Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Risk Assessment Tool”

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 Growth of Mass and Reliability Source Database and Me

Mass and Reliability Source (MaRS) is a database which draws together information from multiple other sources and databases (MADS, VMDB, ISS PART, Bayesian PowerPoint, etc.). Information such as mass, operating hours, and failure data are compiled to create a tool for the building of probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) models. MaRS also has great potential for deep space mission planning. Understanding the lowest point of failure within an ORU helps to inform the efficient selection of spare parts necessary for a journey where mass and volume are at a premium and resupply is not possible.

George, Cory A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Web-Based Negotiation Tool for Conflict Resolution in Upper Class E Traffic Management

In Upper Class E airspace 60,000 feet (or Flight level / FL600), vehicles such as High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) balloons and slow fixed-wing gliders have diverse vehicle characteristics and limited maneuverability. Due to these unique characteristics of high-altitude operations, a new type of strategic negotiation-based conflict resolution method has been proposed to avoid potential conflict between vehicles in Upper Class E airspace, well in advance of the conflict point and with ample time for bilateral negotiation. This paper introduces the first real-time web-based negotiation tool for high-altitude operations. To facilitate negotiation, this tool incorporates a bilateral negotiation model with an algorithm to assess conflict risks and generate new flight trajectories with a given flight path deviation. This tool allows users to make decisions during negotiation manually and automatically while enforcing the needed constraints for negotiation to be successful. Operators can make decisions at every step while they interact with each other on separate devices. To conduct sensitivity analysis, a mechanism that automates human inputs to the user interface is also developed for this web-based negotiation tool, such that fast-time simulations can be constructed and used to explore various scenarios to gain insights into this web-based negotiation model. Using this tool, a study was conducted to evaluate the impact of different negotiation strategies, vehicle types, vehicle crossing angles, and operator response times during the negotiations on metrics such as total negotiation completion time, number of negotiation rounds, and extra flight distance to avoid the conflict due to negotiation, compared to ones without negotiation. The results suggest that operators benefit from using negotiated flight paths with quick response times, across various crossing angles and vehicle types. Various Negotiation Strategies are investigated to simulate the behaviors associated with different types of negotiations. The findings demonstrate that, in comparison to the conventional method where a single operator assumes full responsibility, negotiation-based strategic deconfliction reduces the total extra flight distance by an average of 24% - 27%. On an individual basis, each operator may be able to save an average of 65% of their extra flight distance.

Upper Class E Traffic Management (ETM)↗
NASA NTRS2002

Radiation Effect on Human Tissue

Predicting the occurrence of human cancer following exposure of an epidemiologic population to any agent causing genetic damage is a difficult task. To an approximation, this is because the uncertainty of uniform exposure to the damaging agent, and the uncertainty of uniform processing of that damage within a complex set of biological variables, degrade the confidence of predicting the delayed expression of cancer as a relatively rare event within clinically normal individuals. This situation begs the need for alternate controlled experimental models that are predictive for the development of human cancer following exposures to agents causing genetic damage. Such models historically have not been of substantial proven value. It is more recently encouraging, however, that developments in molecular and cell biology have led to an expanded knowledge of human carcinogenesis, and of molecular markers associated with that process. It is therefore appropriate to consider new laboratory models developed to accomodate that expanded knowledge in order to assess the cancer risks associated with exposures to genotoxic agents. When ionizing radiation of space is the genotoxic agent, then a series of additional considerations for human cancer risk assessment must also be applied. These include the dose of radiation absorbed by tissue at different locations in the body, the quality of the absorbed radiation, the rate at which absorbed dose accumulates in tissue, the way in which absorbed dose is measured and calculated, and the alterations in incident radiation caused by shielding materials. It is clear that human cancer risk assessment for damage caused by ionizing radiation is a multidisciplinary responsibility, and that within this responsibility no single discipline can hold disproportionate sway if a risk assessment model of radiation-induced human cancer is to be developed that has proven value. Biomolecular and cellular markers from the work reported here are considered for use in assessing human cancer risk related to exposure to space radiation. This potential use must be integrated within the specified multidisciplinary context in order to create a new tool of molecular epidemiology that can hopefully then realistically assess this cancer risk.

