Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “risk analysis”

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 199 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

Lunar Exploration Architecture Level Key Drivers and Sensitivities

Strategic level analysis of the integrated behavior of lunar transportation and lunar surface systems architecture options is performed to assess the benefit, viability, affordability, and robustness of system design choices. This analysis employs both deterministic and probabilistic modeling techniques so that the extent of potential future uncertainties associated with each option are properly characterized. The results of these analyses are summarized in a predefined set of high-level Figures of Merit (FOMs) so as to provide senior NASA Constellation Program (CxP) and Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) management with pertinent information to better inform strategic level decision making. The strategic level exploration architecture model is designed to perform analysis at as high a level as possible but still capture those details that have major impacts on system performance. The strategic analysis methodology focuses on integrated performance, affordability, and risk analysis, and captures the linkages and feedbacks between these three areas. Each of these results leads into the determination of the high-level FOMs. This strategic level analysis methodology has been previously applied to Space Shuttle and International Space Station assessments and is now being applied to the development of the Constellation Program point-of-departure lunar architecture. This paper provides an overview of the strategic analysis methodology and the lunar exploration architecture analyses to date. In studying these analysis results, the strategic analysis team has identified and characterized key drivers affecting the integrated architecture behavior. These key drivers include inclusion of a cargo lander, mission rate, mission location, fixed-versus- variable costs/return on investment, and the requirement for probabilistic analysis. Results of sensitivity analysis performed on lunar exploration architecture scenarios are also presented.

Goodliff, Kandyce↗
NASA NTRS2010

Constellation Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA): Design Consideration for the Crew Exploration Vehicle

Managed by NASA's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, a pilot probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) of the NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) was performed in early 2006. The PRA methods used follow the general guidance provided in the NASA PRA Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners'. Phased-mission based event trees and fault trees are used to model a lunar sortie mission of the CEV - involving the following phases: launch of a cargo vessel and a crew vessel; rendezvous of these two vessels in low Earth orbit; transit to th$: moon; lunar surface activities; ascension &om the lunar surface; and return to Earth. The analysis is based upon assumptions, preliminary system diagrams, and failure data that may involve large uncertainties or may lack formal validation. Furthermore, some of the data used were based upon expert judgment or extrapolated from similar components~systemsT. his paper includes a discussion of the system-level models and provides an overview of the analysis results used to identify insights into CEV risk drivers, and trade and sensitivity studies. Lastly, the PRA model was used to determine changes in risk as the system configurations or key parameters are modified.

Prassinos, Peter G.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Risk Management for the International Space Station

The International Space Station (ISS) is an extremely complex system, both technically and programmatically. The Space Station must support a wide range of payloads and missions. It must be launched in numerous launch packages and be safely assembled and operated in the harsh environment of space. It is being designed and manufactured by many organizations, including the prime contractor, Boeing, the NASA institutions, and international partners and their contractors. Finally, the ISS has multiple customers, (e.g., the Administration, Congress, users, public, international partners, etc.) with contrasting needs and constraints. It is the ISS Risk Management Office strategy to proactively and systematically manages risks to help ensure ISS Program success. ISS program follows integrated risk management process (both quantitative and qualitative) and is integrated into ISS project management. The process and tools are simple and seamless and permeate to the lowest levels (at a level where effective management can be realized) and follows the continuous risk management methodology. The risk process assesses continually what could go wrong (risks), determine which risks need to be managed, implement strategies to deal with those risks, and measure effectiveness of the implemented strategies. The process integrates all facets of risk including cost, schedule and technical aspects. Support analysis risk tools like PRA are used to support programatic decisions and assist in analyzing risks.

