (e. g. Chang’e 4, Curiosity). The first release of RadLab has been made available to the public. Once fully operational, RadLab will provide a comprehensive and ever-growing compendium of space radiation data, facilitating straightforward access to multiple types of readings and enabling space biology researchers to perform intercomparisons of detectors and to determine the radiation environment of research missions, both via programmatic retrieval of these data and via the graphical analysis toolkit; as well as a user-friendly submission portal for ingesting data from space agencies and research institutions. Radiation scientists will be able to use RadLab to gain a deeper understanding of the space radiation environment for future human space exploration. The RadLab Working Group has been formed to foster close collaborations among data contributors and users, to identify data sources, to put in place standards for data normalization, to guide the development of features of the analysis toolkit, to establish the use of RadLab in space radiation biology research, and eventually to provide a forum for discussing relevant research issues that can take advantage of RadLab's capabilities.

radiation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

RadLab: A Comprehensive Database and Graphical and Programming Interfaces for Biologically Relevant Space Radiation Data

RadLab, a new component of the NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR), comprises a database of radiation measurements relevant to space biology, and visual and programmatic interfaces for interrogation and retrieval of these data. The attributes of data available through RadLab include spacecraft, types of radiation sensing instruments, locations within the spacecraft (e.g. modules of the ISS), associated celestial bodies, trajectories, and spacecraft coordinates. The application programming interface (API) implements a request syntax for retrieval of timestamped data filtered by various combinations of such attributes; the graphical user interface (GUI) extends this functionality with visualizations, such as spacecraft schematics, time series plots, geospatial visualizations, and provides easy means to iteratively refine search parameters, inspect the data on the fly, and download target subsets of these data. The release of RadLab currently available to the public contains datasets provided by US and international collaborators and focuses on data recorded on the ISS. Investigators from multiple countries, including the US, Canada, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Russia and the Czech Republic, have committed to provide data from their instruments in and beyond low Earth orbit; RadLab will also soon expand to include past (e.g. Shuttle and Mir) and future (e.g. Artemis) data. RadLab will provide a comprehensive, dynamic compendium of space radiation data, enabling the scientific community to perform analyses of data from multiple detectors and to determine the radiation environment of research missions and experiments, both via programmatic retrieval of these data and through the graphical analysis toolkit. The RadLab Working Group has been formed to foster collaborations among data contributors and users, to identify data sources, to put in place standards for data harmonization, and to guide the development of the platform, with the goal to establish the use of RadLab in space radiation research and to advance our understanding of the space radiation environment in human habitats.

radiation↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 1

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0. NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Uncertainty↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 2

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0 (January 2020). NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Risk Leadership↗
NASA NTRS2025

Enhancing Nasa Sounding Rocket Capabilities Through Composite Material Adoption

Sounding rockets are a suborbital research platform employed by NASA for heliophysics, astrophysics, and geospace science investigations, and for technology development. They follow semi-parabolic trajectories and are launched using surplus military, and commercial, solid-propellant rocket motors. NASA sounding rocket payloads are comprised of standard, modular subassemblies, designed to perform specific functions critical to achieving mission success criteria. Since the program’s inception, payload length and mass have trended upwards, limiting the capability of the platform to reach exospheric apogees and decreasing the time above critical altitudes to observe solar and celestial targets. To offset this trend, composite materials may be of use in payload and subsystem design to decrease payload mass. This investigation seeks to understand if there is a practical benefit to introducing composite materials on the NSRP by assessing mission specific impacts to those missions conducted in fiscal year 2024. To accurately estimate the mass of a composites-based payload, a standard subsystem (NIACS) underwent structural reconfiguration. Materials were selected that align with NSRP design, manufacturing, and testing standards. NIACS reconfiguration resulted in a mass reduction of 19.6% which was then applied to the payload system in entirety. Using vehicle performance carpet plots, delta apogee and time above the Kármán line were determined. Performance improvements were then evaluated against that mission’s success criteria to determine if that mission would have benefitted from using composite materials. On average, each mission would have gained 59.8 kilometers apogee and 62.9 seconds above the Kármán line. However, only nine of the seventeen missions would have benefitted from these performance improvements. Two of the missions could have used a lower-impulse launch vehicle to achieve mission success. Upleg stability met programmatic criteria; downleg instability and dynamic pressure improved, showing that ballast would not offset the mass reduction of using composite materials. Cost analysis showed that production costs will increase 39%. For the two missions that could have used a lower-impulse launch vehicle, the cost of the launch vehicle would have offset payload production costs. In summary, composite materials are not recommended for universal use on NASA sounding rocket payloads due to unclear programmatic benefits and added cost. However, they are justified for optical astrophysics and heliophysics missions, high-apogee (exosphere) requirements, or when they reduce payload costs versus higher impulse launch vehicles. Reflown, recoverable subsystems should use composites to enhance apogee and observation time.

Robert Henry Burth↗
NASA NTRS2014

The NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Shared Assurance Model for Safety

NASA established the Commercial Crew Program in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low earth orbit via the commercial (nongovernmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA is how to determine the commercial provider's transportation system complies with Programmatic safety requirements while at the same time allowing the provider the flexibility to demonstrate compliance. This will be accomplished through the use of Shared Assurance and Risk Based Assessment by NASA thus shifting more responsibility to the Provider. This model will be the focus of this presentation.

Programmatic safety requirements↗
NASA NTRS2015

Commercial Crew Program Crew Safety Strategy

The purpose of this presentation is to explain to our international partners (ESA and JAXA) how NASA is implementing crew safety onto our commercial partners under the Commercial Crew Program. It will show them the overall strategy of 1) how crew safety boundaries have been established; 2) how Human Rating requirements have been flown down into programmatic requirements and over into contracts and partner requirements; 3) how CCP SMA has assessed CCP Certification and CoFR strategies against Shuttle baselines; 4) Discuss how Risk Based Assessment (RBA) and Shared Assurance is used to accomplish these strategies.

Crew Safety↗
NASA NTRS1972

Nuclear applications in manned space station

The zirconium hydride reactor, coupled to a thermo-electric or Brayton conversion system, and the Pu 238 isotope/Brayton system, are considered to be the viable nuclear candidates for the modular space station electrical power system. The basic integration aspects of these nuclear electrical power systems are reviewed, including unique requirements imposed by the buildup and incremental utilization considerations of the modular station. Also treated are the various programmatic aspects of nuclear power system design and selection.

Brooksbank, W. A., Jr.↗