Richmond, Robert C.↗
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 NTRS2011

NASA System Safety Handbook: System Safety Framework and Concepts for Implementation - Volume 1

System safety assessment is defined in NPR 8715.3C, NASA General Safety Program Requirements as a disciplined, systematic approach to the analysis of risks resulting from hazards that can affect humans, the environment, and mission assets. Achievement of the highest practicable degree of system safety is one of NASA's highest priorities. Traditionally, system safety assessment at NASA and elsewhere has focused on the application of a set of safety analysis tools to identify safety risks and formulate effective controls.1 Familiar tools used for this purpose include various forms of hazard analyses, failure modes and effects analyses, and probabilistic safety assessment (commonly also referred to as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)). In the past, it has been assumed that to show that a system is safe, it is sufficient to provide assurance that the process for identifying the hazards has been as comprehensive as possible and that each identified hazard has one or more associated controls. The NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has made several statements in its annual reports supporting a more holistic approach. In 2006, it recommended that "... a comprehensive risk assessment, communication and acceptance process be implemented to ensure that overall launch risk is considered in an integrated and consistent manner." In 2009, it advocated for "... a process for using a risk-informed design approach to produce a design that is optimally and sufficiently safe." As a rationale for the latter advocacy, it stated that "... the ASAP applauds switching to a performance-based approach because it emphasizes early risk identification to guide designs, thus enabling creative design approaches that might be more efficient, safer, or both." For purposes of this preface, it is worth mentioning three areas where the handbook emphasizes a more holistic type of thinking. First, the handbook takes the position that it is important to not just focus on risk on an individual basis but to consider measures of aggregate safety risk and to ensure wherever possible that there be quantitative measures for evaluating how effective the controls are in reducing these aggregate risks. The term aggregate risk, when used in this handbook, refers to the accumulation of risks from individual scenarios that lead to a shortfall in safety performance at a high level: e.g., an excessively high probability of loss of crew, loss of mission, planetary contamination, etc. Without aggregated quantitative measures such as these, it is not reasonable to expect that safety has been optimized with respect to other technical and programmatic objectives. At the same time, it is fully recognized that not all sources of risk are amenable to precise quantitative analysis and that the use of qualitative approaches and bounding estimates may be appropriate for those risk sources. Second, the handbook stresses the necessity of developing confidence that the controls derived for the purpose of achieving system safety not only handle risks that have been identified and properly characterized but also provide a general, more holistic means for protecting against unidentified or uncharacterized risks. For example, while it is not possible to be assured that all credible causes of risk have been identified, there are defenses that can provide protection against broad categories of risks and thereby increase the chances that individual causes are contained. Third, the handbook strives at all times to treat uncertainties as an integral aspect of risk and as a part of making decisions. The term "uncertainty" here does not refer to an actuarial type of data analysis, but rather to a characterization of our state of knowledge regarding results from logical and physical models that approximate reality. Uncertainty analysis finds how the output parameters of the models are related to plausible variations in the input parameters and in the modeling assumptions. The evaluation of unrtainties represents a method of probabilistic thinking wherein the analyst and decision makers recognize possible outcomes other than the outcome perceived to be "most likely." Without this type of analysis, it is not possible to determine the worth of an analysis product as a basis for making decisions related to safety and mission success. In line with these considerations the handbook does not take a hazard-analysis-centric approach to system safety. Hazard analysis remains a useful tool to facilitate brainstorming but does not substitute for a more holistic approach geared to a comprehensive identification and understanding of individual risk issues and their contributions to aggregate safety risks. The handbook strives to emphasize the importance of identifying the most critical scenarios that contribute to the risk of not meeting the agreed-upon safety objectives and requirements using all appropriate tools (including but not limited to hazard analysis). Thereafter, emphasis shifts to identifying the risk drivers that cause these scenarios to be critical and ensuring that there are controls directed toward preventing or mitigating the risk drivers. To address these and other areas, the handbook advocates a proactive, analytic-deliberative, risk-informed approach to system safety, enabling the integration of system safety activities with systems engineering and risk management processes. It emphasizes how one can systematically provide the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim that a system is safe to within an acceptable risk tolerance, and that safety has been achieved in a cost-effective manner. The methodology discussed in this handbook is part of a systems engineering process and is intended to be integral to the system safety practices being conducted by the NASA safety and mission assurance and systems engineering organizations. The handbook posits that to conclude that a system is adequately safe, it is necessary to consider a set of safety claims that derive from the safety objectives of the organization. The safety claims are developed from a hierarchy of safety objectives and are therefore hierarchical themselves. Assurance that all the claims are true within acceptable risk tolerance limits implies that all of the safety objectives have been satisfied, and therefore that the system is safe. The acceptable risk tolerance limits are provided by the authority who must make the decision whether or not to proceed to the next step in the life cycle. These tolerances are therefore referred to as the decision maker's risk tolerances. In general, the safety claims address two fundamental facets of safety: 1) whether required safety thresholds or goals have been achieved, and 2) whether the safety risk is as low as possible within reasonable impacts on cost, schedule, and performance. The latter facet includes consideration of controls that are collective in nature (i.e., apply generically to broad categories of risks) and thereby provide protection against unidentified or uncharacterized risks.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating The Relationships Between Supine Propriorception Assessments with Upright Functional Mobility and Balance Tests