Sebastian, J.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Securing Digital Energy Infrastructure: Procurement, Contracting, and Supply Chain Risk Management Guidance

Recognizing the scale of this industry challenge, the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Grid Deployment Office (GDO) and Cybersecurity Energy Security & Emergency Response office have launched a multi-year BESS supply chain security initiative to identify consequence-driven approaches to addressing BESS supply chain security and provide resources to support prioritization of supply chain security efforts associated with the procurement of BESS equipment and services. This guide is one element of the supporting resources to be provided and sets forth a framework and guidance for procurement bidding, selection, risk analysis, and agreements stakeholders can implement to mitigate cybersecurity risks across the entirety of battery system component ecosystem, including the interconnected software and hardware required for control and monitoring BESSs.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
NASA NTRS2010

NASA Tech Briefs, May 2010

Topics covered include: Instrument for Analysis of Greenland's Glacier Mills Cryogenic Moisture Apparatus; A Transportable Gravity Gradiometer Based on Atom Interferometry; Three Methods of Detection of Hydrazines; Crossed, Small-Deflection Energy Analyzer for Wind/Temperature Spectrometer; Wavefront Correction for Large, Flexible Antenna Reflector; Novel Micro Strip-to-Waveguide Feed Employing a Double-Y Junction; Thin-Film Ferro Electric-Coupled Microstripline Phase Shifters With Reduced Device Hysteresis; Two-Stage, 90-GHz, Low-Noise Amplifier; A 311-GHz Fundamental Oscillator Using InP HBT Technology; FPGA Coprocessor Design for an Onboard Multi-Angle Spectro-Polarimetric Imager; Serrating Nozzle Surfaces for Complete Transfer of Droplets; Turbomolecular Pumps for Holding Gases in Open Containers; Triaxial Swirl Injector Element for Liquid-Fueled Engines; Integrated Budget Office Toolbox; PLOT3D Export Tool for Tecplot; Math Description Engine Software Development Kit; Astronaut Office Scheduling System Software; ISS Solar Array Management; Probabilistic Structural Analysis Program; SPOT Program; Integrated Hybrid System Architecture for Risk Analysis; System for Packaging Planetary Samples for Return to Earth; Offset Compound Gear Drive; Low-Dead-Volume Inlet for Vacuum Chamber; Simple Check Valves for Microfluidic Devices; A Capillary-Based Static Phase Separator for Highly Variable Wetting Conditions; Gimballing Spacecraft Thruster; Finned Carbon-Carbon Heat Pipe with Potassium Working Fluid; Lightweight Heat Pipes Made from Magnesium; Ceramic Rail-Race Ball Bearings; Improved OTEC System for a Submarine Robot; Reflector Surface Error Compensation in Dual-Reflector Antennas; Enriched Storable Oxidizers for Rocket Engines; Planar Submillimeter-Wave Mixer Technology with Integrated Antenna; Widely Tunable Mode-Hop-Free External-Cavity Quantum Cascade Laser; Non-Geiger-Mode Single-Photon Avalanche Detector with Low Excess Noise; Using Whispering-Gallery-Mode Resonators for Refractometry; RF Device for Acquiring Images of the Human Body; Reactive Collision Avoidance Algorithm; Fast Solution in Sparse LDA for Binary Classification; Modeling Common-Sense Decisions in Artificial Intelligence; Graph-Based Path-Planning for Titan Balloons; Nanolaminate Membranes as Cylindrical Telescope Reflectors; Air-Sea Spray Airborne Radar Profiler Characterizes Energy Fluxes in Hurricanes; Large Telescope Segmented Primary Mirror Alignment; and Simplified Night Sky Display System.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2010

Assessing the Fire Risk for a Historic Hangar

NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) is evaluating options of reuse of its historic Hangar 1. As a part of this evaluation, a qualitative fire risk assessment study was performed to evaluate the potential threat of combustion of the historic hangar. The study focused on the fire risk trade-off of either installing or not installing a Special Hazard Fire Suppression System in the Hangar 1 deck areas. The assessment methodology was useful in discussing the important issues among various groups within the Center. Once the methodology was deemed acceptable, the results were assessed. The results showed that the risk remained in the same risk category, whether Hangar 1 does or does not have a Special Hazard Fire Suppression System. Note that the methodology assessed the risk to Hangar 1 and not the risk to an aircraft in the hangar. If one had a high value aircraft, the aircraft risk analysis could potentially show a different result. The assessed risk results were then communicated to management and other stakeholders.