INTRODUCTION Upon return to Earth, spaceflight sensorimotor adaptations can result in impaired posture and locomotion [1], [2], and current exercise countermeasures in the International Space Station are not sufficient to maintain sensorimotor function. In-flight countermeasures and assessment tools for sensorimotor function are needed to mitigate risks associated with mission-critical task performance upon return to Earth or arrival to 0.38 G on Mars. One proposed countermeasure for proprioceptive deconditioning includes training on a tilt board device [3], which will be tested in an upcoming bed rest study. In preparation for the said study, the objective of this pilot study is to compare performance in supine proprioceptive assessments to performance in functional upright activities. The results are intended to guide the selection of supine assessment tools for the upcoming bedrest study and the development of future inflight proprioceptive training and assessment tools for exploration missions. METHODS Seventeen healthy participants (8 males and 9 females, 27.9 ± 8.5 years) provided informed consent as approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at NASA. A horizontal air-bearing sled was used to provide a proprioceptive challenge in a supine body orientation, allowing for mediolateral motion with minimal friction during supine stance [4]. Participants were loaded axially (30 to 60% body weight) with their feet on a vertically oriented tilt board and instructed to perform supine assessment activities using custom software that displays a cursor controlled by tilting the tilt board. In a single-leg static activity on the tilt board (TB-St), performance was measured as the percent time spent on a center target during a 30-second trial. During a two-feet dynamic activity on the tilt board (TB-Dy), performance was measured as the number of targets captured in 30 seconds. These supine tasks were compared to performance during two upright activities used to represent upright performance: completion time for a functional mobility task (FMT) [2],[5] and a performance score from force plate sway data during 30-second single-leg upright standing (USL). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A Spearman's rank-order correlation was run to assess the relationship between upright and supine assessments. There were statistically significant, strong correlations between scores for the FMT and each TB activity, including TB-St, rs(17) = 0.50, p<0.05, TB-Dy3, rs(17) = 0.73, p<0.001, and TB-Dy9, rs(15) = 0.53, p<0.05. There were no statistically significant correlations between USL and each TB activity. Despite a lack of correlation with upright single-leg balance, the ability of the TB to indicate upright performance in the FMT is promising, as this task is a standard post-flight measure designed to characterize locomotor dysfunction [2], [5]. CONCLUSION These efforts will inform the selection of an appropriate sensorimotor assessment method for the upcoming bed rest study and similar future studies. While current work uses a bed rest analog to develop these technologies, future work aims to prepare capabilities for future in-flight sensorimotor training and assessment to mitigate the risks of proprioception impairment after spaceflight. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the University Space Research Association Internship Program. REFERENCES [1] Mulavara A.P. et al (2018) Med Sci Sports Exerc, 50(9), 1961-1980. [2] Mulavara A.P. et al (2010) Exp Brain Res, 202(3), 649-659. [3] Macaulay T.R. et al (2021) Front. Syst. Neurosci., 15, 658-985. [4] Goel R. et al (2017) Front. Syst. Neurosci, 11. [5] Koppelmans V. et al (2013) BMC Neurology, 12.

R Bellisle↗
NASA NTRS2004

Improving Project Management with Simulation and Completion Distribution Functions

Despite the critical importance of project completion timeliness, management practices in place today remain inadequate for addressing the persistent problem of project completion tardiness. A major culprit in late projects is uncertainty, which most, if not all, projects are inherently subject to. This uncertainty resides in the estimates for activity durations, the occurrence of unplanned and unforeseen events, and the availability of critical resources. In response to this problem, this research developed a comprehensive simulation based methodology for conducting quantitative project completion time risk analysis. It is called the Project Assessment by Simulation Technique (PAST). This new tool enables project stakeholders to visualize uncertainty or risk, i.e. the likelihood of their project completing late and the magnitude of the lateness, by providing them with a completion time distribution function of their projects. Discrete event simulation is used within PAST to determine the completion distribution function for the project of interest. The simulation is populated with both deterministic and stochastic elements. The deterministic inputs include planned project activities, precedence requirements, and resource requirements. The stochastic inputs include activity duration growth distributions, probabilities for events that can impact the project, and other dynamic constraints that may be placed upon project activities and milestones. These stochastic inputs are based upon past data from similar projects. The time for an entity to complete the simulation network, subject to both the deterministic and stochastic factors, represents the time to complete the project. Repeating the simulation hundreds or thousands of times allows one to create the project completion distribution function. The Project Assessment by Simulation Technique was demonstrated to be effective for the on-going NASA project to assemble the International Space Station. Approximately $500 million per month is being spent on this project, which is scheduled to complete by 2010. NASA project stakeholders participated in determining and managing completion distribution functions produced from PAST. The first result was that project stakeholders improved project completion risk awareness. Secondly, using PAST, mitigation options were analyzed to improve project completion performance and reduce total project cost.

Cates, Grant R.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Risk Evaluation in the Pre-Phase A Conceptual Design of Spacecraft

Typically, the most important decisions in the design of a spacecraft are made in the earliest stages of its conceptual design the Pre-Phase A stages. It is in these stages that the greatest number of design alternatives is considered, and the greatest number of alternatives is rejected. The focus of Pre-Phase A conceptual development is on the evaluation and comparison of whole concepts and the larger-scale systems comprising those concepts. This comparison typically uses general Figures of Merit (FOMs) to quantify the comparative benefits of designs and alternative design features. Along with mass, performance, and cost, risk should be one of the major FOMs in evaluating design decisions during the conceptual design phases. However, risk is often given inadequate consideration in conceptual design practice. The reasons frequently given for this lack of attention to risk include: inadequate mission definition, lack of rigorous design requirements in early concept phases, lack of fidelity in risk assessment methods, and under-evaluation of risk as a viable FOM for design evaluation. In this paper, the role of risk evaluation in early conceptual design is discussed. The various requirements of a viable risk evaluation tool at the Pre-Phase A level are considered in light of the needs of a typical spacecraft design study. A technique for risk identification and evaluation is presented. The application of the risk identification and evaluation approach to the conceptual design process is discussed. Finally, a computational tool for risk profiling is presented and applied to assess the risk for an existing Pre-Phase A proposal. The resulting profile is compared to the risks identified for the proposal by other means.

Fabisinski, Leo L., III↗
NASA NTRS2015

Assessing and Promoting Functional Resilience in Flight Crews During Exploration Missions

The NASA Human Research Program works to mitigate risks to health and performance on extended missions. However, research should be directed not only to mitigating known risks, but also to providing crews with tools to assess and enhance resilience, as a group and individually. We can draw on ideas from complexity theory to assess resilience. The entire crew or the individual crewmember can be viewed as a complex system composed of subsystems; the interactions between subsystems are of crucial importance. Understanding the interactions can provide important information even in the absence of complete information on the component subsystems. Enabled by advances in noninvasive measurement of physiological and behavioral parameters, subsystem monitoring can be implemented within a mission and during training to establish baselines. Coupled with mathematical modeling, this can provide assessment of health and function. Since the web of physiological systems (and crewmembers) can be interpreted as a network in mathematical terms, we can draw on recent work that relates the structure of such networks to their resilience (ability to self-organize in the face of perturbation). Some of the many parameters and interactions to choose from include: sleep cycles, coordination of work and meal times, cardiorespiratory rhythms, circadian rhythms and body temperature, stress markers and cognition, sleep and performance, immune function and nutritional status. Tools for resilience are then the means to measure and analyze these parameters, incorporate them into models of normal variability and interconnectedness, and recognize when parameters or their couplings are outside of normal limits.