Datta, Koushik↗
NASA NTRS2016

Covariance Manipulation for Conjunction Assessment

The manipulation of space object covariances to try to provide additional or improved information to conjunction risk assessment is not an uncommon practice. Types of manipulation include fabricating a covariance when it is missing or unreliable to force the probability of collision (Pc) to a maximum value ('PcMax'), scaling a covariance to try to improve its realism or see the effect of covariance volatility on the calculated Pc, and constructing the equivalent of an epoch covariance at a convenient future point in the event ('covariance forecasting'). In bringing these methods to bear for Conjunction Assessment (CA) operations, however, some do not remain fully consistent with best practices for conducting risk management, some seem to be of relatively low utility, and some require additional information before they can contribute fully to risk analysis. This study describes some basic principles of modern risk management (following the Kaplan construct) and then examines the PcMax and covariance forecasting paradigms for alignment with these principles; it then further examines the expected utility of these methods in the modern CA framework. Both paradigms are found to be not without utility, but only in situations that are somewhat carefully circumscribed.

Conjunction↗
NASA NTRS2013

TPSAS-NF1676L-17243-DND

This presentation captures ERA Project's effort in using integrated cost-schedule-risk analysis tool, identifying and capturing explicit relationships between program funds, schedule, and discrete risks. The project team merged a myriad of cost and schedule data for timely, objective, uncertainty analysis of the ITD's budget and schedule. The project team conducted detailed schedule uncertainty analysis showing schedule activities and how their interrelationships were impacted, representing an impressive advance beyond routine Gantt charts. Furthermore, the ERA Project collected discrete risk events including their impacts to costs and/or schedule and interwove these risks into cost and schedule logic networks, providing the foundation to conduct cost and schedule analyses. The team integrated this data into the analysis model, providing probabilistic results that were then used by the ERA Project's senior management for decision-making purposes. The ERA Project management team, through technical and pathfinder expertise in integrating cost, schedule, risk, and technical content, consistently provided risk-informed recommendations to Implementing Centers and ISRP senior management which ultimately ensured the successful ARMD Key Decision Point (KDP) review of the ERA Phase 2 ITD Portfolio and increased the likelihood of achieving technical objectives within cost and schedule constraints.

Gaudy M Bezos-O'Connor↗
NASA NTRS1995

Probabilistic risk assessment of the Space Shuttle. Phase 3: A study of the potential of losing the vehicle during nominal operation. Volume 5: Auxiliary shuttle risk analyses

Volume 5 is Appendix C, Auxiliary Shuttle Risk Analyses, and contains the following reports: Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Space Shuttle Phase 1 - Space Shuttle Catastrophic Failure Frequency Final Report; Risk Analysis Applied to the Space Shuttle Main Engine - Demonstration Project for the Main Combustion Chamber Risk Assessment; An Investigation of the Risk Implications of Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Chamber Pressure Excursions; Safety of the Thermal Protection System of the Space Shuttle Orbiter - Quantitative Analysis and Organizational Factors; Space Shuttle Main Propulsion Pressurization System Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Final Report; and Space Shuttle Probabilistic Risk Assessment Proof-of-Concept Study - Auxiliary Power Unit and Hydraulic Power Unit Analysis Report.

Fragola, Joseph R.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Implementation of ALARA radiation protection on the ISS through polyethylene shielding augmentation of the Service Module Crew Quarters

With 5-7 month long duration missions at 51.6 degrees inclination in Low Earth Orbit, the ionizing radiation levels to which International Space Station (ISS) crewmembers are exposed will be the highest planned occupational exposures in the world. Even with the expectation that regulatory dose limits will not be exceeded during a single tour of duty aboard the ISS, the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) precept requires that radiological risks be minimized when possible through a dose optimization process. Judicious placement of efficient shielding materials in locations where crewmembers sleep, rest, or work is an important means for implementing ALARA for spaceflight. Polyethylene (CnHn) is a relatively inexpensive, stable, and, with a low atomic number, an effective shielding material that has been certified for use aboard the ISS. Several designs for placement of slabs or walls of polyethylene have been evaluated for radiation exposure reduction in the Crew Quarters (CQ) of the Zvezda (Star) Service Module. Optimization of shield designs relies on accurate characterization of the expected primary and secondary particle environment and modeling of the predicted radiobiological responses of critical organs and tissues. Results of the studies shown herein indicate that 20% or more reduction in equivalent dose to the CQ occupant is achievable. These results suggest that shielding design and risk analysis are necessary measures for reducing long-term radiological risks to ISS inhabitants and for meeting legal ALARA requirements. Verification of shield concepts requires results from specific designs to be compared with onboard dosimetry. c2004 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