Shelhamer, M.↗
NASA NTRS2015

The Tracking Meteogram, an AWIPS II Tool for Time-Series Analysis

A new tool has been developed for the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) II through collaboration between NASA's Short‐term Prediction Research and Transition (SPoRT) and the NWS Meteorological Development Laboratory (MDL). Referred to as the "Tracking Meteogram", the tool aids NWS forecasters in assessing meteorological parameters associated with moving phenomena. The tool aids forecasters in severe weather situations by providing valuable satellite and radar derived trends such as cloud top cooling rates, radial velocity couplets, reflectivity, and information from ground‐based lightning networks. The Tracking Meteogram tool also aids in synoptic and mesoscale analysis by tracking parameters such as the deepening of surface low pressure systems, changes in surface or upper air temperature, and other properties. The tool provides a valuable new functionality and demonstrates the flexibility and extensibility of the NWS AWIPS II architecture. In 2014, the operational impact of the tool was formally evaluated through participation in the NOAA/NWS Operations Proving Ground (OPG), a risk reduction activity to assess performance and operational impact of new forecasting concepts, tools, and applications. Performance of the Tracking Meteogram Tool during the OPG assessment confirmed that it will be a valuable asset to the operational forecasters. This presentation reviews development of the Tracking Meteogram tool, performance and feedback acquired during the OPG activity, and future goals for continued support and extension to other application areas.

Burks, Jason Eric↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Medical Diagnosis and Treatment During Space Exploration Missions

From May 8th to June 9th, 2023, I had the opportunity to participate in an experiential learning experience at Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX with Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC), an element of the NASA Human Research Program. During this research experience, I was not only able to work on the above titled research project, but also gain an immense exposure to the field of aerospace medicine, make numerous connections within the field, tour NASA facilities, as well as travel to the Aerospace Medical Association Annual Conference (AsMA) in New Orleans. To briefly introduce my project, it is well understood that the medical capabilities available to crew medical officers (CMOs) on the International Space Station will be different than the capabilities available and needed during deep space exploration missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Ground support is particularly limited due to distance, communication delays (or lack of communication), and lack of resupply. Therefore, to support medical care by CMOs on these missions, robust clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) must be designed. The recent publication and public launch of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools based upon large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT provides the opportunity to create a smart assistant for onboard triage, diagnosis, and treatment of medical conditions. Ultimately, the overall purpose of the project was to research what AI tools currently exist or are in development, and to see how they might be implemented onboard during exploration class spaceflights of the future. The ExMC element is actively developing several tools to be used in preparation for and during deep space exploration missions. One of those tools, known as IMPACT, is a probabilistic risk assessment model which can be used to propose a desired medical system (based on mass and volume) and suggest the clinical outcomes likely to occur for a design reference mission (DRM). The group recently presented the IMPACT model and a DRM of interest titled “Modified Long Duration Lunar Orbital and Lunar Surface” (mLDLOLS) at the recent AsMA conference. The mLDLOLS mock mission is a 9 month and 6-day deep space exploration mission consisting of time in Moon’s orbit (3 months on the Gateway space station), on the lunar surface (3 months within habitat), and another 3 months on Gateway before return to Earth. For this DRM, IMPACT ultimately outlined a preferred medical system that was then associated with medical conditions considered to be most likely based on frequency, most likely to cause astronaut task time loss (TTL), most likely to cause return to definitive care (RTDC), and most likely cause loss of crew life (LOCL). IMPACT also highlighted the medical capabilities/skills that would be required to care for those medical conditions, such as performing a history of present illness or musculoskeletal exam with ultrasound. The primary objective of the project was to perform a survey of the AI tools and systems applicable to the conditions outlined for the proposed mLDLOLS mission. Using PubMed (including most relevant MeSH terms) and Google Scholar, we then created a robust annotated bibliography organized by condition. The 56-page and over 500 reference annotated bibliography was subsequently used to create a review outline that would become the basis for drafting of a future publication. For the review outline, we took those medical conditions researched within the annotated bibliography (condition-based approach) and deployed a systems-based approach, combining those medical conditions and related tools into ten categories. These categories included general/all-purpose CDSSs, tools to diagnose or manage respiratory, dermatologic, neurologic, auditory and vestibular, ophthalmic, musculoskeletal, infection-associated, and gynecologic conditions, as well as tools that could be deployed in the setting of trauma/emergency. With the completion of the 30-page outline, we then began drafting the review paper. To conclude the research experience, I presented the findings from our survey to the ExMC Clinical and Science team. With these objectives, I ultimately learned about the number of AI tools that exist today to assist medical professionals with the triage, diagnosis, and management of several medical conditions. These tools can span from chatbot assistants to help triage knee pain to vision transformer models that can identify ophthalmic conditions based on ocular surface images captured with a cell phone. We also highlighted the current gaps that exist in the literature alongside the advancements that are needed to make the desired CDSS for deep space exploration missions. With this experience, I certainly confirmed an existing career goal and identified several additional skills needed to become an aerospace medical doctor including knowledge of critical care in an extreme medicine setting, aerospace engineering and human integration systems, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and risk models. I also identified numerous transferable skills for this career goal including the basic knowledge of medicine (MD), deployment of the scientific method for critical thought about new scientific questions (PhD), review of published literature, including creating an annotated bibliography (PhD), as well as detailed scientific writing (PhD). The results of my research will likely guide the design of an all-encompassing onboard medical assistant for use during deep space exploration missions of the future. I plan on sharing the outcomes from this experience with my peers at a student seminar in the Fall semester on August 30th. During the seminar, I will detail the project, my experience at NASA and AsMA, as well as offer best practice guidelines for students entertaining similar experiences or careers. In conclusion, I would like to thank the WVU School of Medicine, Research and Graduate Education office, as well as NASA ExMC for the unwavering support of this life-changing experience.

Ryan A. Lacinski↗
NASA NTRS2011

Ares I-X Malfunction Turn Range Safety Analysis

Ares I-X was the designation given to the flight test version of the Ares I rocket which was developed by NASA (also known as the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) component of the Constellation Program). The Ares I-X flight test vehicle achieved a successful flight test on October 28, 2009, from Pad LC-39B at Kennedy Space Center, Florida (KSC). As part of the flight plan approval for the test vehicle, a range safety malfunction turn analysis was performed to support the risk assessment and vehicle destruct criteria development processes. Several vehicle failure scenarios were identified which could have caused the vehicle trajectory to deviate from its normal flight path. The effects of these failures were evaluated with an Ares I-X 6 degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) digital simulation, using the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories Version II (POST2) simulation tool. The Ares I-X simulation analysis provided output files containing vehicle trajectory state information. These were used by other risk assessment and vehicle debris trajectory simulation tools to determine the risk to personnel and facilities in the vicinity of the launch area at KSC, and to develop the vehicle destruct criteria used by the flight test range safety officer in the event of a flight test anomaly of the vehicle. The simulation analysis approach used for this study is described, including descriptions of the failure modes which were considered and the underlying assumptions and ground rules of the study.

Beaty, J. R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Work-Rest Cycles

BHP Program Element Goal: Identify, characterize, and prevent or reduce behavioral health and performance risks associated with space travel, exploration and return to terrestrial life. BHP Requirements: a) Characterize and assess risks (e.g., likelihood and consequences). b) Develop tools and technologies to prevent, monitor, and treat adverse outcomes. c) Inform standards. d) Develop technologies to: 1) reduce risks and human systems resource requirements (e.g., crew time, mass, volume, power) and 2) ensure effective human-system integration across exploration mission.

Leveton, Lauren B.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing and Testing Two Interfaces for Supplemental Data Service Provider (SDSP) Tools to Support UAS Traffic Management (UTM)

Researchers conducted a usability study using two graphical user interfaces (GUIs) to explore how individuals interpret and interact with different preflight information displays, and to inform the development of Uncrewed Aircraft System (UAS) preflight planning predictive support tools to assess and mitigate flight hazards and risks. A series of preflight risk-assessment tasks were developed to evaluate participant performance using the Supplemental Data Service Provider-Consolidated Dashboard (SDSP-CD) and the Human Automation Team Interface System (HATIS) GUIs. Participants were trained to use both interfaces and their performance was evaluated. These evaluations focused on participants’ preflight planning activities. Objective data on performance tasks across different scenarios involving multi-UASs, as well as self-reports of interactions and subjective experiences using the GUIs were collected. Scores on the system usability scale (SUS) and on a simple task set were examined, as well as user feedback on open-ended questions, to inform development and identify potential improvements to the interfaces.

sUAAV interfaces↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing and Testing Two Interfaces for Supplemental Data Service Provider (SDSP) Tools to Support UAS Traffic Management (UTM)