NASA Center JSC↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Analysis Process for Mars Sample Return Earth Entry System

Introduction: Micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) risk analyses for the Mars Sample Return (MSR) Earth Entry System (EES) have been significantly more rigorous than previously flown missions because of its categorization as a Class V restricted return mission. This means the returned samples present significant concern for biogenic contamination. These analyses seek to determine if a micrometeoroid or orbital debris strike would result in loss of containment assurance and are summarized in the flowchart in Fig. 1. Methodology: The mission is considered in two MMOD phases: a pre-release phase where the EES is protected by a Micrometeoroid Protection System (MMPS) and a post-release phase called “free-flight” where the EES is exposed directly to the MMOD environment. These phases correspond to interplanetary cruise and imminent re-entry, respectively. To inform the MMPS design, a 30-shot high velocity impact testing (HVIT) series on candidate configurations at NASA White Sands Test Facility was completed in the summer of 2022. Sample post-shot images are shown in Fig 2 [1]. These data are used to baseline the MMPS design and to tune the hydrocode simulations. ALE3D, CTH, and SPHC are the hydrocodes that simulate physics of high-speed impacts [2]. Results generated with these populate a penetration depth versus energy space beyond the testable velocity regime of HVIT (~7 km/s). The penetration depth versus energy space data are used to define a critical projectile diameter function called a Ballistic Limit Equation (BLE), where the projectile “criticality” is determined by zone dependent failure criteria defined a-priori [3]. For example, the nose of the heatshield has a failure criterion of 50% TPS penetration, assigned because the landing loads are concentrated on that region and no substructure damage is permitted. The BLEs for each vehicle material zone are input into the BUMPER 3 code, along with the vehicle surface mesh and the corresponding space environment model, to calculate a probability of penetration or number of penetrations. The environment models, MEM3 for MM and ORDEM 3.2 for OD, simulate the meteoroid environment from 0.2 to 2 au based on the Grün flux equation, and the debris environment up to 40,000 km altitude from Earth surface, respectively [4,5]. Presentation Focus: The presentation or poster will present the results to-date focusing on the full risk analysis process flow seen in Fig. 1. Details on the derivation of the failure criteria will be discussed, along with HVIT results and how these influenced the MMPS configuration baseline decision. Further, results of hydrocode simulations will be presented and the tuning to HVIT outputs will be described. Finally, the strategies that direct the BLE formulation will be reviewed, specifically, for the EES elements that are most exposed to the MMOD environment.

mmod↗
NASA NTRS2010

Assessment, Planning, and Execution Considerations for Conjunction Risk Assessment and Mitigation Operations

An operational Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) concept is the real-time process of assessing risk posed by close approaches and reacting to those risks if necessary. The most effective way to completely mitigate conjunction risk is to perform an avoidance maneuver. The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center has implemented a routine CARA process since 2005. Over this period, considerable experience has been gained and many lessons have been learned. This paper identifies and presents these experiences as general concepts in the description of the Conjunction Assessment, Flight Dynamics, and Flight Operations methodologies and processes. These general concepts will be tied together and will be exemplified through a case study of an actual high risk conjunction event for the Aura mission.