Researchers conducted a usability study using two graphical user interfaces (GUIs) to explore how individuals interpret and interact with different preflight information displays, and to inform the development of Uncrewed Aircraft System (UAS) preflight planning predictive support tools to assess and mitigate flight hazards and risks. A series of preflight risk-assessment tasks were developed to evaluate participant performance using the Supplemental Data Service Provider-Consolidated Dashboard (SDSP-CD) and the Human Automation Team Interface System (HATIS) GUIs. Participants were trained to use both interfaces and their performance was evaluated. These evaluations focused on participants’ preflight planning activities. Objective data on performance tasks across different scenarios involving multi-UASs, as well as self-reports of interactions and subjective experiences using the GUIs were collected. Scores on the system usability scale (SUS) and on a simple task set were examined, as well as user feedback on open-ended questions, to inform development and identify potential improvements to the interfaces.

sUAAV interfaces↗
NASA NTRS2010

Ares Project Technology Assessment: Approach and Tools

Technology assessments provide a status of the development maturity of specific technologies. Along with benefit analysis, the risks the project assumes can be quantified. Normally due to budget constraints, the competing technologies are prioritized and decisions are made which ones to fund. A detailed technology development plan is produced for the selected technologies to provide a roadmap to reach the desired maturity by the project s critical design review. Technology assessments can be conducted for both technology only tasks or for product development programs. This paper is primarily biased toward the product development programs. The paper discusses the Ares Project s approach to technology assessment. System benefit analysis, risk assessment, technology prioritization, and technology readiness assessment are addressed. A description of the technology readiness level tool being used is provided.

Hueter, Uwe↗
NASA NTRS2005

Evaluation of a Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV) for Cargo Transportation

In this new era of space exploration, a host of launch vehicles are being examined for possible use in transporting cargo and crew to low Earth orbit and beyond. Launch vehicles derived from the Space Shuttle Program (SSP), known as Shuttle Derived Vehicles (SDVs), are prime candidates for heavy-lift duty because of their potential to minimize non-recurring costs and because the Shuttle can leverage off proven high-performance flight systems with established ground and flight support. To determine the merits of SDVs, a detailed evaluation was performed. This evaluation included a trade study and risk assessment of options based on performance, safety reliability, cost, operations, and evolution. The purpose of this paper is to explain the approach, processes, and tools used to evaluate launch vehicles for heavy lift cargo transportation. The process included defining the trade space, characterizing the concepts, analyzing the systems, and scoring the options. The process also included a review by subject experts from NASA and industry to compare past and recent study data and assess the risks. A set of technical performance measures (TPMs) was generated based on the study requirements and constraints. Tools such as INTROS and POST were used to calculate performance, FIRST was used for prediction of reliability, and other software packages, both commercial and NASA-owned, were applied to study the trade space. By following a clear process and using the right tools a thorough assessment was performed. An SDV can be classified as either a side-mount vehicle (SMV) or an in-line vehicle OLV). An SMV is a Space Shuttle where the Orbiter is replaced by a cargo carrier. An ILV is comprised of a modified Shuttle External Tank (ET) with engines mounted to the bottom and cargo mounted atop. For both families of vehicles, Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are attached to the ET. The first derivate of Shuttle is defined as the vehicle with minimum changes necessary to transform the Space Shuttle into an SDV. Deltas from the first derivate were also formulated to study more SDV options. Examples of deltas include replacing the SRBs with larger and/or more SRBs, adding an upper stage, increasing the size of the ET, changing the engines, and modifying the elements. Challenges for SDV range from tailoring infrastructure to meeting the exploration schedule. Although SDV is based on the Space Shuttle, it still includes development risk for designing and building a Cargo Carrier. There are also performance challenges in that Shuttle is not optimized for cargo-only missions, but it is a robust system built on reusability. Balancing the strengths and weaknesses of the Shuttle to meet Lunar and Mars mission objectives provides the framework for an informative trade study. SDV was carefully analyzed and the results of the study provide invaluable data for use in the new exploration initiative.

Roman, Jose M.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Developing Coastal Surface Roughness Maps Using ASTER and QuickBird Data Sources

This viewgraph presentation regards one element of a larger project on the integration of NASA science models and data into the Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) Hurricane module for hurricane damage and loss risk assessment. HAZUS-MH is a decision support tool being developed by the National Institute of Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It includes the Hurricane Module, which employs surface roughness maps made from National Land Cover Data (NLCD) maps to estimate coastal hurricane wind damage and loss. NLCD maps are produced and distributed by the U.S. Geological Survey. This presentation discusses an effort to improve upon current HAZUS surface roughness maps by employing ASTER multispectral classifications with QuickBird "ground reference" imagery.

Spruce, Joe↗