Frigm, Ryan C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Decision Aid for Conjunction Risk Mitigation by Differential Drag

The NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) team has conducted are view of the historical record of high-risk conjunctions involving CARA-protected missions and evaluated whether (and how much) differential drag can provide effective mitigation. From this analysis, CARA has identified a rule of thumb: missions with perigees below 560 km capable of tripling their drag area for 72 hours(or a larger scale factor for a lesser amount of time) can reliably use differential drag to remediate high-risk events.

mission design↗
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 NTRS2008

Uncertainty Analysis of Air Radiation for Lunar Return Shock Layers

By leveraging a new uncertainty markup technique, two risk analysis methods are used to compute the uncertainty of lunar-return shock layer radiation predicted by the High temperature Aerothermodynamic Radiation Algorithm (HARA). The effects of epistemic uncertainty, or uncertainty due to a lack of knowledge, is considered for the following modeling parameters: atomic line oscillator strengths, atomic line Stark broadening widths, atomic photoionization cross sections, negative ion photodetachment cross sections, molecular bands oscillator strengths, and electron impact excitation rates. First, a simplified shock layer problem consisting of two constant-property equilibrium layers is considered. The results of this simplified problem show that the atomic nitrogen oscillator strengths and Stark broadening widths in both the vacuum ultraviolet and infrared spectral regions, along with the negative ion continuum, are the dominant uncertainty contributors. Next, three variable property stagnation-line shock layer cases are analyzed: a typical lunar return case and two Fire II cases. For the near-equilibrium lunar return and Fire 1643-second cases, the resulting uncertainties are very similar to the simplified case. Conversely, the relatively nonequilibrium 1636-second case shows significantly larger influence from electron impact excitation rates of both atoms and molecules. For all cases, the total uncertainty in radiative heat flux to the wall due to epistemic uncertainty in modeling parameters is 30% as opposed to the erroneously-small uncertainty levels (plus or minus 6%) found when treating model parameter uncertainties as aleatory (due to chance) instead of epistemic (due to lack of knowledge).

Kleb, Bil↗
NASA NTRS2005

Risk Management for Human Support Technology Development

NASA requires continuous risk management for all programs and projects. The risk management process identifies risks, analyzes their impact, prioritizes them, develops and carries out plans to mitigate or accept them, tracks risks and mitigation plans, and communicates and documents risk information. Project risk management is driven by the project goal and is performed by the entire team. Risk management begins early in the formulation phase with initial risk identification and development of a risk management plan and continues throughout the project life cycle. This paper describes the risk management approach that is suggested for use in NASA's Human Support Technology Development. The first step in risk management is to identify the detailed technical and programmatic risks specific to a project. Each individual risk should be described in detail. The identified risks are summarized in a complete risk list. Risk analysis provides estimates of the likelihood and the qualitative impact of a risk. The likelihood and impact of the risk are used to define its priority location in the risk matrix. The approaches for responding to risk are either to mitigate it by eliminating or reducing the effect or likelihood of a risk, to accept it with a documented rationale and contingency plan, or to research or monitor the risk, The Human Support Technology Development program includes many projects with independently achievable goals. Each project must do independent risk management, considering all its risks together and trading them against performance, budget, and schedule. Since the program can succeed even if some projects fail, the program risk has a complex dependence on the individual project risks.

jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2013

Near-Earth Phase Risk Comparison of Human Mars Campaign Architectures

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

Manning, Ted A.↗
NASA NTRS1980

Cost/benefit analysis of advanced materials technology candidates for the 1980's, part 2

Cost/benefit analyses to evaluate advanced material technologies projects considered for general aviation and turboprop commuter aircraft through estimated life-cycle costs, direct operating costs, and development costs are discussed. Specifically addressed is the selection of technologies to be evaluated; development of property goals; assessment of candidate technologies on typical engines and aircraft; sensitivity analysis of the changes in property goals on performance and economics, cost, and risk analysis for each technology; and ranking of each technology by relative value. The cost/benefit analysis was applied to a domestic, nonrevenue producing, business-type jet aircraft configured with two TFE731-3 turbofan engines, and to a domestic, nonrevenue producing, business type turboprop aircraft configured with two TPE331-10 turboprop engines. In addition, a cost/benefit analysis was applied to a commercial turboprop aircraft configured with a growth version of the TPE331-10.

Dennis, R. E.↗